Bellarmino, On the Purgatory

CHAPTER I: On the word “Purgatory” 

CHAPTER II: On the Errors Concerning Purgatory 

CHAPTER III: Purgatory is Proven from the Scriptures of the Old Testament 

CHAPTER IV: Purgatory is Proven from the New Testament 

CHAPTER V: 1 Corinthians 3:15 

CHAPTER VI: 1 Corinthians 15:29 

CHAPTER VII: Matthew 5:25 and Luke 12:58 

CHAPTER VIII: Matthew 5:22, Luke 16:9, Luke 23:42, Acts 2:24 and Philippians 2:10. 

CHAPTER IX: Purgatory is Asserted in the Testimonies of Councils 

CHAPTER X: Purgatory is Asserted in the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers 

CHAPTER XI: The Same is Asserted from Reason 

CHAPTER XII: Arguments from the Scriptures are Answered 

CHAPTER XIII: Objections from the Fathers are Answered 

CHAPTER XIV: Answer to Objections Raised from Reason 

CHAPTER XV: The Confession of Purgatory Pertains to the Catholic Faith 

BOOK II:  

CHAPTER I: On the Persons for whom Purgatory is Suited 

CHAPTER II: In Purgatory, Souls can Neither Gain Merit nor Sin 

CHAPTER III: Objections are Answered 

CHAPTER IV: The souls in Purgatory are Certain about their Eternal Salvation 

CHAPTER V: Objections Made from the Prayers of the Church are Answered 

CHAPTER VI: On the Location of Purgatory 

CHAPTER VII: Whether after this Life, There is Some Place for Just Souls apart from Heaven and Purgatory 

CHAPTER VIII: Whether Souls of the Dead might Avail to Leave their Receptacles 

CHAPTER IX: On the Time in which Purgatory Endures 

CHAPTER X: What Kind of Punishment is in Purgatory? 

CHAPTER XI: The Fire of Purgatory is Corporeal 

CHAPTER XII: It Cannot be Known how Corporeal Fire Burns Souls 

CHAPTER XIII: Whether Souls in Purgatory are Tortured by Demons 

CHAPTER XIV: On the Gravity of Punishments 

CHAPTER XV: The Suffrage of the Church Benefits the Dead 

CHAPTER XVI: How many Kinds of Suffrage are there? 

CHAPTER XVII: Who can Assist Souls 

CHAPTER XVIII: Who Benefits from Suffrage? 

CHAPTER XIX: On Funerals

BOOK I

CHAPTER V: 1 Corinthians 3:15 

THE second passage is 1 Corinthians 3:15, where the Apostle says, “He himself will be saved, yet so as by fire.” In the first place, note that the passage of the Apostle is one of the most difficult and useful of the whole Scripture, for Catholics establish two ecclesiastical dogmas from it: purgatory and venial sins, against the heretics and the supporters of heretics, such as Erasmus was at first, who in his annotation on this passage tried to show that neither purgatory nor venial sins could be established from it. 

Augustine attests to the fact that it is a very difficult passage in his book on Faith and Works (c. 15) where he says: “We must attend diligently, how that teaching of the Apostle Paul must be received which is clearly difficult to understand, where he says: “If anyone builds upon this foundation, gold, silver, etc. ... In these places we must pay heed to what Peter says, that certain things in the Scriptures are very difficult, and men ought not pervert them to their own destruction. ... I affirm, that I prefer to listen to those who are more intelligent and more learned.” He repeats the same thing in q. 1 ad Dulcitium. 

Therefore, that we might diligently explain this passage, we will first explain the metaphor which the Apostle used; then we will propose and answer difficulties which occur in regard to this passage. As to the first, then, these are the words of the Apostle: “According to the grace of God, which was given to me, as a wise architect I placed a foundation, and another builds upon it, but let every man look to how he builds upon it; for no man can place another foundation apart from that which had been laid, which is Christ Jesus. So, if anyone builds upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, the work of every man will be made manifest. For the day of the Lord will declare it, because it will be revealed in fire, and fire will prove every man’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work will remain, which had been built upon it, he will receive his reward; if anyone’s work will burn, he will suffer detriment, but he himself will be saved, yet so as by fire.” 

The Apostle uses in this teaching a similitude of two architects, one of whom, upon a solid stone foundation, built a house out of precious materials which do not fear fire, such as are gold, and silver, and precious stones such as Jasper, Porphyry, Parian marble. For from gold and silver plates and pillars are made, as we read about the temple of Solomon. From Parian marble and porphyry even whole walls can be erected. Another architect, upon a similar foundation, namely a solid stone one, erected a house in the manner of poor country-folk out of stakes and boards, and covered it with grass and straw. 

Now that we have posited this similitude, let us imagine that fire is applied to each house, and we will see that the first one is completely unharmed, and if the architect is by chance inside, he similarly will suffer nothing. But we will see the second house will immediately catch fire and the whole shall be burnt up in a short time, and if the Architect is inside and wishes to get out safe, we will see that he cannot go out, except through the fire. In such a passage he indeed will not die, but still his beard and hair will not escape unharmed, unless perhaps the miracle of the three children, who were not burned in the furnace in Babylon, is repeated. This is the similitude which St. Paul uses when he says, “He himself will be saved, yet so as by fire.” 

In regard to the second, there are five difficulties. First, who is meant by the builders; second, what is meant by gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass and straw; third, what is meant by the day of the Lord; fourth, what is meant by the fire, which on the day of the Lord will prove every man’s work; fifth, what is meant by the fire, about which it is said: “he himself will be saved, yet so as by fire.” After we have explained these, the teaching will be clear. 

The first difficulty is, who are the architects that build? St. Augustine, in his book on Faith and Works, ch. 16, as well as in Enchririd., cap. 68, and elsewhere, thinks that all Christians are called architects by the Apostle, and all build upon the foundation of faith either good works or bad works. It seems to me that Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus, and Oecumenius teach the same thing on this passage. 

Many others teach that here the Apostle only calls doctors and preachers of the Gospel architects. So think Ambrose, and Sedulius on this passage. Jerome insinuates the same thing in Iovinianum, lib. 2. St. Anselm and St. Thomas receive the same thing on this passage, even though they do not reject the prior opinion. Many more recent authors teach the same thing on this passage, such as Dennis the Carthusian, Lyranus and Cajetan. 

Each exposition is good and from each exposition the assertion of purgatory and venial sins can be deduced, nevertheless the second is more literal, which is manifestly clear from the preceding and following words of the chapter. For he had said earlier: “I planted, Apollo watered.” Then, in the same sense he immediately added: “I as a wise architect placed a foundation, but another builds upon it.” And likewise: “He who plants and he who waters are equal; each shall receive his own reward according to his labor, for we are helpers of God, you are the field of God, you are the building of God.” There he very clearly compares himself and other preachers of the Gospel to farmers and architects, but the people who are taught he compares to fields and buildings. Likewise, in the following words he again speaks about teachers when he says: “If anyone seems wise among you, let him be a fool so that he might become wise.” And again, “Let no man boast of men, for all are yours, whether Paul, or Apollo or Cephas”, i.e. do not boast in your teachers and preachers, and say: “I am of Paul, but I of Apollo.” For all are one and they all labor for you. Therefore, just as he had said that he planted and Apollo watered, so now he says, I placed the foundation by preaching the faith of Christ, but others build upon it by teaching those things which pertain to life and morals, and even explaining more fully the mysteries of faith. And in this first question Calvin, Peter Martyr, and Ochinus agree with us. 

The second difficulty is a little more serious, and there are six opinions. Certain men understand by the term “foundation” the true faith, but unformed. By the terms gold, silver, and precious stones, good works. By wood, grass, and straw, mortal sins; Chrysostom so thinks on this passage, whom Theophylactus follows. 

But this cannot be defended. 1) Because, as St. Gregory says (lib. 4 Dialog. c. 39), mortal sins are better compared with iron and lead. 2) Because it would follow that the heresy of Origen is true that all men are saved, since the Apostle says, “He will be saved as if by fire.” 

The Greeks respond that he will be saved, i.e., never be altogether consumed, yet so as by fire, since he will burn forever. This answer is especially hard and forced; then also it is against every manner of speaking in the Scriptures. For in Scripture, the word salvation is never received in a bad sense, but always in a good, as the Latin theologians showed at the Council of Florence before the first session. Besides, the word “by” (per) means the passage, not the lodging. The Apostle does not say he will be saved, yet as if in the fire, but “he will be saved, yet as if by fire,” i.e., according to the similitude, he evades death by passing through fire. Finally, from the common consent of the Doctors. For all others in the greatest consensus, both Greeks and Latins, would have it that this passage be understood of venial sins, whose opinions we will present in the fifth difficulty. Furthermore, let no one think from this discussion that Chrysostom denied purgatory or venial sins. For he frequently teaches purgatory, and especially in homil. 3, on epist. to Philipp., and hom. 69 to the people of Antioch. Likewise, he concedes venial sins (hom. 24 in Matth.), but on this passage he explained it otherwise to refute the heresy of Origen, which taught that the penalties of hell are not eternal, as is clear in the homily. 

The second opinion is that by the term foundation Christ is to be understood, or the preaching of the faith, while “silver, gold and precious stones” refer to Catholic expositions; “wood, grass, and straw” are understood to be heretical doctrines, as the commentary of Ambrose seems to teach, and also Jerome explaining Isaiah 5:8, “Woe unto you that join house to house.” Also inclining to this opinion are Calvin, Peter Martyr and Ochinus, who teach that by wood, grass, and straw we should understand human traditions and inventions opposed to the word of God. 

This opinion is even less defensible than the previous one. Firstly, because heretics are not saved by the fire of purgatory, but are condemned to eternal fire. Secondly, because heretics do not build upon the foundation, which is Christ, except in name only. For every heresy speaks wonderfully about Christ, yet does not preach the true Christ, but another which it invents for itself. Nor are these opinions that we refute those of Ambrose and Jerome, since the commentary of Ambrose understands by “wood, grass, and straw” heresies and false doctrines advanced out of imprudence and without pertinacity, for he says teachers of this kind will be saved by the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, Jerome clearly speaks about heretics, but according to the mind of others, not his own, since when he posits his own exposition, he adds: “But certain others understand this to be about heretics, etc.” 

The third opinion understands living faith for the word “foundation”. For gold, silver and precious stones it understands works of supererogation; by wood, grass, and straw it understands the omission of counsel and a certain carnal attachment to the goods of this world which are indeed licit, but which bring sorrow when they are lost. So Augustine thinks in his book on Faith and Works, c. 16. Such an opinion is true, but it does not fit this passage, unless we are to understand by that carnal attachment at least venial sins, for neutral works are not spoken of in particular. Therefore, that carnal love is either good or bad: if good, why will it burn after the fashion of straw? If bad, then at least it has been mixed with venial sin. 

The fourth opinion is that of those who explain by gold, silver, etc. to be good works, but by straw, grass, etc., venial sins. This is what St. Gregory thinks (Dialogue, book 4, c. 39) and others, which is good, but another opinion is better. 

The fifth opinion is that of those who understand gold, silver, etc. to be good students of the word, but straw, bad students. The students are the workmanship of the teacher, and indeed the teacher will be saved; but some of the students will, and some will not. So think Theodoret and Oecumenius, but Chrysostom rightly refutes this; for “loss” is attributed to the architect, and he himself is said to have built with straw, therefore the guilt and punishment is not that of the hearers alone. 

The sixth opinion, which we put ahead of all the rest, understands Christ by the foundation, announced by the first preachers, such as were the Apostles, who conveyed the faith and Gospel of Christ to those peoples who had never heard of Christ. Hence, St. Paul says: “I planted” and “I, as a wise architect, placed the foundation.” Hence, those also who first preached the faith in some region are said to be the apostles of that region. Then, by gold, silver, and precious stones, is meant the useful and salutary doctrine of other preachers, who teach those who have already received the faith, and who teach not only by word, but also by example, so that they truly build up their students and further them in religion and piety. But by wood, grass and straw, is understood the teaching, not heretical or bad, yet curious, useless, and vain, of those preachers who preach to the Catholic people in a Catholic manner, but without that fruit and usefulness which God requires. As a result, the former preach with great merit, but these preach not only without great merit, but even not without venial sins. 

Three things most especially prove this exposition. 1) Because, as we will show, by the term “builders”, only teachers are understood, therefore by the term “their work”, their doctrine ought to be understood. 

2) This similitude thus explained is very appropriate for the doctors of Corinth. For they were more favorably given to eloquence and philosophy which, although it is permitted to make use of them, nevertheless sometimes impede the fruit of preaching, and St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians because of both things in this epistle. 

3) Because this whole chapter is best explained if St. Paul posits three similitudes: a) of farmers planting and watering, which only embraces good teachers; b) on builders building upon a good foundation, which embraces both good and bad teachers; c) on the corruptors of the temple, in which he meant only the bad to be included, and not bad by a certain measure, but completely bad, such as heretics teaching error for truth and vices for virtues, about whom he does not say they shall be saved, as if by fire, but that God will destroy them. 

The third difficulty is in regard to the “day of the Lord”. Some understand by the word “day” the present life, or the time of tribulation in which the good are often picked out from the bad, such as St. Augustine (de fide et operibus, cap. 16), and St. Gregory (Dialogue lib. 4, ch. 39). 

This opinion does not seem to be according to the mind of St. Paul. 1) In Greek “day” is with the article, ἡ γαρ ἡμέρα, from which it appears that a certain and defined day is meant, just as in 2 Tim. 4:8, “Which the Lord will render to me on that day,” and in 2 Tim. 1:12 “I am certain that he is able to keep what has been entrusted to me until that day.” And below, “May the Lord grant that he may find mercy on that day.” 

2) The present time is not called the day of the Lord in the Scriptures, but rather our day, just as, on the other hand, the time of the next life is called the day of the Lord, not ours, such as in Luke 19:42, “And indeed on this your day, the things which are to your peace;” Luke 22:53, “This is your hour;” Galatians 6:10, “While we have time, let us do good;” Psalm 74 (75):2, “When I appoint a time, then I will judge with justice;” Zephaniah 1:14, “The great day of the Lord is near;” and Joel 2:1, “The day of the Lord will come, the day of darkness and gloom.” 

3) The quality of everyone’s work shall not be declared in the time of the present life. For tribulations are common to good and evil, just and unjust. 

4) All doctors understand this day to be the day of judgment; for although Augustine and Gregory taught that the day could be referred to this life, nevertheless, they teach in the same places that it can also be understood of the time to come after this life. In fact, since the day of judgment is two-fold, one day of the particular judgment and another day of the universal judgment, then, as Cajetan and others say, the Apostle speaks of the day of the particular judgment. a) Because after this day of which the Apostle speaks, some are going to be purged by fire; but that cannot be after the day of the last judgment. b) Because if this day, which the Apostle speaks about, were the day of the final judgment, it would follow that none of the saints could enter into heaven before the day of judgment, which is an error condemned at the Council of Florence, in the last session. The consequent is proved; for on this day all buildings are to be examined, and after the examination some are going to be immediately crowned while others are punished; besides, since nothing polluted shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, if a purgation of venial sins does not take place except on the day of the last judgment, all who leave this life with venial sins should await that day before they can enter into heaven. 

c) Because the Greek text does not have “it will be revealed,” but it is revealed: “ὃτι ἓν περὶ ἂποκαλύπτετai,” because it is revealed in the fire. But the day of the last judgment is not revealed, thus, he speaks of the day of the particular judgment, which is revealed every day, now to one, now to another. Nevertheless, all the older authors seem to understand by that day the day of the last judgment, such as Theodoret, Theophylactus, Anselm and others, whose opinion seems quite true to me, although neither opinion opposes purgatory. 

Firstly, because everywhere in the Scriptures, the day of the Lord means the day of the last judgment. 

Secondly, because it is said “on that day,” by which one certain day is designated, on which the works of all men shall be proved at once; but the day of the particular judgment is not one, but manifold, nor are the works of all men proved on it. 

Thirdly, because the Apostle says: “The day of the Lord will declare,” in other words, then all things will be manifested to everyone, as he says in the following chapter: “Until the Lord shall come, who will bring to light what is hidden in darkness, and manifest the counsels of hearts,” but that will not take place except in the last judgment. 

Fourthly, because it follows in verse 13: “Because it will be revealed in fire.” For the day of judgment is said to be revealed in fire, since the conflagration of the whole world will be the last sign and it will be made known to all, which is why the day of judgment is almost always described by fire, such as in Psalm 96 (97):3, “Fire will precede him;” Joel 2:3, “The consuming fire before his face;” 2 Thessalonians 1:7, “In the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with his powerful angels in the flame of fire;” 2 Peter 3:12, “The elements will melt in the flame of fire.” And if it does not please one to accept here a material flame for the fire, but rather the judgment of God itself, as others explain, still only the last judgment can be understood by “this day”. For then, the sense is that it is revealed in fire, i.e. because that day will be notorious on account of the great and bitter judgment which will be exercised on it; but the day of the particular judgment is not notorious on account of judgment, but rather on account of death, since the particular judgment is known to few. The arguments to the contrary do not move me. 

To the first, I say, after the last judgment there will be no purgatory, and therefore those words: “He will be saved, yet as if by fire,” do not mean he will be saved provided he first passes through fire, but he will be saved provided earlier he passed through fire; or, he will be saved, just as those who pass through fire. 

To the second, I say if one were to concluded this, it would follow that even if there were no purgatory, no one is beatified or condemned before the day of judgment; for Scripture everywhere attributes the distribution of rewards and punishments to the last judgment; nay more, even an examination of the works, and the sentence of the judge, as is clear from Matthew 25:41 and elsewhere. Therefore, just as sentence is pronounced upon the death of anyone, and then some men begin to be punished, and some rewarded, and nevertheless these same things are said to happen in the last judgment because then they will occur in the presence of the whole world, and with the greatest honor for the just but the greatest ignominy for the impious, so also the examination can take place at the death of everyone privately, and later again publicly in the final judgment. 

To the third I say, for the one word which we have in the present tense in Greek we have three in the future, namely: φανερὸν γερἡσεται, ἡμὲρα δηλσει. ... πρ δοκιμάσει; and it is also very believable that this one word ὰποκαλύπτεται in the more correct texts was in the future tense, ἀποκαλύψεται, seeing that our translator rendered it “it will be revealed” (revelabitur). Add, that frequently the present tense is not used to mean an action of a certain time, but a custom, opinion, profession, or something similar, e.g. “I do not know man,” as the Blessed Virgin says (Luke 1), and what the Sadducees said: “The dead do not rise,” or, what the Carthusians say: “We do not eat meat.” In this difficulty we dissent from Calvin a Peter Martyr, since they understand Paul to be speaking of the particular judgment, but this does nothing for the question on purgatory. 

The fourth difficulty is what is the fire, which will prove every man’s work on the day of the Lord? Some understand the tribulations of this life, such as St. Augustine and St. Gregory (ll. cc.), but we already rejected this. Others understand eternal fire, but that cannot be since that fire will not examine the building made of gold and silver, nor even the building made of wood and grass, as is clear. Others seem to understand the fire as the conflagration of the world, which precedes the general judgment. That also cannot be, because that fire does not burn anyone except the enemies of God, as we read in Psalm 96 (97):3, “The fire precedes him, and will burn his enemies all around.” But this fire, of which the Apostle speaks, touches everyone, even those who built upon the foundation with gold and silver. Besides, that fire cannot prove works, since it is a material fire and works will not exist anywhere but the mind, because they have passed away. 

Others understand it as referring to the punishments of purgatory, but neither can this rightly be said. a) Because the fire of purgatory does not prove the works of those who build with gold and silver, whereas the fire which we are talking about, “will prove the quality of every man’s work.” b) The Apostle clearly distinguishes between works and workers, and he says about that fire that it burns works, not workers, for he says: “If anyone’s work remains,” and “if anyone’s work burns.” But the fire of purgatory, which is a true and real fire, cannot burn works because they are transitory actions and they have already passed. 

Next, it would follow that all men, even the holiest, pass through the fire of purgatory and are saved through the fire, for all pass through this fire of which we speak. Yet that all pass through the fire of purgatory and are saved by the fire is clearly false, since in this passage the Apostle clearly says only those who built with wood and grass are going to be saved as if by fire. Moreover, the Church has always understood that the holy martyrs as well as infants dying after baptism are immediately received into heaven without any passage through fire, as the Council of Florence teaches (final session). The Holy Fathers, St. Jerome (in Jovin. lib. 2) and St. Augustine (in Psalm 37/38) also teach this. St. Augustine says: “If they built with gold, silver, or precious stones, they will be safe from both fires, not only from the eternal one, which is going to torture the impious forever, but also from that which will correct those who are saved by fire.” 

Consequently, it remains for us to say that here the Apostle speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God, which is not a cleansing or afflicting fire, but an examining and proving one. St. Ambrose explains it this way in Sermon 20 on Psalm 118 (119), on the verse Vide humilitatem meam, “The furnace will prove all of us, therefore, because we are going to be examined, so let us act that we may be worthy to be proved by the divine judgment; let us possess the humility here depicted, so that when each and every one of us shall come to the judgment of God, to those fires that we are going to pass through, he may say, ‘see my humility,’ etc.” Sedulius speaks likewise on this verse: “He wished to compare the examination of judgment to a fire, according to the custom of the Scriptures.” Dennis the Carthusian, Lyranus, Cajetan and others give the same exposition on this passage. 

That this position is the truest is proven by the following: 

a) Because it cannot be understood otherwise how the fire proves those that built with gold and silver. 

b) Because this exposition best fits the words of the Apostle, when he says: “Fire will prove the quality of every man’s work. If anyone’s work will remain, he will receive his reward; if anyone’s work will burn, he will suffer detriment.” For, although their works have passed before the eyes of men, and cannot be examined by a material fire, nevertheless, they have not passed before the eyes of God, but, as it is said in Ecclesiastes 12:14, “All the things that are done, God will bring to judgment,” and he will examine them, and if someone’s “work will remain,” that is, if the work can withstand the judgment of God, as gold withstands fire, he will receive his reward and be proved and crowned by God. If anyone’s work burns, i.e. if someone’s work does not withstand the judgment of God, as grass and straw do not withstand fire, he will suffer detriment, and be reproved and rejected. 

c) Because the judgment of God is most rightly called a fire, seeing that it is the purest, quickest, most efficacious, and most penetrating. This is why we read in Daniel: “A fiery river will proceed from his mouth” (Daniel 7:10). 5 And because God is all justice, all judgment, therefore He also is called a fire in the Scriptures. “He is like a refining fire” (Malachi 3:2). “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). And in this we do not dissent from Calvin and Peter Martyr. 

The fifth and final difficulty is, what is understood by fire, when he says: “And he will be saved, yet as if by fire.” Some understand the tribulations of this life. But this cannot be said congruently, because then also those who build with gold and silver would be saved, as if by fire. Accordingly, St. Augustine and St. Gregory, who are the authors of this opinion, although they do not relinquish it, also advance another opinion which we will relate below. Some understand the eternal fire, such as Chrysostom and Theophylactus, but we have already refuted this. Others the fire of the conflagration of the world. That also cannot be said on account of the reasons we posited previously; besides, it would follow that those who have venial sins could not attain to beatitude before the day of judgment, seeing that nothing impure can enter into heaven. 

Calvin and Peter Martyr, as well as Ochinus and Luther (arctic. 37) understand by this fire the judgment of God, which sanctions true doctrine and confutes false, just as fire finishes gold and consumes grass. Moreover, they say this judgment takes place when someone is converted, and especially in the hour of death, for then many are enlightened and so understand that they were deceived, and throw away their doctrine, and are also confounded and blush, and so will be saved by fire. Peter Martyr adds that he does not doubt that St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Dominic and other fathers were saved in this way, since without a doubt, being enlightened by God at the point of death, they understood and condemned their errors on monasticism, on the Mass, etc. 

Sed contra: 1) Since that judgment would only happen at the time of death, it either happens while the man is still alive, or it could also take place after death. If it could also happen after death, therefore, after death there is some remission and purgation of sins, at least through that shame and contrition, which they will in no way admit, for this would be a certain type of Purgatory. But if this judgment would only happen during death itself, how, I ask, would it happen with those men who built upon the foundation with wood, grass, and straw but died so suddenly that they had no time for repentance? They are not saved as if by fire, who do not experience this fire of judgment and refutation of their errors, nor can they be condemned to hell because they had Christ as a foundation, and Paul declares about all such men that they would be saved. Indeed, it is not possible for them to be saved unless Purgatory is admitted, for since they died in sin with their straw and grass, they cannot be saved except by fire. 

2) That fire, which Paul is speaking about, will properly and truly inflict penalties apart from the loss of their works, and the shame which thence arises, therefore that judgment refuting their errors is not the fire which is treated on here. The preceding is proven firstly from that phrase: “he will suffer detriment,” which in Greek is ζημιωθήσεται, he will be punished, or he will pay penalties. Few words are more frequent in Greek than ζημοσθαι θανάτω, that is to be punished with death. Likewise, from that: “He will be saved, as if by fire.” The similitude of one passing through fire means punishment and sorrow, for he that passes through fire without any harm, would not be said to pass through fire, as through fire, but as if through flowers, as we read about St. Tiburtius. 

3) The Apostle opposes this passage through fire to the reward. As he had said: “If his work will remain, he will receive his reward,” so now he says, “if his work burns, he will suffer detriment and he will be saved as if by fire.” But that reward means something apart from the good work, and apart from the joy which the good work produces of itself, since he would not say he will receive the reward if the reward were nothing else than what he had from the act of building with gold, etc., itself. Consequently, the detriment and the passage through fire of the man who built with straw, is likewise some punishment apart from the loss of the works, and apart from the shame it produces of itself. 

4) Because that judgment refuting errors does not bring detriment, but profit, for it is a certain enlightenment of the mind, as they say, and a knowledge of the truth. And as a man that has brass thinking that it is gold does not think it is a loss, if someone would take away that brass and would give him true gold, so also one that had errors in his mind and learns the truth by divine illustration does not suffer detriment, but acquires profit. But Paul says: “He will suffer a detriment,” therefore, etc. 

5) It would follow that everyone that is saved is saved as if by fire, which is contrary to the distinction of the Apostle, for even if here Paul only treats on sins which are committed in teaching, nevertheless, the reasoning for all other sins is the same. For as God will judge doctrine, so also all works. But according to Calvin, and all Lutherans, all of our works, no matter how just they seem in the eyes of men, are still sins in the sight of God, nor can they bear divine judgment, rather, they will be clearly convicted in the way false doctrine is. This is why if the fire, about which Paul is speaking, is the judgment of God, all will be saved as if by fire. No does the response avail that the works of the just are not going to be convicted, because they are covered over through non-imputation, but the works of the impious who are not justified by faith are going to be convicted; for when Paul says, “He will be saved, as if by fire,” he speaks about the just who built with straw, yet having retained the foundation, namely, true faith in Christ. 

Now, what Peter Martyr says about Sts. Bernard, Dominic, and Francis, is a most impudent lie, since even to their last breath they commended to their followers perseverance in religious life and obedience to the Roman Church. In chapter 14 of his life, St. Bonaventure writes about St. Francis: “With the hour of his passage nearing, he caused all the brethren present in that place to be called to himself, and soothing them with consoling words on account of his death, he exhorted them with paternal affection to divine love, and he spoke at length on patience, poverty, and the faith of the holy Roman Church which must be kept, and above all, he added, ‘Remain strong, all ye my sons, in the fear of the Lord, and remain in him always, and since temptation will come and tribulation approaches, happy are they who will persevere in what they have begun. Now I hasten to God, to whose grace I commend you.’” This must surely be the recantation which the Pseudomartyr Peter dreams up! 

Now it is the common teaching of Theologians that by the term “fire” in this passage some purgatorial and temporal punishment is understood, to which those who are found in the particular judgment to have built with wood, grass or straw are assigned after death. This exposition, apart from the fact that it best agrees with the text, is sufficiently proven from the common consensus of the Fathers. All Latins teach this. St. Cyprian, in his epistle to Antoninus (book 4, ep. 2) says: “It is one thing to stand for pardon, another to attain to glory; it is one thing to be thrown into prison and not get out until one pays the last penny, but another to immediately receive the reward for faith and virtue; it is one thing, having been crucified by long suffering, to be corrected for sins, and to be purged at length by fire, and another to be cleansed of all sins by martyrdom.” Here, Cyprian does not clearly call to mind this passage of St. Paul, but nevertheless, since nowhere else in Scripture is mention made of fire in a passage which is clearly about Purgatory, there is no doubt that St. Cyprian alluded to this passage. 

St. Ambrose, commenting on this passage, says: “But when Paul says ‘yet as if by fire’, he shows indeed that he is going to be saved, but he will suffer the punishments of the fire, so that having been purged by the fire he will be saved, not tormented in the eternal fire forever like the faithless.” He says the same thing in Serm. 20 in Psalm 118. 

St. Jerome, while explaining “You have become just as a firebrand taken from the fire” explaining Amos chapter 4 says, “Like what we read in the Apostle, he will be saved as if by fire, therefore whoever is saved by fire, is taken out just as a firebrand from the fire.” He taught the same thing while commenting on the last book of Isaiah, and in book 2 in Jovinianum, just past the middle. 

St. Augustine, in Psalm 37 (38) says: “In this life may you cleanse me, and render me such that a cleansing fire is no longer needed.” And below, while explaining the passage of the Apostle, he says, “It is related that he will be saved as if by fire, and because it is said, ‘he will be saved’, that fire is disregarded. For all that, though he is saved by the fire, yet that fire will be more grievous than anything a man can suffer in this life.” St. Gregory the Great, in book 4 of the Dialogue (c. 39), while explaining this passage of 1 Cor. 3:15, says: “Although this passage could be understood of the fire of tribulation applied to us in this life, nevertheless, if someone were to take it as referring to the fire of future purgation, it must be carefully considered, because by that fire he is said be saved, not who builds upon this [foundation] with iron, bronze, or lead, that is, greater sins, and on that account harder, and hence impossible to be loosed, but wood, grass and straw, i.e. minute sins, and the very lightest, which the fire easily consumes.” 

Alcuin (lib. 3 de Trinitate), Rupert (in. 3.c. Gen., explaining that which is said there on the flaming and revolving sword), Peter Lombard (4 d. 21) and with him St. Bonaventure and other Scholastics. Likewise, St. Anselm, Haymo, and St. Thomas on this passage. And then, Innocent III on Psalm 37 (38), and all more recent Latins so explain it. 

From the Greeks we have in the first place Origen clearly teaching this in homily 6 in Exod. and homily 14 in Leviticus, as well as homily 12 in Jeremiah. In homily 6 in Exodus, he says: “But even to that point it is congruous, if anyone carries many good works and some little iniquity, that little bit must be melted and purged like lead in a fire, etc.” Besides, Oecumenius on this passage, who also witnesses Basil’s opinion, understood it to be about the purgatorial fire. St. Thomas also adds Theodoret explaining this passage in these words: “Hence we believe in the fire of purgatory, in which souls are cleansed, as gold in a crucible.” (Opisculum contra Graecos) Gagneius relates the same teaching of Theodoret from the schools of the Greeks cited as follows: Τουτο τὸ πυρ πηςέυομεν καθαρτὴριον ἐν ὠ καθαριζονται ἁι ψυχαι, καθά περι χρυσὶαν ἑν τ χωνευτηρίῳ. 

But objections are made against this. Firstly, it is absurd that in the same sentence the Apostle would use the word fire in different ways, once for judgment and once for the purgatorial fire. 

I respond to the first: we are compelled by the text itself to admit not only one, but two changes in the meaning of fire: for when he says that the day of judgment is manifested by fire, it seems he altogether speaks of the fire of conflagration; when he adds that fire will prove the work of each man, he cannot be speaking about a material fire, which cannot prove works which have passed; again, the Apostle says all works must be examined with that second fire; but with the third, not the works, but the workers are examined, and not all of them but only those who build with wood, grass and straw; necessarily the fires must be different. Still, it seems to me that what we see in the words of St. Paul is not properly an equivocation, but an elegant play on words. For, this is the sense of the whole passage: The day of the Lord will be declared by the fire of conflagration; and just as that day will be declared by fire, so the same day will be made manifest by fire, namely of the judgment of the work of every man; and just as the works will be manifested by fire, so also the workers, who need purgation, will be purged by a certain type of fire.

 I say secondly, it is not unusual for St. Paul to use some term in different ways in the same sentence, as he receives the word “sin” in different ways when he says, “He that did not know sin became sin for us” (2 Cor. 5), and then “For sin He condemned sin.” (Romans 8). 

I say thirdly, if anyone altogether would not admit a variety of meanings, but would receive the fire everywhere for judgment, still it would not change the fact that we establish Purgatory from this passage. For then the sense would be: “If anyone’s work will burn, he will suffer a detriment, but he will be saved, yet as if by fire,” i.e., if anyone’s work cannot withstand the judgment of God, indeed the work will be condemned, but he will be saved, yet in the manner of one who has passed through the fire of divin judgment, which judgment being most just, certainly inflicted some penalty upon him. 

The second objection regards the conjunction “as if” (quasi), which usually signifies not a truth but a similitude. I respond: the conjunction, quasi, does not mean the fire is a similitude, as if the fire were not real, but imaginary, but that the passing through is a similitude, so that the sense would be: The man that built with grass will arrive at salvation, but he will arrive in the way one arrives at some place who passes through fire, just as it is said in John 1:14, “We have seen his glory, the glory as (quasi) of the only begotten of the Father”, i.e. we have seen him glorious in the manner in which it is fitting for the only begotten Son of the Father to be glorious.

CHAPTER VI: 1 Corinthians 15:29

THE third passage is 1 Cor. 15:29, “What will they do, that are baptized for the dead, if the dead will not rise again? Why are they then baptized for them?” This passage clearly establishes what we want, if it is understood rightly, therefore we will briefly expound upon it. I have found six expositions of this passage. 1) The first is that the Apostle proves the coming resurrection, from the error of certain men who received Baptism in the name of some friend that had died without baptism; for they thought that just as the prayers and fasting of the living benefit the dead, so also Baptism would benefit them. Tertullian explains it this way in book 5 in Marcionem, as well as in his book de Resurrectione. Likewise, Ambrose, Anselm, and Haymo, according to which exposition prayer for the dead is gathered from this passage, because these Fathers teach that the Apostle, although he does not approve of their error, nevertheless approves of the intention which they had of helping the dead, and from this the argument is taken up: If the Apostle approves of the intention of helping the dead, certainly it cannot be condemned, nor should it be by any Christian; still, I do not think this is the true explanation. Firstly, because the Apostle should have at least insinuated this was an error, lest he give occasion of erring. Secondly, because the Apostle would not have made a solid argument; for one could respond that the resurrection is not well proven from something that certain men believed in error. For just as they erred in baptizing one for another, so they could err in believing in the future resurrection. Thirdly, because no ancient historian hands down that this error existed in the time of the Apostles; for Phylaster attributes this error to the Montanists who arose around 100 years after the death of St. Paul, and Chrysostom and Theophylactus attribute the same thing to the Marcionists, who began 80 years after the death of Paul; next Epiphanius (haeresi 28) attributes this to the Cerinthians, a sect of which arose twenty years after the death of Paul. Add that Chrysostom and Epiphanius attribute this error, not to Marcion and Cerinthus themselves, but to their posterity, and rightly so. For otherwise, how could it be that Irenaeus and Tertullian did not refute this error, who diligently refuted all the errors of Cerinthus and Marcion? Indeed, Tertullian says that this error was in the time of the Apostles, but one does not have it on any authority but his; consequently, Chrysostom and Epiphanius, as well as Theophylactus, rightly reject this explanation as false. 2) Another exposition is that the Apostle understands by “the dead” sins, when he says “they that are baptized for the dead,” in other words, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, i.e. for washing away sins? So think Sedulius and St. Thomas on this passage of the Apostle. On the other hand: Firstly, because the Apostle adds: “If the dead do not rise, why are they baptized for them?” undoubtedly, for dead men who do not rise; therefore he clearly teaches he is not arguing about sins, but about men. For he does not wish to show that sins rise, but that men rise. Secondly, because the whole force of the argument perishes if it is said, what will they do, who are baptized to wash away sins, if the dead do not rise? For the response could be made that to wash away sins is of much benefit, even if the dead do not rise, because it is good in this life to enjoy the testimony of a good conscience. Thirdly, because sins are not called dead, except when they are blotted out and extinguished, therefore Paul does not understand by “the dead” sins which still must be blotted out. 3) The third exposition is that to be baptized for the dead is simply to be baptized in the Baptism of Christ, but receiving baptism is called being baptized for the dead, because before one is baptized, one recites the Creed, which contains the article, “the resurrection of the body,” so that “for the dead” means for the hope of the resurrection, or for dead bodies, i.e. so that in the end, our bodies which are going to die, may someday rise again immortal. So think Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylactus; but certainly this exposition is hard and violent to the text. Firstly, because the Apostle would not have said: “What will they do who are baptized for the dead,” but what will we do who are baptized for the dead? For everyone is baptized, not merely a few, yet the Apostle only speaks about certain men, as is clear from the form of the words as well as from what follows, “Why also are we in danger all the day?” Secondly, because it is unheard of that by the term “the dead” the hope of the resurrection is understood, or dead bodies, since in Greek νεκροὶ (the dead) is in the masculine gender but bodies are in the neuter gender, σώματα. Thirdly, because if we were said to be baptized for the dead because we recite the article on the resurrection of the dead, we could also be said to be baptized for God the Father, and for Christ and the Holy Spirit, and for the Church, because we recite all these in the Creed. Fourthly, because the Apostle seems altogether to understand by “the dead”, dead men and nothing else, for when he says: “If the dead do not rise, why will they be baptized for them?” what can we understand by the word, them, except those dead who do not rise? 4) The fourth exposition is that to be baptized for the dead is to be baptized in the baptism of Christ; but Baptism is said to be for the dead because while we are baptized, we act and represent the role of one dead, while we are drowned in water, and of one rising while we rise from the water, and thus we profess the resurrection, and by this profession the Apostle proves the coming resurrection. So Theodoret and Cajetan explain it. On the other hand, firstly because to act for something does not mean to represent it either in Hebrew, Greek or Latin, but rather to act in its place, or for its advantage. Who ever said about acting in a theater the role of Davus, or Pamphilius, that he acts for Davus or Pamphilus? Secondly, because those who are baptized represent the death of Christ, and at the same time their own death, as is clear from the Apostle: “All of us who have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death, for through baptism we were buried with him, etc.” (Romans 6). Therefore, to be baptized for the dead will be to be baptized for oneself and for Christ, which is most absurd. The phrase to be baptized for Christ is never found in the Scripture, rather only to be baptized in Christ, or in his name, as is clear from Romans 6, Galatians 3, Acts 10 and 19. Thirdly, because the argument of the Apostle would be null, since from the fact that one who is baptized acts the role of a dead man, it does not follow that he professes the resurrection. In that case, the Apostle would have needed to say: What will they do who are baptized for the risen, or for the dead and the risen? But even if he had said this, still it would be a trifling argument, because one could answer that in Baptism is represented the resurrection, not of the flesh from death, but of the soul from sin. For the Apostle means that in Romans 6 where he says: “That we might walk in the newness of life,” and in Coloss. 3: “If you have risen with Christ, then seek those things which are above.” 5) The fifth exposition is that of Epiphanius (Haeresi 28) which Peter Martyr relates, that Paul spoke about the baptism of those who were baptized in their bed, since they were in extremis, who formerly were called Clinici, and whom Cyprian jovially opposed to the Peripatetici (lib. 4, epist. 7 ad Magnum), namely that the Clinici did not walk, but remained confined to their bed, since in Greek κλινὴ means bed. Hence, certain men would have it that the sense of the Apostle is this: What will they do who are baptized for the dead, that is, who are baptized when they are considered more dead than alive, and when it is certain they are not baptized for any use in this life, since they are considered as dead. This exposition is refuted firstly, from the words, “why are they baptized for them”? For he ought to have said, why are they baptized for themselves, not for them. Secondly, because that “for the dead” cannot be said except regarding actions which happen to the dead. E.g., we rightly say he fell from a high place and was taken for dead, or he was washed and buried for dead, even if he were still living. But it is not rightly said, he walked or ate or spoke for dead. But to be baptized is of the living, not the dead, as a result, it is not rightly said that someone is baptized for dead, even if he is in extremis; he ought instead to be said to be baptized for living, even if he were nearly dead. 6) Consequently, the sixth exposition is true and germane, that the Apostle spoke about the Baptism of tears and penance, which is received by praying, fasting and almsgiving, etc. And the sense is this: “What will they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise?” In other words, what will they do who pray, fast, weep, and afflict themselves for the dead, if the dead do not rise? St. Ephraim explains this passage in this way in his Testamentum, as well as Peter of Cluny in his book Contra Petrobrusianos, Dennis the Carthusian, Hugh of St. Victor, Gagneus and others on this passage. This exposition is the truest. Firstly, because often both Scripture and the Fathers receive “to be baptized” for “to be afflicted”, as in Mark 10, “Can you drink the chalice which I am going to drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am going to be baptized?” Or, in Luke 12: “I have a baptism to be baptized with.” The fathers everywhere call the affliction of penance a laborious baptism, and a clean slate. St. Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord’s supper, says, “He baptizes himself with tears.” And in the beginning of his book de exhortatione martyrii, he frequently calls dying for Christ a baptism. Furthermore, St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration de Epiphania says, “I know the fourth baptism which happens by martyrdom and blood, and I know the fifth of tears and penance.” Secondly, because the very punishment of purgatory is called a baptism by Scripture and the Fathers, as we read in Matthew 3, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire.” St. Jerome explains “with the Holy Spirit” as what takes place in this life, but by fire, what will take place in the next life. Before him St. Basil had explained the same thing in his book on the Holy Spirit, ch. 15, and after them St. Bede, commenting on ch. 3 of Luke. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration de Epiphania, calls the fire of purgatory in another life the “last baptism”. Therefore, the Apostle very neatly said that they are baptized for the dead who, afflicting themselves with prayer and fasting, take upon themselves the lot of that baptism of fire, in which souls are baptized in Purgatory. Thirdly, this exposition especially squares with what follows: “Why also are we in danger all the day?” In other words, Why do certain men afflict themselves with prayer for the dead, and I afflict myself by preaching the Gospel, if there is no resurrection of the dead? Fourthly, because this opinion is the same as that in 2 Maccabees 12: if the dead do not rise, it is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. But two arguments are made in objection to this exposition. 1) The first is that the Apostle should not have said, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, but what will we do who are baptized for the dead? For all Christians pray for the dead. I respond: The Apostle meant to argue not by the custom of Christians, which could be rejected as a novelty by unbelievers, but by the custom of the Jews, who prayed and fasted for the dead from ancient custom and the examples in the Scriptures. In other words, what will they do, who imitating the ancient fathers, pray and fast and afflict themselves for the dead, if the dead do not rise? 2) The second argument is that it does not seem the resurrection of the dead is sufficiently proven from the fact of prayer for the dead, because therein one does not pray that they may rise, but that they may be freed from punishments, and that they might make the passage to eternal rest. I respond: the questions on the resurrection and on the immortality of souls were so joined in the time of the Apostles, that they were considered one, as we showed above when we explained the testimony from the books of the Maccabees. Therefore, we either follow this exposition, which seems the truest to us, or the first, which is better than the other four; from which prayer for the dead is clearly gathered.

CHAPTER VII: Matthew 5:25 and Luke 12:58

THE fourth passage is Matthew 5 and Luke 12. “Readily consent unto your adversary while you are with him on the way lest perhaps he would hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the torturer, and you are sent into prison. Amen I say to you that you will not go out from there until you pay the last farthing.” Here we must explain what are the road, the adversary, the judge, the torturer, the prison, and lastly the farthing. On the first, Chrysostom teaches on Matthew 5 that the way is properly understood as a real road on which one journeys to a judge in this world; for Chrysostom thinks this is no parable, but that the Lord means this literally so as to terrify the anxious with the threat of human danger, so that the judge is understood to be a man, the torturer a man, the prison a physical prison of this life, and the farthing a real golden coin. Ochinus contends that the passage must be explained in this way. I have two things to say in response to this. In the first place, it is simply not probable, not only because it is opposed to all the other expositors (Origen, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Bede, Anselm and the more recent ones, such as Abulensis, Lyranus, Cajetan, Jansen and others), who teach that the road means the present life, just as when it is said: “Blessed are the immaculate on the road” (Psalm. 118/119), and they consider this discourse to be for the most part metaphorical. Besides that, the Lord does not usually teach and instruct human prudence in earnest, since he often witnessed that the sons of this age are more prudent than the sons of light. Moreover, the Lord would not have so definitively said: “Amen I say to you, you will not go out from there until you have paid the last farthing,” if he were speaking of a human judge, since we often see that the contrary happens and the guilty are freed because they have the favor of someone, or they escape, and pay nothing. Secondly, I say that if we must consider the opinion of Chrysostom probable, it can only be accepted for the words as found in Matthew 5:25 which he explains. In regard to the words of Luke 12:58, by no means can it be accepted, for as Ambrose rightly noted, the Lord spoke these words twice, different occasions having been offered. For in Matthew 5 he spoke these words when he was speaking about the love of enemies and on bearing injuries, and therefore the exposition of Chrysostom can be tolerated to that extent. But in Luke 12 the Lord speaks about the future judgment, for he says: “Gird your loins.” And then, “Watch, because at an hour you think not, the Lord will come.” And at the end he concludes: “Therefore, when you go with your adversary to the Prince,” where he clearly shows that he speaks about the future judgment, which will take place after this life; which is also confirmed from what he says right before this: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is just? For, when you go with your adversary, etc.” For he intends to admonish them, this parable being taken from what men usually do; for debtors normally expend every labor to free themselves from a creditor before it comes to trial. This is why Theophylactus and Euthymius, who follow Chrysostom on Matthew 5, nevertheless on Luke 12 rightly say that life is meant by the way, and God by the judge, etc. On the second, even if it makes little difference who the adversary might be and delays our thesis on purgatory, nevertheless, since it is a worthy matter to discover, we will explain it briefly. Some men understand the adversary to be the devil, such as Origen (hom. 35 in Luke), Ambrose, Euthymius, and Theophylactus (in c. 12 of Luke) as well as Jerome in epistle 8 to Demetriadis. Jerome does not rebuke this opinion in his commentary on Matthew 5 when he says: “Certain men explain it with an even more forced interpretation, etc.” For that “more forced”, is an error of the printers, and ought to be read “more cautious”. You might ask how we ought to consent to the devil when on the contrary we are bid to resist him? Jerome responds that we ought to consent to him insofar as we are held to stand in the pact initiated with him in Baptism. For then we renounced the devil and his pomps, but if we again desire and take possession of his pomps, which we have renounced, he will rightly accuse us before the Lord. This opinion is not very probable, and is refuted by Augustine (lib. 1 de Sermone Domini in monte, c. 22) for the Greek is ἐυνοών, that is, friendly and harmonious, but we cannot be friends with the devil; next, when he desires that we lust for his pomps, and tempts us for this purpose, then we should be consenting to him, if we were to desire his pomps and would offend God. Others explain by the adversary, the flesh, but this is rightly refuted by Augustine, since it cannot be commanded to the spirit to consent to the flesh, since this would be a sin. Others understand the spirit as the adversary, to which the flesh is bid to consent. Jerome refutes this, because it is not credible that the spirit is going to hand over its own flesh to the judge; nor will the flesh go into prison without the spirit, but either the spirit alone, or the spirit and flesh together. Others, by adversary, at least in Luke, understand sin because Luke says: “Labor by every means to be freed from him.” Ambrose thinks thus, but it is not probable, for to be freed from the adversary is not to flee from or extinguish him, but to settle up with him, which is clear both from Matthew and from the word ἀντίδικος, namely a litigant or a plaintiff. Others understand by adversary another man, who evidently has harmed us, or we him. Hilary, Anselm and Jerome argue this from Matthew 5, and although it is probable, at least in regard to the text of Matthew 5, nevertheless, Augustine refutes it (loc. cit.). Firstly, because it seems that here the Lord speaks about an adversary that is always with us on the way, and with whom we can always make an agreement as long as the road endures: but a human adversary often dies before his adversary and deserts him on the road. Nor yet may it be said that the just man who is on the road cannot be saved by repentance, if he cannot come to an agreement with his adversary. Secondly, because properly speaking one man does not hand another to God the judge; or at least there are many other things which are more properly said to hand one over, as we will say, especially because the Greek is ἀντίδικος, which does not mean an adversary by reason of injury but of a lawsuit, that is a plaintiff or an accuser. Consequently, the truest exposition is that the adversary is the law of God, or God himself, insofar as he commands things contrary to the flesh, or the conscience, which always objects the law of God to the sinner, since these nearly coincide in the same thing. Thus Ambrose, Bede, and Bonaventure (in c. 12 of Luke) explain it. Likewise, St. Anselm and St. Augustine on Matthew 5, and also the same Augustine in hom. 1 de verbis Domini, hom. 5 in his book of 50 sermons, and in his book de decem chordis c. 3, St. Gregory hom. 39, and Bernard, serm. 85 in Cantica. For the law of God and our conscience are always with us on the road, always opposed to wicked desires, and it is of great advantage to be at peace with them, and to be freed from their enmity; at worst they will be accusers and witnesses against us in the judgment. There seems to be only one obstacle to this exposition, which is that in Matthew 5 just before this parable the Lord was speaking on reconciliation with a human adversary. I respond: After the Lord taught that man ought to be reconciled with man, he meant to advise with this parable that we must also remember to be reconciled with God or with his law. Besides, even if it is probable on account of this reason that in Matthew 5 the adversary is understood to be a man, nevertheless, in Luke 12 we cannot understand anything but the law of God, or conscience. This is why Cajetan, who explains Matthew 5 to be on a man, explains Luke 12 to be on conscience. On the third, all agree that the judge is Christ, since the Scriptures everywhere teach this and especially John 5: “The Father has given all judgment to the son.” On the fourth, Ambrose (in c. 12 of Luke) as well as Augustine (lib. 1 de serm. Domini in monte, c. 21) understand by ministers, the good angels. St. Gregory (homil. 39) and Theophylactus, on Luke 12, understand the demons; both opinions are probable. On the fifth, all likewise agree that the jail is hell, in which there are many mansions, some for the damned, others for those who are purged. Formerly the most absurd heresy of Carpocratis stood out, as Irenaeus relates (l. 1 c. 24), who said everyone should be exercised in every type of punishment, and therefore souls going out from the body, as if from prison, are examined by the judge, and unless they had suffered all tortures, they would be remitted to another body just like a prison, and this would happen as many times as needed until they had altogether passed through every torment; and he thought the Lord meant this when he said: “You will not go out from there until you pay the last farthing.” But this opinion is too absurd to be worth refuting. On the sixth, nearly everyone also agrees that by the last farthing petty sins are understood, for the farthing is the smallest coin. For what Augustine says, that the last farthing means earthly sins, because earth is the final element, seems very hard and forced, because still the Lord does not mean to say one must merely pay a farthing, but the whole debt even to the last farthing. There remains a doubt, however, whether this payment is made in hell or in purgatory? Augustine thinks it is a question of the eternal punishments of hell and therefore he says that “Until you pay,” does not mean a certain time, but eternity, like when it is said in Matthew 1: “He did not know her until she gave birth to her son.” And in Psalm 109: “Sit at my right, until I place your enemies as your footstool.” And in 1 Cor. 15: “He must uphold heaven until all are subjected beneath his feet.” 6 But one may not gather therefore that after Mary gave birth Joseph knew her, and so on for the rest. Others, such as Albert the Great and Cajetan, explain it about hell and purgatory together, so that the sense would be: If the debt is unpayable, you will never go out; if it is payable, you will go out when you have paid everything exactly. Others understand it to be only on purgatory, namely those whom we will cite in a moment. This third opinion is the truest of all. It is proved: 1) Because the most ancient fathers understood this passage in this way. Tertullian (de Anima, c. 17), “…he commits you to the prison of hell, from where you will not be dismissed unless even your smallest offense has been paid off during the time before the resurrection.” Note there, he must only remain in the prison of purgatory to the end, up to the resurrection. Cyprian, (lib. 4, epist. 2) says: “They are two different things, to stand for pardon and arrive at glory; to be sent into prison to not go out from it until one pays the last penny, and right away to receive the reward for faith and virtue; to be freed from sins after a long period of torture, and to be purged for a while in fire, and at the last to have purged all sins by martyrdom.” (see above, ch. 5) Origen (hom. 35 in Lucam) says: “But if we owe a great deal of money, like that man of whom it is written that he owed ten thousand talents, I cannot clearly say how long we will be shut up in prison. For if a man who owes a little will not go out until he pays the smallest farthing, then certainly someone that is liable to such a debt will have centuries numbered for him to repay.” And on the Epistle to the Romans he says: “Although he is promised to go out from the prison at some point, nevertheless, it is indicated that he cannot go out from there until he shall pay the last penny.” Eusebius Emissenus, or rather Caesarius of Arles, or whoever was the author of these homilies, (hom. 3 de Epiphania) says: “But these men, who have acted so as to be worthy of temporal punishments, to whom God has so directed his pronouncements that they do not go out from there until they have paid the last farthing, will pass through the fiery river, etc.” Ambrose, explaining this passage in chapter 12 of Luke, says: “We recall that a farthing is usually given in the baths, the offering of which is made so that each man that pays receives the opportunity to wash there; so here he receives the opportunity to wash. because each man’s sin is washed by the kind of situation described, although for a long time the guilty man is trained by punishments to pay the penalties of the error committed.” Jerome on chapter 5 of Matthew says: “This is what he says, you will not go out from prison until you have satisfied also for the smallest sins.” Bernard (serm. de obitu Huberti), says: “Know this, for after this life in the confines of purgatory you will pay a hundred fold for the things which were neglected here, even to the last penny.” Secondly, it is proved because it does not seem possible to rightly say, “Until you shall pay the last penny,” unless at some point there will be an end of the payment. The examples of St. Augustine do not satisfy, for when it is said: “He did not know her until she gave birth,” it is indeed not lawful to infer that therefore, later he did, but it is lawful to infer that therefore, she gave birth at some point. Likewise, when it is said: “Sit at my right until I will place, etc.” it is rightly inferred that therefore at some point all the enemies of Christ will be put beneath his feet; otherwise that: “Until” would be said ineptly. So therefore when it is said: “You will not go out until you have paid the last farthing,” we rightly infer: Thus at some point he will pay the last farthing, and consequently he will go out from there. Thirdly, it is proven from the foundation and scope of this parable; for the similitude is not taken from a murderer or adulterer, or traitor, who are condemned to death, or to life in prison, or to be a galley slave, but from a debtor who, not on account of a crime, but on account of a monetary debt is thrown into prison until he pays. And men of this sort ordinarily go out after some time, as is clear. Therefore the scope of the parable is that in this life we should settle with God, when we can easily obtain the remission of the penalty due for our sins, nor should we wait for a future age, in which it will be exacted severely. That is all for this passage.

CHAPTER VIII: Matthew 5:22, Luke 16:9, Luke 23:42, Acts 2:24 and Philippians 2:10.

THE  FIFTH passage is Matthew 5. “Anyone that is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and he who says to his brother, racha, will be liable to the Council, he who says ‘you fool,’ will be liable to the Gehenna of fire.” Note here the discussion is certainly on the punishment enjoined in the court of God, as is clear from that: “he will be liable to the Gehenna of fire.” This is why St. Augustine (lib. 1 de serm. Domini in monte, cap. 19) explains all three as referring to the penalties for souls after this life. Note secondly, that it is also certain that here three kinds of sins and penalties are distinguished, as Augustine explains in the same place, and eternal damnation is only given for the third kind of sin, i.e. for crimes. But for others inasmuch as they are lighter sins, lighter punishments are given, and hence temporal ones. From that it is inferred that some souls after this life are punished with temporal punishments. Someone might say, but Christ said: He that kills will be liable to judgment, thus, to be liable to judgment is to be condemned to hell, for murder is a lethal crime. I respond: When the Lord says: “It was said to the ancients, he who murders shall be liable to judgment,” he speaks about human and temporal judgment, whereby murderers are punished with temporal death; for the old law threatens murderers with no other death, as is clear from Exodus 21. So the Lord meant to say that homicide is punished by death in this world, but in the next life the agitation of internal anger, although it is a venial sin, is punished with a certain penalty which is indeed temporal, but which is equal with temporal death; and anger protruding outwardly is punished still more severely; but a contumelious word, and murder much more so, is punished with eternal death. Someone might insist: Granted, the Lord speaks in this passage on the penalties to be inflicted by the judgment of God, still, it does not follow that there are temporal punishments in another life; for God can inflict punishments of this sort in this life. I answer firstly, this passage is understood by Augustine and other fathers to be about penalties after this life. Secondly, I say, from this passage it can be deduced that at least some purgatorial punishments take place after this life, for hence we have it that certain sins do not merit anything but a temporal penalty, but it can happen that someone might die with such sins, for one can die suddenly, or while sleeping, so that he would have no space for penance. Therefore, in the next life he will be purged, otherwise either he will go into heaven tainted or unjustly be condemned to eternal punishments, when he did not merit anything but temporal punishments. The sixth passage is Luke 16: Make friends for yourselves from the mammon of iniquity so that when you falter, they might receive you in the eternal dwellings.” For falter (deficere) all understand to die; for friends, they understand the saints who reign with Christ, from which it follows that men are helped after death by the prayers of the saints. Yet, because someone could say that here it is a question of the virtue of almsgiving and the sense is, those who gives alms, when they die are saved on account of the good works they did, it must be observed that not only does the Lord mean this, but also he means that after death souls are aided by the prayers of the saints. 1) For this purpose they bring forth the words: “Make friends ... so that they will receive you.” For almsgiving which is made to wicked men, yet with a good intention, is meritorious, but nevertheless does not make friends who could receive you in the eternal dwellings. This is why St. Jerome (at the end of his book Contra Vigilantium), says that the Lord exhorts us to give alms more to the good than the bad, so that those who give alms might be saved by the intercession of good men. Ambrose argues in like manner on this passage, as well as St. Augustine (lib. 21 de civitate Dei, c. 27), and they say that by friends the saints reigning with Christ are understood, who help us with their prayers, and will help us when we die. 2) The similitude itself compels us to this conclusion, for the parable was taken from a certain steward who was deposed from office, and having become poor and needy implored help of his friends; and that in the application of the parable to be deposed from office is to die, the Lord himself explains. 3) Add that Augustine (loc. cit.) proves purgatory from this passage, for he says there are some so holy that they fly straight to heaven after death and who are not only saved themselves, but can also help others; again certain others are so bad that they can neither help themselves nor be helped by others, but descend to eternal punishments without a remedy. Then, there are some in the middle who die in such a state that they are neither worthy of eternal death, nor do their own merits suffice for them to enter unto salvation, namely to be received right away into heaven, and these, he says, are the ones that are received into the eternal dwellings by the prayers of their friends. Peter Martyr has no response to this passage, but objects to himself in the name of Catholics, the words that follow after this parable, and he says that we assert the rich man was in purgatory since he asked assistance of Abraham, and he painstakingly answers this argument as if it were our Achilles, and at the same time deduces from there that souls cannot be aided by the living, seeing that neither Abraham nor Lazarus could help the rich man. Peter Martyr jokingly wonders why the rich man did not also seek to have Mass said for him on his anniversary. But nearly all Catholics say that the rich man is in hell, hence Peter Martyr is fighting the wind. The seventh passage is Luke 23:42, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” The good man, instructed by the Holy Spirit, would never have said this unless he believed that after this life his sins could be forgiven, and that souls need help and can be helped. Certainly, St. Augustine proves from here that some sins are remitted after death. (Julian. lib. 6, c. 5). The eighth passage is Acts 2:24, “The man whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of hell, because it was impossible that he be held by them.” St. Augustine understands this passage to mean that when Christ descended to hell, he freed many from the tortures of hell, which since it cannot be understood about the damned, seems necessarily to be understood of those who were being purged (epist. 99 ad Evodium; Gen. l. 12, c. 33). Epiphanius also upholds this in his relation of the heresy of Tatian, which is the last of the first book. There, Epiphanius said that when Christ descended to hell he freed those who had sinned by ignorance but had not departed from the faith of God. And apart from the authority of these Fathers, it is proven from the very words of Scripture. The phrase, “having loosed the pains of hell,” cannot be understood about the pains of Christ himself, since the pains of Christ were completed on the cross, as is clear from the words of Luke 23:43, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” It is also not about the pains of the damned, which is clear because they have been condemned to the eternal flames. It is also not about the sufferings of the holy fathers, for they suffered no pains, as Augustine teaches (loc. cit.) and also St. Gregory the Great (hom. 22). Therefore, it remains that this passage refers to the sorrows of the souls of Purgatory. But someone will say the Greeks do not read, “having loosed the pains of hell,” rather, having loosed the pains of death, το θανάτου, not το ἃδου. I respond: Firstly, the ancient Latin vulgate edition is with us. Secondly, the Syriac, which reads likewise: “God raised him and loosed the ropes of hell.” Thirdly, the most ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, for St. Polycarp, at the beginning of his epistle, citing this passage, writes: “having loosed the pains of hell.” Likewise, St. Cyprian (Serm. de cœna Domini, at the beginning), looks to this passage and says: “But the pious teacher willed to show it was impossible for his soul to be detained by hell.” Epiphanius and also Augustine, without a doubt, read the verse in this way. Next, it is proven from the following words, for Peter proves what he had said from Psalm 15 (16): “You will not leave my soul in hell, nor will you allow your holy one to see corruption.” The ninth passage is Philippians 2:10, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven, on the earth and in hell.” St. Augustine uses this passage (de Gen. lib. 12, c. 33) although it is not improbable that “in hell,” refers to demons. Similar to this is that passage in Apocalypse 5: “Who is worthy to open the book and break its seven seals? And no one was found in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth.” By those who are in heaven angels are understood, by those who are on the earth, just men, by those who are under the earth, none can be understood except the souls of purgatory, for this is not attributed to the damned. And the fathers who had been in limbo had already been liberated. Our own use this passage, but it does not seem to carry much weight; for it is probable that for those who are under the earth the fathers who were in limbo could be understood, for even if when John wrote this the fathers had gone out from limbo, still they had not gone out at the time of which he is speaking. He speaks about a time which preceded the death of Christ, therefore he adds: “The Lion from the tribe of Juda, the root of David, has prevailed to open the book, etc.” For Christ, by his death, opened the mysteries of the book which had been closed even to that day. Likewise, that which is asserted in the same chapter, where creatures who are in heaven, and on the earth and who are under the earth are said to have give praise to God, does not convince, for here, by creatures inanimate things could be understood such as fire, and hail, etc., which in Psalm 148 are invited to praise God, especially since John adds even those which are in the sea.

CHAPTER IX: Purgatory is Asserted in the Testimonies of Councils

THE  second argument is taken from Councils and the custom of the Church. In the first place, what the African Church thought is clear from the third Council of Carthage, c. 29: “And the sacraments of the altar are not celebrated except by men that fast, but if the commendation of some dead men is to be made in the afternoon, let it be done with prayers only.” You can see similar things in the fourth Council of Carthage, c. 79. The Spanish Church thought the same thing, as is clear from the first Council of Braga, cap. 34, where it commands that prayers should not be offered for those that committed suicide. In chapter 39 it is commanded that the offerings made should be divided among the clerics so that they might pray for the dead. The French Church thought the same, as is clear from the Council of Cabilonense (Chalon-sur-Saôn), in de consecr. dist. 1, Canon Visum est: “Besides, it has been seen that in all solemn rites of Masses in church the Lord is beseeched for the spirits of the dead in a fitting place.” See also the second Council of Arles, cap. 14. The German Church thought the same thing, as is clear from the Council of Worms, c. 10, where it is defined that prayer and sacrifice must be offered even for those that are hanged. The Italian Church thought the same, as is clear from the sixth Council under Symmachus, where it is said to be a sacrilege to cheat the souls of the dead of prayers. The Greek Church thought the same, as it is clear from the Council of the Greeks gathered under the Bishop Martin of Bracarens (can. 69). Nay more, some Greeks seem even to have wanted to help the souls of the dead too much, for in the 3 rd Council of Constantinople, can. 83, those who tried to force the Holy Eucharist into the mouths of those who had died without holy communion are rebuked. Next, we add the general Councils of the whole Church: Lateran III under Pope Innocent (c. 66), Florence, in its last session, in the decree on Purgatory, and the Council of Trent in its 25th session, in the beginning, and all the liturgies, that of James, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, etc. For in all prayer is made for the dead. Peter Martyr responds with three arguments, in the place we already cited. 1) He says: “It is usually objected to us that the Church has always prayed for the dead, and I do not deny this. Yet, I declare that this deed has authority neither from the word of God, nor from an example which is taken from the sacred letters. Men are easily moved by an impulse of a certain natural charity, and love for the dead, to wish them well, and they break out into some prayers for them. But this very forceful affection appears to be opposed to faith and just piety.” With these words Peter Martyr argues against the whole Church, that it prays for the dead without the testimony of Scripture, and that it does this from a very forceful affection toward the dead, which is opposed to faith and piety. a) St. Augustine suffices for the first part of the accusation in his book De Cura pro Mortuis, c. 1, where he says: “You add that one cannot be unacquainted with the fact that the universal Church customarily prays for the dead” And below, approving this opinion of St. Paulinus, to whom he writes: “In the books of the Maccabees, we read that a sacrifice was offered for the dead, but even if no such thing were read at all in the Old Testament Scriptures, the authority of the universal Church, which is well known for this custom, is no small thing; where during the prayers of the priest which are poured forth to God at his altar, the commendation of the dead also has its place.” b) We can easily respond to the second part of the accusation. What arises from natural affection in prayers for the dearly departed, even if someone thought they did not benefit them at all, can happen in private prayers as well as those which are recited spontaneously, but how could that happen in the solemn prayers of the Church which are read from a book, and have been composed with mature judgment and approved by a Council of Bishops? c) St. Paul satisfies the third part when he says: “The Church is the pillar and firmament of truth.” (1 Timothy 3). Also St. Augustine, who says in epistle 118, that to dispute against that which the universal Church does is the most insolent insanity. Next, reason itself, for if the universal Church can be opposed to true faith and just piety, as Peter Martyr says, therefore the whole Church can fall to ruin, against the explicit prophecy of Christ in Matthew 16:18: “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Which is more believable, that the universal Church could fall to ruin and Christ and Paul lied, or, Peter Martyr labors in the most insolent insanity? I leave that to the judgment of any sane man. 2) The second answer of Peter Martyr is that the Church does not pray for the dead so that it might free them from Purgatory, but so as to preserve for itself a witness of their memory, and to also preserve as richly as it can. “And the Church may have made prayers for the dead for other reasons besides purgatory. For they did not want the name of the dead and their memory to perish so easily.” But St. Augustine treats this question in De Cura pro Mortuis, ch. 1, whether the prayers of the Church benefit the souls of the dead, and he says they benefit those who were not very wicked in this life, and who merited so as to benefit themselves; but not those that were very wicked and hence merited nothing such as this. Hence, the imagination of Peter Martyr is answered. 3) The third response is that the Church merely exercised its office toward the dead, as if they were still living, and therefore it asked for them that which it thought that they already attained, in the way that Christ prayed for the raising of Lazarus, even though he knew that he already received what he asked for. St. Ambrose, in his prayer on the death of Theodosius congratulates him because he already reigned with Christ, and still at that very instant he prays for him that God would concede to him the rest he desired. Epiphanius (haeresi 75), says they pray even for the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs. I respond: If that were so the Church would pray for all equally, even for Martyrs; but it does not do this. As Augustine says (Tract. in Joan. 84), “Therefore, we do not commemorate martyrs at the altar, as we do other dead who rest in peace, so as to pray for them, but rather so that they would pray for us.” Nor does it appear to fit in any way that someone asks for what he already has; when Christ prayed for Lazarus, he had not yet received what he asked, as Lazarus had still not risen. It is one thing to ask for that which we know we are going to receive, and another to ask for that which we have already received. Furthermore, Ambrose hoped that Theodosius was already in heaven, and therefore rejoiced for him, and at the same time, because he did not know for certain whether this was so, he prayed for him. Epiphanius in truth does not say anywhere that in the Church the saints are prayed for, but he does say that the commemoration of all the faithful departed is made in the Church, both of sinners and of the just, and he adds: “of sinners,” that we might implore mercy for them from God and, “of the just”, so that we might distinguish them from Christ. But we distinguish the saints from Christ not, as Peter Martyr says, because we pray for the saints, and not for Christ, but because we offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving for the saints; whereas we do not offer it for Christ, but rather to Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which can be understood from the Greek liturgy about which Epiphanius speaks, and which is extent in volume 5 of Chrysostom. There the commemoration is made of all the saints, and it is said: “We offer to you, O Lord, the sacrifice for the Patriarchs, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and especially the most blessed Theotokos.” But that this sacrifice is not offered for their sins, but for their glory, is clear, for the liturgy immediately adds: “And remember all the faithful departed who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, and let them rest where the light of your countenance is seen.” The same thing can be understood from Augustine (tract. 84 in Ioan.), and from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 5, Mystagogica), and from our liturgy, which is altogether the same sort of thing which Cyril, Epiphanius and Augustine describe.

CHAPTER X: Purgatory is Asserted in the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers

THE first of the Fathers, Clement (lib. 8 const. c. 48), describes a long oration customarily said for the dead. Dionysius (de Ecclesiast. Hierarch, c. 7, par. 3) said, “Then the venerable Bishop approaching carries out the sacred prayer for the dead; that prayer asks for divine mercy so that he might forgive all the sins committed by the dead man through human frailty, and place him in the light, and the land of the living.” Athanasius, or whoever is the author of q. 34 ad Antiochum, asks whether souls perceive an advantage from the prayers of the living? He answers that they altogether do. Basil instituted prayer for the dead in his Liturgy. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratione in Caesarium) says: “We commend to the same God our souls and theirs, who like those more prepared on the road arrive at their lodging earlier.” In the same oration he prays for the soul of the Emperor. St. Ephraim says in his Testamentum: “Continually remember me in your prayers, for truly I lived my life in vanity and iniquity.” Cyril, in Catechesis 5, Mystagogica, says: “Next, we pray for all those who have lived among us, believing this to be of great assistance to those souls for whom the supplication of this holy and awesome sacrifice is offered.” Eusebius (lib. 4 de vita Constantini), says that Constantine wanted to be buried in a famous Church so that he could be made a partaker of many prayers. Epiphanius, at the end of his work against heresies, numbers prayer for the dead among the dogmas of the Church, and in haeresi 75 he says Aërius was a heretic because he denied this. Chrysostom (hom. 41 on 1 Corinthians) says: “The dead are assisted not with tears but prayers, supplications and almsgiving... Let us not tire of bringing aid to the dead, offering prayers for them.” Again in homily 69 he says: “The commemoration of the dead that is made in the awesome mysteries was not rashly ratified by the Apostles, for they knew that from it they obtain much fruit and profit.” He says the same thing in other places (hom. 32 in Matth., and 84 in John, hom. 3 in epist. ad Philipp., and 21 in Acts of the Apostles). Theodoret writes that Theodosius the younger laid prostrate before the relics of St. John Chrysostom and prayed for the souls of his parents Arcadius and Eudoxia that had recently died (lib. 5 hist. c. 26). Theophylactus (in cap. 12 Luc.) said: “I say this on account of the sacrifices and distributions which are made for the dead, which bring no small benefit, even to those who died in grave crimes.” St. John Damascene, in his book on those that had died in faith, proves this truth with many testimonies of Dionysius, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others. See also Palladius in historia Lausiaca, cap. 41. Now let us come to the Latins. Tertullian in de Corona, numbers suffrage for the dead among the Apostolic traditions, and in his book de Monogamia he says: “Let her pray for his [the dead spouse’s] soul, and beg for him refreshment in the meanwhile, and to be a partaker in the first resurrection, and offer sacrifices on the anniversaries of his death, for unless she will do these things, truly she repudiates him, so far as it lies in her.” He says the same thing in his book de exhortatione castitatis. St. Cyprian (lib. 1 epist. 9), says: “Our predecessor Bishops decreed that no brother at the point of death shall name a cleric as a trustee for his last will and testament, but if anyone were to do this then no offering will be made for him, nor will the sacrifice be celebrated on the anniversary of his death... And therefore Victor, since against the form recently given by the priests in a Council, he has dared to constitute Geminius Faustinus, a priest, as his trustee, is not one for whose eternal rest you will make an offering, or any prayer.” St. Ambrose (l. 2 ep. 8 ad Faustinum de obitu sororis): “Therefore, I reckon that her soul is not so much to be lamented as to be escorted with prayers, nor to be mourned with your tears, but rather to be commended to God with sacrifices.” See also the orations on the death of Theodosius, on the death of Valentinian and on the death of Satyrus, in all of which he prays to God for the souls of the aforesaid, and promises that he will offer sacrifices for them. St. Jerome, in an epistle to Pammachius on the death of his wife Paulina, says: “Other husbands scatter violets, roses, lilies and purple flowers over the tombs of their wives; our Pammachius waters her holy ashes and venerable bones with the sweet balsam of almsgiving. With these spices and perfumes he keeps her ashes at rest, knowing that it is written: As water extinguishes fire, so also almsgiving sin.” St. Paulinus of Nola, in an epistle to the same Pammachius, praises him because he had satisfied for both the body and soul of his deceased wife, her body by tears, her soul by almsgiving. The same saint says in epistle 5 to a Bishop named Delphinus, commending to him the soul of his brother: “See to it that by your prayers he might receive pardon, and from the least finger of your holiness the trickling drops of eternal rest might sprinkle his soul.” And, in the following epistle, which is the first to Amandus, he says similar things, commending the same soul to the Bishop Amandus. St. Augustine says in his book de cura pro mortuis, ch. 2: “In the books of the Maccabees, we read that a sacrifice was offered for the dead, but even if no such thing were read at all in the Old Testament Scriptures, the authority of the universal Church, which is well known for this custom, is no small thing; where in the prayers of the priest which are poured forth to God at his altar, the commendation of the dead also has its place.” And in ch. 4: “So, when the mind recollects where the body of a very dear friend lies buried, and thereupon there occurs to the thoughts a place rendered venerable by the name of a martyr, to that same martyr it commends the soul in affection of heartfelt recollection and prayer. And when this affection is shown to the departed by faithful men who were most dear to them, there is no doubt that it profits them… Supplications for the spirits of the dead are not to be omitted: which supplications, that they should be made for all that die in Christian and Catholic communion, even without mentioning of their names, under a general commemoration, the Church has received, so that they who have not parents or sons or whatever kindred or friends to pray for them, may have the same afforded unto them by the one pious mother which is common to all.” (You can see the same thing in the following: Enchirid. c. 110, lib. 9; Confessiones, c. 13; Sermon de verbis Apostoli, 17 and 34; de Civitate Dei, lib. 21, ch. 24; in Joann. tract. 84, q. 2; ad Dulcitium, and at length, de haeresibus, c. 53, where he makes Aërius a heretic because he denied that sacrifices must be offered for the dead). St. Gregory the Great (Dial., lib. 4, cap. 55) says: “The sacred offering of the salutary host customarily assists souls even after death, so that sometimes the souls of the dead themselves seem to demand this.” And in ch. 50 he says: “It benefits the dead who are not weighed down by serious sins if they are buried in the Church, because their neighbors, as often as they gather in the same sacred places, see their sepulchers, remember them, and pour forth prayers to the Lord for them.” Isidore (lib. 1 de officiis divinis, c. 18) says: “Unless the Catholic Church believed that sins are remitted to the faithful departed, she would not give alms or offer Mass to God for their spirits.” Victor (de perseq. Wandal., lib. 2) says: “Who of us that are dying will be buried with the solemn prayers?” Lastly, St. Bernard (serm. 66 in Cantica,), and Peter of Cluny (in lib. contra Petrobrusianos) have written against this error directly. St. Malachi as quoted by Bernard says: “No small hope is laid up for me for that day, in which such benefits are bestowed upon the dead by the living.” But it will be worthwhile to listen to what Calvin and Peter Martyr should say in response. Peter Martyr answers that nearly all the fathers erred in some matter, and he enumerates their errors. But they erred in private opinions which others refuted; they cannot all agree at the same time in one error, otherwise the universal Church would err and perish. But Calvin says four things in The Institutes, book 3, ch. 5 §10. 1) Firstly he says: “1300 years ago the custom was received of offering prayers for the dead.” And after interposing some remarks he adds: “But I declare they were all carried off into error.” This confession is certainly enough to condemn Calvin, for how is it believable that the Church persisted in such a crass error for 1300 years and there was not one of the ancients who resisted it, with the exception of Aërius, whom both we and the Calvinists hold for a heretic? 2) Secondly, he says the ancients prayed for the dead not in order to help them, but to show pious affection for them and to console themselves. But this is a lie since clearly the cited fathers say it helps souls, and they distinguish the solace of the living from the help conferred upon the dead, especially St. Augustine in Enchiridion, c. 110 and throughout his book de Cura pro Mortuis. 3) Thirdly, he says the common Christian people began to pray for the dead out of imitation of the gentiles, and moreover, the Fathers accommodated themselves to the opinion of the flock, as is clear from Augustine, in his book de Cura pro mortuis, where he especially argues on this matter. In regard to this, Calvin says, “He disputes so doubtfully, hesitatingly and tepidly, that by his chill he could extinguish the zeal of those defending Purgatory. He prayed what he did for his mother because he did not examine the womanish wish of his mother by the Scriptures, and wanted to approve of all this from a certain private emotion.” But this is also a lie, for in the first place there was never anyone more diligent than the Fathers in forbidding pagan rites, especially when many pagans were converting. Certainly Tertullian and Cyprian were most severe castigators of every pagan superstition, so much so that Tertullian bitterly rebuked Christian soldiers who wore a crown in the custom of heathen soldiers, yet even they urged prayer for the dead. Besides, the Fathers not only do not rebuke this custom, but even decide in their Councils that it must be done, and urge it to be done, and lead the way by their own example, and finally many of them say this is Apostolic tradition, and number Aërius among the heretics for teaching the contrary. What more could they say? Furthermore, St. Augustine, in his book de Cura pro Mortuis, ch. 4, precisely says that there is no doubt that souls are assisted, and in the whole book there is not one syllable which would insinuate the slightest doubt, of which Calvin speaks. Moreover, that he calls St. Monica’s wish “old womanish”, and blames St. Augustine for taking care to fulfill it, is no wonder, since Calvin customarily rebukes and ridicules the saints. 4) Fourthly, he says that the Fathers never asserted anything precisely on purgatory, so they held it for an uncertain matter. But this is also an intolerable impudence, or else ignorance. In the first place, even if they had never used the word Purgatory, nevertheless, what the Fathers thought about it could be sufficiently understood from the fact that they so clearly taught that the souls of certain faithful need rest and are helped by the prayers of the living. Next, there are the clearest passages in the Fathers where they assert purgatory, a few of which I will cite here. Gregory of Nyssa, in his oration for the dead, says: “Either having been purged in the present life by prayers and the study of wisdom, or after death having made expiation in the furnace of the purging fire, he willed to return to original happiness ... After going out from the body he will not be able to be made a partaker of divinity unless the purgatorial fire takes away the stains intermixed with his soul. ... While others wipe away their stains by a material purgatorial fire after this life.” Ambrose, on the words of Psalm 36, “Sinners unsheathed their sword,” says: “Even if the Lord will save his servants, we will be saved by faith, yet so saved as if by fire. Even if we are not burned up, still we are burned. Yet how some remain in the fire, while others pass through, let another passage in divine Scripture teach us, for truly the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, but the Hebrew people passed through; Moses crossed, but Pharaoh was cast down because weighty sins drowned him, in the way the sacrilegious will be thrown headlong into the lake of burning fire, etc.” See also the same thing in serm. 20 on Psalm 118. St. Augustine (lib. 21 de Civitate Dei, cap. 16) speaking about the death of baptized infants: “Not only do they not undergo eternal punishment, but neither do they suffer any purgatorial torments after death.” And in ch. 24, speaking about adult faithful who died while they still had light sins, he says: “It is certain that such men, having been purged before the day of judgment by the temporal punishments which their spirits suffer, will not be handed over to torments of eternal fire.” He says the same thing in hom. 16 from the book of 50 homilies: “Those who lived in a manner worthy of temporal punishments will pass through a certain purgatorial fire, about which the Apostle speaks when he says they will be saved, yet as if by fire.” And in book 2 de Genes. against the Manicheans, chap. 20, he says: “He who perhaps did not cultivate his field, and permitted it to be oppressed with thorns, has in this life the curse of his land in all his works, and after this life he will have either the fire of purgation, or eternal punishment.” Lastly in Psalm 37, he says: “Because it is said he will be saved, that fire will be avoided, so plainly although he will be saved by fire, still that fire will be graver than any fire a man can suffer in this life.” (see above, ch. 6). This is why when Augustine says (lib. 21 de Civitate Dei, cap. 26, Enchirid. Cap. 69) there can be hesitation and questioning as to whether after this life souls are tortured in purgatorial fire, he does not doubt the fact of the punishment of souls, but about the mode and quality; for in the former passage he only doubts whether the purgatorial fire is the same in substance with the fire of hell, of which Matthew 25 says: “Go into the eternal fire.” And in the latter he doubts whether after this life souls will burn with that fire of sorrow over the loss of temporal things, with which they usually burn here, when they are very much compelled to lack delightful things. St. Jerome, at the end of his commentary on Isaiah, says: “As we believe in the eternal torments of the devil and of all the unbelievers and impious who have said in their heart ‘there is no god’, so we believe that for sinful and impious Christians, whose works must be proved in the fire and also purged, the sentence of the judge will be moderated and mixed with clemency.” St. Gregory says in the Dialogue (l. 4 c. 39) “It must be believed that the purgatorial fire is for certain light sins before judgment.” And on the third penitential Psalm he says: “I know that after the departure from this life some men will be purged by purgatorial flames, while others will undergo the judgment of eternal damnation.” Origen (homil. 6 in Exodum) says: “He who is saved is saved by fire, so that if perhaps one were to have mixed in some species of lead, the fire shall cook it out and purify it so that all may be made pure gold.” Gregory Nazianzen, in an oration on the Theophany (39), says: “Let these men then if they will, follow our way, which is Christ's way; but if they will not, let them go their own. Perhaps in it they will be baptized with Fire, in that last Baptism which is not only more painful but also longer, which devours wood like grass, and consumes the stubble of every evil.” Basil the Great (in Isaiah, ch. 9) “If therefore we have disclosed our sins by confession, we have dried up the grass as it was growing, clearly suitable to be consumed and devoured by the purgatorial fire... It does not altogether threaten destruction and extermination, but beckons to purgation, according to the teaching of the Apostle, ‘he will be saved as if by fire’.” Eusebius Emissenus (hom. 3 de Epiphania) says: “This infernal punishment will remain for those who, having let go of and not kept their Baptism, will perish forever; but these who lived in a manner worthy of temporal punishments, will pass through the fiery river, through the fearsome ford with fireballs.” Theodoret in his commentary of the Greek of 1 Corinthians 3:15, says: “We believe in this very purgatorial fire, in which the souls of the dead are proven and cleansed, just as gold in a casting furnace.” Oecumenius says on the same passage: “He will be saved but not before suffering, as is proper for him who passes through fire, and atones for certain lighter sins.” Cyprian in lib. 4, epist. 2 says: “It is one thing for sins to be cleansed by a long period of suffering, and emended by a long fire, and another for all sins to be cleansed by martyrdom.” (see above, p. 23) Jerome, in book 1 against the Pelagians, says: “But if Origen says that all rational creatures are not to be destroyed, and attributes penance to the devil, what for us who say the devil and his followers, and all the impious and transgressors perish perpetually, and Christians, if they have been forestalled by sin, are going to be saved after penalties? Paulinus (epist. 1 ad Amandum), says: “On account of this we eagerly ask that, as a brother of prayer you might unite your labors to ours, that the merciful God would grant rest to his soul by the drops of his mercy through your prayers, etc.” Boethius (lib. 4 Prosa 4), “Do you bequeath no prayers for souls after the death of the body? And indeed, I think some suffer bitter punitive punishments, others purgatorial clemency.” St. Isidore (lib. 1 de divinis officiis, c. 18), “For when the Lord says, ‘Whoever sins against the Holy Spirit, it will not be remitted to him either in this life or in the next,’ he shows that there are certain sins which will be forgiven, and will be cleansed in a certain purgatorial fire.” St. Bede, commenting on Psalm 37, says: “Certain men commit some graver and lighter venial sins, and therefore it is necessary that such men as these be rebuked in wrath, that is, be placed in the purgatorial fire in the meantime before the day of judgment, so that the things which are unclean in them might be burned by it, and so at length they will be suited to be among those to be crowned at God’s right hand.” In the same place he says that this fire is graver than the punishments of thieves, of martyrs, etc. St. Peter Damien (in serm. 2 de S. Andræa), “Do not flatter yourself if a lighter penance is assigned for a more serious sin due to mildness or dissimulation, since whatever you do not do here must be completed in the purgatorial fires, because the Most High seeks fruits worthy of repentance.” St. Anselm on 1 Corinthians 3:15 says: “For the purgatorial fire must be believed to be before the resurrection of bodies for certain lesser faults.” St. Bernard (serm. de obitu Humberti), says: “Time flies irrevocably, brethren, and while you think you are avoiding this minimal punishment, you incur a fuller one, for know this, that after this life whatever was neglected here will be repaid a hundred-fold in purgatory, even to the last farthing. I know how hard it is for a man of dissolute life to take up discipline, for a talkative man to endure silence, for a man accustomed to wandering to remain in one place, but it will be harder and much harder to bear the discomforts to come.” Lactantius (lib. 7 cap. 21), said: “Whose sins are greater by weight or number, will be bound in the fire and burned, etc.” Hilary on Psalm 118, on the words: My soul desired and longed for the judgments of thy justice, says: “We will face that indefatigable fire, in which those grave punishments will be suffered by the soul to be cleansed of its sins.

CHAPTER XI: The Same is Asserted from Reason

THE fourth argument is taken from reason. 1) The first reason: Certain sins are venial, and only worthy of temporal punishment. But it can happen that when a man dies with only these sorts of sins, it is necessary for them to be purged in the next life. Moreover, that certain sins are venial is proven from James 1, “Each and everyone is held by his concupiscence, when concupiscence begins it prepares sin, when the sin has been consummated, it begets death.” Here he describes venial sin from the imperfection of the act. Nor does the distinction of the heretics on imputation have place here, for James explains the process of sin secundum se, and he teaches after the temptation of concupiscence, which can be present without being carried out, that sin immediately follows if someone is not careful; for from concupiscence delectation arises in the lower part, which is some sin, but still not deadly, if deliberate consent of the mind is not present, therefore he adds: “But if the sin will have been consummated,” namely, adding clear consent, “it begets death.” Besides, 1 Corinthians 3:15 says: “He that builds with wood, grass and straw will be saved as if by fire.” Here venial sin is described from the levity of matter, and seeing that we understand the words of the Apostle to be either on this life or on the next, either on doctrine or on all works, he necessary is compelled to explain by wood, grass and straw, venial sins, seeing that one who so has them, is saved, as if by fire. St. Augustine, lib. 83, quaest. 26, says: “Some are sins of weakness, some of inexperience, some of malice; weakness is contrary to strength; inexperience to wisdom; malice to goodness; thus, whoever knows what is strong, the wisdom of God, can judge what are venial sins, and whoever knows what is the goodness of God, can judge that a certain penalty is due for some sins, both here and in the coming age, which has been treated enough, it can be judged with probability who will not be compelled to fruitful and lamentable penance, although they professed sins and for whom there is altogether no hope of salvation, except they will offer sacrifice to God, with a contrite spirit by penance.” Lastly, from reason: for it is not understandable how an idle word by its nature would be worthy of God’s perpetual hatred and eternal flames, for this man would be held for the stupidest man in the world, who, on account of the lightest offense of a friend, that was not done in a bad spirit, would refuse to be his friend any longer, nay more, to even pursue him unto death, who had just a while earlier been his friend. Therefore, it remains that there are certain venial sins that are worthy of merely temporal punishment. Moreover, the fact that some men die with venial sins, and hence they need temporal purgation in another life is proven in this way. Someone can, while he dies, have a will to remain in venial sin, therefore such a sin cannot be blotted out in death. Furthermore, “the just man falls seven times a day” (Proverbs 24:16), and many die immediately, so how credible is it that some men do not die with venial sin? This is the first reason. 2) The second reason: When sinners are reconciled to God, the whole temporal punishment is not always forgiven, but it can happen and often does, that in someone’s whole life he will not make satisfaction fully for those temporal punishments: therefore, necessarily he ought to be put in Purgatory. The major proposition is briefly proven since it is expressly shown in other places: 2 Kings 12:13, when David said: “I have sinned against the Lord,” and the prophet said, “The Lord has also taken away your sin, you will not die. Just the same, because you have caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme on account of this word, the son that was born to you will die.” Numbers 12:10, when Miriam murmured against the Lord, she was punished with the plague of leprosy, by when Moses prayed for her, her sin was forgiven and still God wanted to punish her so that she would suffer punishment for one week. Calvin responds to these and similar things (Institutes lib. 3 cap. 4 § 31), that there are two types of scourges of God: certain ones are properly for punishments and inflicted by God as a judge, in vengeance for sins committed to satisfy justice; and certain ones that are castigations that are inflicted by God, as father, not in vengeance for sins committed but as a remedy for the future; without a doubt as a man is admonished by a whip, lest he would again sin so easily. Calvin says the first kind pertains to enemies alone, the second only to friends, and hence, when these punishments are suffered not for justice, it is not necessary that their debt would remain after death, when there is no danger of falling back into sin. But Calvin labors in vain. Even if one affirmed the whip of the just is really paternal castigations and remedies against future sins, still it must be acknowledged as a true punishment, and satisfaction is due for a past fault from justice. For, in 2 Kings 12:14, the reason why David is punished is clearly expressed, and it is not said: Do not sin again, but “Because you have caused the enemies of God to blaspheme.” Next, death is the true punishment for original sin, and just men suffer the punishment not to abstain from sin but to satisfy divine justice, which is clear because it is not inflicted by God after sin, like paternal castigations, rather it is established in law before our sin just like a punishment for sin, and the same perseveres after sin and even the remission of sin, which we see in Genesis 2:17, “On whatever day you shall eat, you will die,” and Romans 5:12, “Through one man sin entered into this word, and through sin death, etc., in which all have sinned.” And Romans 6:23, “The wages of sin are death.” And Calvin himself in the Institutes (lib. 2, c. 1 §8) clearly confesses that death is a true punishment for sin. Lastly, how can death be a paternal scourging to establish fear of sin? For one that dies can no longer be corrected. Apart from this common death, which is the penalty of original sin, we have other examples in the Scripture of those who were punished with a violent death although they were forgiven for sin. Nevertheless, there are many examples showing that death cannot be a paternal castigation in remedy of a future sin. Exodus 32:14, where God spared the people at Moses’ prayer, and still Moses ordered many thousands of the people to be killed in vengeance for sin without any crime; likewise in Numbers 14:45 when the people murmured and God was pleased by Moses, still a great many perished in the desert. Moreover, it is unbelievable that from so many thousands there was not even one that did penance for the crime. 3 Kings 13:24, the Prophet of the Lord, because he disobeyed the voice of the Lord, was snuffed out by a lion, according to what had been foretold to him by another prophet, and still that we should understand that his sin was remitted, and that he died in a holy death, the lion touched neither his body nor the beast of burden that carried him, but instead guarded them both until men came to bury him. Lastly, 1 Corinthians 11:30 where it says: “There are many fools among you, and many sleep.” There, Ambrose and others explain that the Apostle indicates that in the primitive Church there were many that took communion unworthily and were punished by God with death, still that this sin was first remitted is clear from the very thing the Apostle adds in verse 32: “We are rebuked by the Lord lest we might be condemned with the world.” Let two famous testimonies of St. Augustine be added to this. The first is in Joann. tract. 124: “A man is compelled to endure [trial] even after his sins have been forgiven, although the first sin was the reason why he came into the first misery. The penalty is more protracted than the fault, so that the fault would not be considered small were the penalty to end with itself. This is also why it is, either for the demonstration of our debt of misery, or for the amendment of our passing life, or for the exercise of the necessary patience, that man is kept through time in the penalty, even when he is no longer held by his sin as liable to everlasting damnation.” The second is his commentary on Psalm 50 (51), where he says: “You have loved truth”, this is, the unpunished sins of those whom you forgive you have not yet dismissed, so you have preferred mercy to also save the truth, you forgave the one confessing, you forgave, but he underwent punishment, so that mercy and truth would be preserved.” The assumption of this argument is proved because many who committed a very great number of sins are converted at the point of death when they cannot do penance. This is why certainly it follows that after this life they must make satisfaction. They answer that in death all things are blotted out. On the other hand: Death is a penalty for original sin, and therefore common to all, even infants, so other punishments ought to be found for actual sins. Besides, God would act unjustly if it did not seem that he had providence for our affairs, if with one and the same penalty, i.e. natural death, he were to punish great sins as well as small, many and few. 3) The third reason is taken from the common opinion of all nations, i.e. the Jews, Mahometans, pagans, and among them both philosophers and poets confess it. From the Jews, it is clear from 2 Maccabees, 12:42, for, at least the trust which is placed in Livy must be placed in that book. Besides, Josephus, the son of Gorion, in his book On the Jewish War, c. 19, he indicates that the Jews customarily prayed for the dead, but not for those who killed themselves. From the Mahometans, it is clear from the Qur’an, where they precisely confess a purgatory. From the pagans it is clear from Plato in the Gorgias, and Phaedo from Cicero in Scipio’s dream, and Virgil (Aeneid lib. 6): For this, the chastisement of evils past Is suffered here, and full requital paid. 7 And from Claudianus, book 2, in Ruffinum near the end: For thrice a thousand years he had forced these through countless shapes, he sends them back purged by Lethæus’ stream. 8 Nor would someone say this argument is especially erroneous and fabulous, seeing that the Pagans and Mahometans think it; those matters upon which nearly all nations agree can hardly otherwise come about except from the natural light common to all men. Those things which are devised and created by men are manifold and different for the difference of every nation. So, just as God exists, on which point all nations agree, we say it is most true, but we do not, nevertheless, receive different gods in particular, many of which each nation makes for itself, and just as after this life there are punishments and rewards, on which all agree, we receive as true but do not receive the different fables in which they explain this (that there are punishments and rewards after this life, the knowledge of divine providence teaches all men, but the fables they make by themselves), so also the confession of purgatory, in which nearly all nations agree, we must say is a confession of the light of reason; for knowledge of the same providence taught Purgatory that also taught hell and paradise, at least in a general and somewhat confused manner, because without a doubt we see punishments and rewards so distributed in this life that the wicked have many goods and the good many evils, as many as you like, thence we judge the divine providence distributed justice in another life, as well as the true distribution of rewards and penalties. Again we see from these those who depart from this life that some are very good, others very evil, and others somewhat good and somewhat bad; this is why we judge by the natural light that there is, after this life, eternal punishments for the very wicked, eternal rewards for the very good and temporary punishments and by these the passage to the rewards for those who are somewhat evil or good. Plato and others followed this reasoning, who confessed purgatory provided only with the light of natural reason. 4) The fourth reason is taken from apparitions of souls that declared they were in purgatory, and also implored assistance from the living; seeing that very serious men relate these apparitions, we do not unduly consider them true, although Luther and the Centuriators mock them. St. Gregory (Dialog. lib, 4, cap. 40) writes about the soul of Paschasius, who appeared in the baths of Puteoli to St. the Bishop St. Germane, and he was freed by the latter’s prayers. And ch. 55, he writes another similar example. Besides, in regard to a certain monk for whom Gregory himself offered 30 Masses that he had commanded said, he later learned that he was liberated by that apparition. Gregory of Turin, in his book de gloria confess., ch. 5, writes that a certain holy Virgin by the name of Vitalina that had just died showed herself to St. Martin and that she abided in purgatory on account of a certain light sin, and a little later she was freed by the prayers of the same St. Martin. St. Peter Damian, in an epistle to Desiderius, writes that Blessed Severinus, the Bishop of Cologne, appeared to a certain priest of the same Church, and showed to him that he was still severely tormented in purgatory because he did not say the canonical hours at distinct times, but piled up all the hours together in the morning, so that he could be more freely employed in Imperial business for the whole day. St. Bede (lib. 3 hist. Anglorum, ch. 19) writes about St. Fursæus who rose from the dead to tell many things which he saw in regard to the punishments of purgatory, and in book 5, ch. 13, he relates a marvelous vision of a certain Diethelm, who similarly was dead and later came back to life by a miracle and related about hell, purgatory and paradise, and his life following, as well as the spiritual fruit which is worked in many other places, and Bede witnesses that this was a true vision. St. Bernard, in the life of St. Malachi, relates that St. Malachi’s dead sister did not appear to him once, although she still abided in purgatorial punishments, and at length, after frequent offering of the Eucharist to God, she was liberated; and in book 1 of the life of St. Bernard (ch. 10) William Abbas, who wrote the life of Bernard, relates that while he was still living a monk that had died appeared to Bernard, laboring in purgatory and a little later he was freed by the prayers and sacrifices of the holy man. The author of this life wrote that St. Bernard himself usually related this vision. In the first book of the life of St. Anselm we likewise read that St. Anselm consumed a whole year with daily sacrifices, and at length a dead friend appeared to him, for whom he had prayed so long, and learned that he was liberated from Purgatory. Many similar things can be read with Vincentium, lib. 23, Speculi historialis, in the revelations of St. Bridgett and in the life of the extraordinary St. Christina; what we have advanced here, however, is more authentic. The Centuriators respond that these are fables. But it is not believable that so many holy men would have wanted to deceive, nor even to have been deceived themselves, seeing that they had the spirit of discretion and were friends of God. Lastly, it stands to reason that because the opinion which abolishes purgatory is not only false, but even pernicious; accordingly, it makes men sluggish in avoiding sins and doing good works. For one that thinks there is no purgatory, but that all sins are abolished by death for those who die with faith, will easily say to himself: To what end do I labor in fasting, prayers, continence, almsgiving? Why do I cheat my heart of delights and pleasures? Seeing that in death I will have a few or many sins they will all be blotted out. But someone that thinks that apart from hell, the most bitter fire of Purgatory remains and whatever was not blotted out here by due works of penance are going to be washed away there, certainly he will go out more diligent and cautious.

CHAPTER XII: Arguments from the Scriptures are Answered

IT remains to answer the arguments of our adversaries, which are taken partly from partly from Scripture, the partly from the Fathers and from natural reason. 1) The first objection is from Psalm 126 (127):4, “When he gave a dream to his beloved, behold the inheritance of the Lord”; therefore, there is no Purgatory between the death of the faithful and the attainment of the heavenly inheritance. I respond: The Psalm treats on the general resurrection, as St. Augustine rightly explains, and this is the sense of the words: When he gave a dream to his beloved, that is, when all the elect sleep by corporal death, behold the Lord’s inheritance, i.e. then the inheritance of Christ, will immediately appear to those rising in glory with all his elect. That inheritance is also the wages of the same Christ, who acquired us by his passion and death. Therefore, the inheritance and the wages of the son are the same thing, as well as the fruit of the womb; for sons of God by adoption are the Lord’s inheritance and the same sons who are called the fruit of the womb, are the wages of the same Lord. Add, that in the Hebrew text which our adversaries prefer to the Latin, it does not say, “when he gave,” but “he will so give,” יתּן בו] chen itthen]. Hence, the whole of the argument comes to ruin, for when the inheritance of the Lord will come is what is explained. 2) The second objection is from Ecclesiast. 9:10, “Whatever your hand can do, do it with urgency, because neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge will be in hell, where you are rushing headlong.” For it seems the wise man means with these words that there is no remedy in the next life. Some respond that these are said by Solomon in the person of the impious, who not only remove Purgatory, but even hell and believe in nothing apart from this life. Others teach that Solomon spoke to those who live idly and shamefully, and are on the road to hell: in such a passage it is most true that there is no remedy or solace. St. Jerome touches upon each exposition in his commentary. But St. Gregory (Dialog. lib. 4, c. 39 accommodates all these things suitably enough to those also which are deduced to Purgatory; for only those can be purged and assisted by the prayers of the living, who, while they lived here on earth, merited it by their good works so that they could be assisted in the next life. This is why everyone ought to do whatever good they can in this life, because in the next they will not be helped except for those things which those alive here can merit for their assistance. 3) The third objection is from Ecclesiastes 11:3, “If a tree will fall to the south, or to the north, in whatever place it fell, there it will lie.” Thence, a third place is not given, namely Purgatory, from where one may go out at some time. I respond: Wisdom literally speaks on corporal death, and means to say, so men necessarily are going to die and when they are dead, per se they are never going to rise, just as a tree when it falls, stays there and will rot where it fell. Nevertheless, if we wish to accommodate these things to the state of the soul, the men who pertain to Purgatory fell to the south, i.e. to the state of eternal salvation and in that state will remain saved forever; or certainly it could be said for “the south” heavenly glory, but through the north Gehenna is understood, but not all fall to the south or north. Moreover, this passage impedes no assertion of Purgatory, because it can also be understood that if it would impede the assertion of Purgatory, it would also impede an assertion of that place to which the Fathers descended before Christ came there, whether that place, the bosom of Abraham, or the limbo of the Fathers, remained perpetually in that place. See Jerome in his commentary, and Bernard, sermon 49 ex parvis. 4) The fourth objection is from Ezechiel 18:21-22, “If the impious will do penance for all his sins, which he committed ... I will not remember his iniquities.” But how, Peter Martry says, shall God not remember the iniquity of his friends if he punishes them so severely in purgatory? I respond in two ways. Firstly, to not remember iniquity is nothing other than to not preserve enmity with someone that sinned; for if to remember iniquity were to punish wicked merits, to remember justice would be to reward good merits. But our adversaries do not concede that to reward justice is to remunerate good merits, lest it would seem they are compelled to admit the merits of the just, so they ought also not concede that to remember iniquity is to punish iniquities, for Ezechiel speaks on justice and iniquity in the same way. Secondly, it can be answered that to remember iniquity is indeed to punish, but to punish forever; for when we read the same thing in verse 24: “If the just man turns away from justice, no one will remember his justice.” We are compelled to so explain that justices are said to be handed over to oblivion, not because they would have been paid back with some temporal reward, but they will not free a man from hell, nor will they be remunerated with the eternal reward; for otherwise, the good works of the impious are not cheated of temporal reward, as the Fathers teach (Chrysostom, homil. 67 ad populum Antiochenum; Jerome, in cap. 29 Ezechiel; Augustine, de Civitate Dei, lib. 5, cap. 15; Gregory, Homil. 40 in Evangelia), and it is gathered from the very words of Luke 16:25, “You have received good things in your life.” 5) The fifth objection is from Matthew 25, where we discover only two classes of men: “Come ye blessed,” (v. 34) and: “Depart ye cursed” (v. 41). Likewise, in the last chapter of Mark, verse 16: “He who believes and will be baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned.” Then in John 3:18, “He who believes shall not be judged, he that does not believe, has already been judged.” “Therefore,” Brenz says, “no place remains for purgatory, although there are only two places after this life.” I respond: In the last judgment, which is argued in Mathew 25, there rightly are only two classes because then Purgatory will end, and thereafter only two places remain, Paradise and hell. Moreover, he who believes will be saved and is not judged, i.e. he is not condemned, provided he also adds the other things which are required, for faith of itself justifies and saves, if there is no other impediment. Just as we usually say the tree is born from this seed, or if the heat of the sun does not cease, the humor of the waters, and if some other things are required, but not right away, the one who will be saved by faith will be saved without Purgatory, for many are saved, still thus as if by fire, as we proved above from the words of the Apostle. 6) The sixth objection is from Luke 23:43; Christ tells the thief that converted in the last hour: “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Therefore, Peter Martyr and Bernadine Ochinus say that purgatory does not remain for those who do not do penance in this life. I respond: that very hard death born with a patient spirit, and so admirable a confession at a time when the Apostles themselves denied Christ, could justly be accounted to have made full satisfaction. Add, that the privileges of a few do not make law. 7) The seventh objection is from Romans 8:1, “There is no damnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” I respond: Paul, in that place, does not argue about concupiscence, and means to say: those who are in Christ Jesus, and fortified by his grace do not consent to the motions of their flesh. Therefore, this passage is not opposed to purgatory, rather the heresy of our adversaries, who would have it those movements are also true sins, even when the just man does not consent to them. 8) The eighth objection is from 2 Corinthians 5:1, “We know if our earthly house of this habitation were destroyed that we have a building of God, a house not made by hand, but eternal in heaven.” Consequently, after death pious men pass into heaven without purgatory. I respond: St. Paul only asserts that the heavenly home is open after death, not that it is open before death; but he does not say that all pious men make the passage to heaven immediately after death, but shows the contrary when he says in verse 3: “Nevertheless, that we be found clothed, not naked.” For by these words he means they are clothed by those merits and virtues and hence they did perfect penance in this life, right away they are led into their heavenly home; but others are saved, yet, as if by fire, as he himself says in 1 Corinthians 3:15. 9) The ninth objection is from 2 Corinthians 5:10, “For we must all be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ so that each and every one may receive what is proper to the body, insofar as he has done, whether good or evil.” But if after this life sins are remitted and there was a place for purgation, certainly each and every man would not receive according to what he did in body. I respond: The teaching of St. Paul is most true, for even those that find the place for remission and purgation in the next life receive nothing, except what they did in body; for they merit that they persevered in faith and charity even to death, so that even after death they can be cleansed and assisted. By that reasoning even holy men after death, even if they properly merited nothing, still might beg from the Lord whatever they want, because they merited it in this life by right living, so that even after this life hey are heard by the Lord. You can see the very thing that we teach in Dionysius, in his book de Ecclesiastica hierarchia, last chapter part 3, with St. Augustine (Enchir. c. 110 and de cura pro mortuis, cap. 1), and with Gregory (Dialog. lib. 4, cap. 39). And these things must be understood according to the same mode: “Let him render to each according to his works,” (Romans 2:6), and “Bear each other’s burden” (Galatians 6:5), and “As a man has sown, so shall he reap” (ibid., 8). 10) The tenth objection is from Apocalypse 14:13, “The blessed dead, who died in the Lord, from this time forward the Spirit already says that they should rest from their labors, for their works follow them.” But all the pious die in the Lord; so all the pious after death rest, and none suffer in Purgatory. I respond with St. Anselm, in his commentary on this passage, that “from this time forward” (amodo), does not mean each man from death, but from the last judgment, on which St. John speaks throughout the chapter. Therefore, this will be the sense: The blessed dead, who died in the Lord, from this point forward, i.e. from the end of this judgment, on which we are speaking now, they will rest from their labors forever; or if that is not proof enough for someone, we can respond with Richard of St. Victor and Haymo on this passage, that St. John speaks about perfect men, and especially on the holy martyrs (those he means to console in this passage), who simply die in the Lord and do not bring anything with them to be purified; for anyone who dies with venial sins, or with punishment due for some temporal thing, they do not simply die in the Lord, but partly in the Lord, by reason of charity, which they carry with themselves, and partly not in the Lord, by reason of the sins which, just the same, they bring with them. Nor will it seem a marvel that we say some men die partly in the Lord and partly not in the Lord if we read St. Augustine (Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, lib. 3 cap. 3) where he says the same men in this life are partly sons of God and partly sons of this world. And that is enough from the Scriptures.

CHAPTER XIII: Objections from the Fathers are Answered

Brenz advances objections from the Fathers. 1) Firstly from Cyprian, who in the first treatise against Demetrianum, says in the end: “When they will have left here, now there is no place for penance, no effect of satisfaction.” I respond: He speaks on the satisfaction for sin which precedes justification, for the Fathers precisely place a two-fold satisfaction. One before justification, whereby God is pleased from what is fitting and inclined to grant remission for sin. Daniel speaks about this (4:24), “Redeem your sins with almsgiving.” The other is after justification, whereby he condignly satisfies God for punishment. Here Cyprian speaks on the first kind, which is clear from the preceding words, in which he says: “We exhort you, to make satisfaction to God while still some time remains in this world and emerge from the depths of the darkness of superstition to the pure light of true religion.” Likewise, from the following words: for after what Brenz cites, it immediately follows: “This life is either lost, or held.” 2) Secondly, he advances Chrysostom (hom. 2 de Lazaro), who says: “When we will have departed from this life, it is no longer for us to do penance, nor to wash away what we have committed... For those men that do not wash away sins in the present life, they will later find some consolation.” I respond: He speaks on the remission of mortal sins, for example, of the rich man, who is tortured in hell, he warns us not to delay conversion for another life. But no Catholic teaches that mortal sins are remitted in Purgatory. 3) Thirdly, they advance Ambrose (de bono mortis, ch. 2), and he says: “Whoever does not receive the remission of sins in this life, he will not there, namely in the country of the blessed.” I respond: Ambrose speaks about the remission of mortal sins, for he adds, explaining: “But he will not, because he cannot come to eternal life since eternal life is the remission of sins.” He calls eternal life the grace of justification, which is a certain life beginning with eternity; unless we begin eternal life here we will never come to the glory of the blessed. 4) Fourthly, Peter Martyr objects with the same St. Ambrose, who, in chapter 23 of Luke, as well as sermon 46 says: “I read the tears of Peter, but not satisfaction.” I respond: In that passage satisfaction is called excuse. For we usually say in our common speech: I will satisfy him, that is, I will cleanse the criminal charge with words and I shall show that I was unjustly accused; consequently, in that passage Ambrose praises Peter because he did not excuse his sin in the way that Adam did, but instead confessed it with tears and accused himself. For he so adds: “Peter rightly wept and was silent, because what is usually wept over is not usually excused, and what cannot be defended, can be washed away... I find that he wept, I do not find what he said, because without a doubt Peter said nothing in purgation of himself.” 5) Fifthly, Calvin objects using Augustine who says, in tract. 49 in Joannem, “All souls have, when they depart this life, their different receptions, they have the joy of good and the torments of evil, but when the resurrection happens, the joy of the good will be increased and the torments of the wicked will be more grave, seeing that they will be tortured with their body... The rest, which is given immediately after death, if he is worthy of it, then each one receives it when he dies.” I respond: Death brings joy and rest right away to all who die in charity, for in death all become certain of their eternal salvation, because it advances a great joy, but in different ways for the diversity of merits; for it is given to certain men without a mixture of suffering, for some, not without a mixture of temporal punishment; as St. Augustine often teaches the same thing. 6) Sixthly, they object the book Hypognostici of Augustine: “The faith of Catholics believes with divine authority that the first place is the kingdom of heaven, the second, hell, where all apostates or those foreign to the faith of Christ will experience eternal tortures; the third place we are altogether ignorant of, nay more, we also do not find it in the Scriptures. The same has Sermon 14, de verbis Apostoli, and lib. 1 c. 28 of Peccatorum Meritis et remissione. I respond: He speaks about eternal places, for he writes against Pelagius, who found a third place for children that were not baptized, whom he would have it were blessed with a certain natural beatitude outside of hell and outside of the kingdom of heaven. But Augustine, or whoever was the author of Hypognostici, did not deny a third temporary place after this life; it can be understood from the fact that the Catholic faith teaches that apart from heaven and hell, there was before the passion of Christ the bosom of Abraham, where souls of the holy Fathers abided. Thus, Erasmus ineptly placed in the margin next to those words: “The third we altogether do not know is purgatory”, in other words, Purgatory would be this third place which the Catholic faith does not know. 7) Seventhly, Peter Martyr objects using the same Augustine, explaining that of Psalm 31 (32) Blessed are they, whose sins have been covered, says: “If he [God] covered sins, he refused to notice them; if he refused to notice, he refused to punish; he refused to acknowledge but, preferred to forgive.” I respond: He speaks on eternal punishment, for on the temporal punishment which God requires, it is clear from the citations we made of Augustine above in tract. 124 in Joann. and on Psalm 50. 8) Eighthly, they advance Augustine from epistle 54 to Macedonius, where he says that after this life there will be no correction of morals. I respond: This has no bearing on the matter at hand, for even if there were not, after this life, a place where the dissolute convert and correct their morals. Nevertheless, there will be a place where the light sins of the just (which cannot be called outrages), will be purged as well as temporal punishment suffered for crimes that were already forgiven. 9) Ninthly, they object again using Augustine from epistle 80 to Hesychius, where he says: “In whatever place someone will have found his last day, the last day of the world will seize him in this state, because in whatever state he was in on the day he died, so he will be judged in that state on that day.” I respond: Augustine means after this life merits or demerits will not increase, and thus, everyone that is going to be judged for glory, or for hell, and to greater or lesser rewards or torments, will be judged exactly by the works he had done before his death. 10) Tenthly, they object from Theophylactus, who on chapter 8 of Matthew says: “After the soul has gone out it does not wander into the world; for the souls of the just are in the hand of God, but the souls of sinners are lead hence, like the soul of the rich man.” I respond: Theophylactus indicates that souls do not wander freely about the world, as demons do, but are closed in their shelters, and although he does not call to mind any besides those two places, nevertheless, he does not exclude another. Moreover, we can recall the souls which are lead to Purgatory, to whichever of those two places which he posits; for because they are just, they can rightly be said to be in the hand of God, although not in the kingdom of heaven, and similarly, they can be said to be in hell because Purgatory is part of hell, or certainly a neighboring area. 11) In the eleventh place, they object with St. Jerome, who says on c. 9 of Amos: “When a soul is released from the corporeal bonds from which it wills to fly, or from which it is compelled to go, it has freedom, or it is led to hell, on which it has been written, ‘Who will confess you in hell?’ or certainly it will be lifted up to heaven.” I respond: Jerome does not speak on natural death, but on the freeing of the soul from the body by a speculation, for he disputes in that place on the impious soul, which, whenever it will turn itself in thought, there it will find God as an avenger. Therefore, when he said: “Or will certainly be lifted to heaven,” he adds, “Where there are spiritual things of wickedness in heaven, even if they mean to claim for themselves knowledge of circumcision, and having been conceived in humility, dwell in the mountains, and there it will be of no avail to avoid the probing hand of God, or try to avoid the eyes of the Lord, and to arrive in the last confines of salty waves, even if there the Lord will deliver to the torturous and ancient serpent, who is the enemy and avenger and he will bite the soul. Also, taken with vices and sins it will be struck by the sword of the Lord, that through tortures and punishments they be returned to the Lord.”

CHAPTER XIV: Answer to Objections Raised from Reason

LASTLY, they take up arguments from reason. 1) The first reason, is that after sin has been remitted no punishment remains, for remission of sin takes place by the merit of the Passion of Christ, which is infinite and sufficient to take away every sin and punishment, therefore nothing remains to be purged after justification. I respond: First by turning the argument on its head, for if Christ satisfies for all of our sin and punishment, why do we still suffer so many things after our sins have been remitted, and at length also die? Should they say that they are paternal castigations to remedy future sin, we can ask why do infants get sick, who do not have the capacity for actual sin? Therefore, I say the merit of Christ suffices to take away all sin and punishment, but it must be applied to be efficacious, otherwise all men would be saved. Furthermore, the application happens through our acts and the Sacraments. God willed that after Baptism the merit of Christ would be applied with contrition, and confession with the absolution of the priest to abolish sin, and further, be applied by satisfying works to take away temporal punishment, for eternal punishment is commuted totemporal when sin is remitted. This is because, when sin is remitted friendship is restored, and consequently the right to glory is given, and hence, he ought not be punished forever because in that mode, the soul would never attain to eternal glory and yet justice be exacted, since sin should be punished in some mode, thus eternal punishment is changed into temporal punishment. Something about the reason for it was said above, and more will be said in the disputation on satisfaction. 2) The second reason: In Baptism all sin and punishment is remitted, but Penance is a certain remembrance of Baptism, or rather, it is a certain type of Baptism; therefore, nothing remains to be cleansed after penance. I respond: If the sacrament of Penance were received in an integral and Catholic manner, as embracing contrition, confession and satisfaction, full and now perfect, the whole argument can be admitted; but if it is received in favor of absolution alone, in which the sacrament especially consists, the consequent is denied. For there is a great distinction between the sacrament of ablution and the sacrament of absolution, the ignorance of which is the reason for every error on satisfaction, the keys and indulgences, as well as on Purgatory. Therefore, we say in the Sacrament of Baptism, God acts very generously, and applies the merit of Christ through that one action of ablution, to take away every sin and punishment of the next life, that is, both of hell and purgatory; but for the temporal punishments of this life, not even Baptism takes away, as is clear in sick and dying children that are baptized. But in the Sacrament of absolution God still holds back his hand, and applies the merit of Christ to take away sin and eternal punishment; nevertheless, it still requires works of penance, in which we make recompense for temporal punishments; this is clear from Hebrews 6, where the Apostle says: “It is impossible for those who are once illumined (i.e. the baptized) to again be renewed to penance”, namely baptismal penance, because God only once uses that generosity. And in chapter 10 he says: “For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth,” i.e. after the illumination of baptism, “there is now left no sacrifice for sins,” i.e. another suffering Christ and dying is not left behind, with whom we could again die by Baptism; for so all the Greek and Latin fathers explain these two places. From that we have a notable argument for Purgatory. For the opposed particle is placed, “the terrible expectation of judgment and the blaze of fire, which is going to consume the adversaries”. For if that would only mean the fire of hell, it would follow that all who sin after Baptism are necessarily going to be damned, or certainly that Paul speaks ineptly. Nor would we rightly say another Baptism does not remain for the sinner after Baptism but hell, if apart from Baptism there are other remedies, as there really are. Therefore we must say that by fire, St. Paul understands fire in general, whether of hell or purgatory, so that this would be the sense: another Baptism does not remain for the sinner after Baptism, nor some equivalent remedy, i.e. just as easy which would free him from all fault on the spot; but fire necessary remains, either perpetual, if a man would not convert, or temporal, if he converts; nevertheless this temporal fire of purgatory will be in another life, unless the fire of affliction, taken up voluntarily, will purge a man in this life, and this is what we call satisfaction. The same thing is clear from the Fathers, who on that account call the Baptism of water easy, and compare it to a ship easily passing over the waters, and penitence a laborious baptism of tears, fire and a second plank after the shipwreck. Thereupon, reason persuades the same thing; for after the first reconciliation, one sins so much more grievously the more ungrateful he is, as well as the greater the knowledge and assistance he possesses. See Gregory Nazianzen in his oration on Holy Lights, as well as Theodoret in the Epitome of the divine decrees, second to last chapter, as well as John Damascene, lib. 4 c. 10. 3) The third reason: The honor of Christ ought to remain spotless, for he alone is our liberator and redeemer. But if we make satisfaction, now we divide honor with Christ, for we become our own redeemers in some part, and we would owe not our whole salvation to Christ, but only part of it. I respond: If it is a question of words, Scripture clearly says, “Redeem your sins with almsgiving,” and Philippians 2:12 says, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” There, man is called his own redeemer and savior, but no injury is done to Christ on that account, the whole strength of our works and satisfaction depends upon the blood of Christ, and if we redeem sins, or work out our salvation, we do it by a gift of his spirit to us, or rather the very spirit of Christ works these things in us, just as nothing detracts from God which will be done through secondary causes. Nay more, it is added more to his glory because from that the efficacy of the power of God appears even more, seeing that he could not only do it, but even give to other things the force of operation. 4) The fourth reason: If satisfaction were applied to us by the works of Christ, either there would be two satisfactions joined together, one of Christ and the other ours, or only one. If two, then the same fault is punished by these and two punishments correspond to one sin; yet if one, either this is of Christ and then we do not make satisfaction, or ours and then Christ is excluded, or we truly divide the honor with Christ; for he will pay for the sin, we for the punishment. I respond: There are three manners of speaking. The first is of those who assert that assert it is only one and that is of Christ, and we properly do not make satisfaction but only do something under the watchful eye of God who applies the satisfaction of Christ to us, which is to say our works are not without conditions, without which the satisfaction of Christ would not be applied to us, or in general, they are dispositions; So thinks Michael de Bay (Bajus) in his book de Indulgentiis, in the last chapter, which seems to me to be an erroneous opinion, for Scripture and the fathers everywhere call our works satisfactions, and of sinners redemptions. Lastly if a just man can merit eternal life from his works de condigno, why can he not satisfy for temporal punishment, which is less? The second manner of speaking is of others, that there are two but one depends on the other; this mode does not seem improbable to me; for even if one would suffice, still, for the greater glory of God, whom it satisfies, and the greater honor of the man making satisfaction, it pleased Christ to join our woks to his, in the way in which one drop of his blood sufficed to redeem the world, and still he willed to pour forth all his blood that it would be a most copious redemption; in this way even a just adult man has the right by a two-fold title to the same glory, one by the merits of Christ communicated to him by grace, the other from his own merits. The third manner of speaking seems more probable, that there is only one actual satisfaction, and this is ours. Christ is not excluded, or his satisfaction, because by his satisfaction we have the grace from where we make our satisfaction, and in this mode it is said that the satisfaction of Christ is applied to us; not that it makes immediate satisfaction to take away the temporal punishment due to us, but that it takes it away by a medium, insofar as we have grace from his satisfaction, without which our satisfaction would count for nothing. Apart from these objections of the heretics we will also strike to other objections which theologians usually propose, to more clearly elucidate the truth of the matter. 5) The fifth objection from reason: In Purgatory there is no merit, therefore no satisfaction; for the same thing is required to merit and satisfy, and every satisfaction is meritorious. I respond: The consequent must be denied, for certain common things are also required for merit and satisfaction, but also certain things of our own, from a defect of which something is merit without satisfaction, and vice versa. Gratia inhabitans is required for both, but this does not suffice. For it is required for satisfaction that a work, which is done, must be penitential, which is not required for merit. Freedom is required for merit, which praise follows; that which is not required for satisfaction, since when someone is compelled by a judge to pay a debt, he truly satisfies, even if compelled; on that account state of life is required to merit. For God, as the agonotheta of our games, wills the present life to exist, in turn, souls which abide in Purgatory, because they are the medium from which to the state between wayfarers and the blessed, or the damned, for they are confirmed in good and yet are still held back from the attainment of the supreme good, and so they can make satisfaction, but not merit, although we can do both, the blessed and the damned, neither. 6) The sixth reason, Purgatory is constituted partly for the remission of venial sin, and partly to satisfy for punishment, but neither have place after this life; for it is of him to rise again from fault whose it is to fall into sin, but after this life souls cannot commit venial sins. Besides, all sins are remitted by penance, but after this life there is no penance, for death is the same for man as the fall for the angels, as Damascene says (lib. 2 cap. 4). But angels through their fall became immovably fixed in evil. Next, in this life, as a just man can merit an increase of grace, so also remission of venial offenses. But after this life, there is no merit. Further, on punishment it is so proven: Punishment is on account of sin, and as sin increases, so also punishment, as sin decreases, so also the punishment, therefore, without sin, punishment is removed. I respond: There are not lacking those who, on account of these arguments, deny that venial sin can be remitted after this life, as St. Thomas relates in his Commentary on the Sentences, (4 dist. 21 q. 1 art. 2). But they were saying all venial sins are remitted in death itself through the final grace. But they erred because Scripture and the Fathers clearly teach that after this life, light sins are remitted, nor is their foundation solid, for the final grace cannot remit sin which pleases in act, nay more, that which does not displease in some mode. But someone can die in the complacency of venial sin, or certainly without any act such as if he died straight away, or in madness, or sleeping. Others, such as Scotus (4 dist. 21 quaest. 1) say that sin remains only in man after his acts pass, he is remanded to punishment and therefore venial sin is said to be remitted in Purgatory because there it is punished totally, but mortal sin cannot be said to be remitted after this life, because it is never punished there totally, unless in this world the guilt of eternal punishment were changed into the guilt of temporal punishment, and so here the remission would begin, he will not be able to be purged there. This opinion is false, both because without any doubt sin remains in man apart from the guilt of punishment, even a stain, or something similar, through which a man is formally called a sinner and worthy of punishment, and also because in this mode venial sins really cannot be said to be remitted in Purgatory, for that which is totally punished is not remitted, for remission denotes the gift. There is another opinion of the same Scotus (ibid.), that venial sins are remitted in the first instant of the separation of the soul from the body, but remitted by preceding merits. For he says that every good work which pleases God more than venial sins displease him, thereupon remit venial sins; moreover, while a man lives, not all venial sins are remitted by good works of this sort, because the very pleasure taken in sin is an impediment which, once it has been lifted (which happens in the first instant after death), then sin is remitted. I don’t like this because it is not probable that every good work remits venial sin, unless there were at least a virtual displeasure for those sins. Then, because it would follow that after this life sin is never remitted except one sin, namely the one whose act is continued even to death, that which Scotus himself admits, but it is against the Scripture and the Fathers, as is clear from the aforesaid. Thirdly, it would not be necessary to pray for the dead so that they would be absolved of venial sins, as the Church prays and from the prayers of the Church wherein we ask that what was contracted by human frailty be forgiven. (Dionysius, Eccles. Hierarch., last chapter). Therefore, the opinion of St. Thomas in 4, dist. 21, q. 1, art. 2 is true, that venial sins are forgiven in Purgatory by an act of love and patience; for that welcoming of punishment inflicted by God, since it proceeds from charity, can be called a certain virtual penance, and although it is not properly meritorious, because there is no increase of glory or grace, nevertheless, it does remit penance. Ad Primum: I deny the major proposition universally, for it has place only in mortal sin;, what attains to venial sins, a soul can be freed from venial sins in Purgatory because it has appropriate means, i.e. an act of love contrary to sin, but it cannot fall into venial sin, because it lacks the fomes peccati, and besides, because it is confirmed in good. Ad Secundum: I say after this life there is no penance for mortal sins, because the damned are fixed in evil, and Damascene holds this opinion, still in the souls of Purgatory there can rightly be displeasure at sin, and by that charity, and hence useful. Ad Tertium: I say the souls of purgatory are not altogether on the road, and besides, they cannot merit an increase of grace; nevertheless, they are not altogether at the end, and therefore can do something which would pertain to the remission of venial sin. I respond to the second part of the argument, the punishment depends upon the sin it happened in, not in esse, and therefore that phrase, “as the sin decreases so the punishment”, if something were understood in which a sin is lesser in that it generates a lesser punishment, is true, otherwise it is false, for punishment is also due on account of a past fault.

CHAPTER XV: The Confession of Purgatory Pertains to the Catholic Faith

NOW it remains that we bring to naught the opinion of Peter Martyr, who , in his commentary on chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians, contends that the existence of Purgatory cannot pertain to a dogma of faith in any way, which was the first opinion of Luther, or perhaps his first error. There are five reasons for this. 1) The first reason is because Scripture is silent on Purgatory in those passages where there was the best occasion for speaking about it. In Genesis 49 the funerals of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah and Rachel are very carefully described, and still not even a word is said about Purgatory. Likewise, in Leviticus, many kinds of sacrifices are instituted for different things, and there nothing is instituted for the dead. Next, Paul, in 1 Thessalonians 4, when he expressly argues about the dead, says nothing about Purgatory, but only asserts that they are going to rise and concludes: “Console each other with these words.” 2) The second reason is because the Greek Church, which is the other part of the Church, resisted this doctrine for a long time in the Council of Florence, therefore, if even to our times half the Church does not believe Purgatory, how is it an article of faith? 3) The third reason is, because Dionysius, in the last chapter of Ecclesiast. hierarchiae, proposes this question: Why do Bishops in the burial of the faithful, pray for the dead and yet do not call purgatory to mind, and he labors anxiously to solve the question. But if Purgatory were a dogma of faith, he could have easily responded right away that he prays for the dead so they would be freed from Purgatory. 4) The fourth reason is that St. Augustine asserts with precise language, that he had only an uncertain rather than certain trust that Purgatory exists, in Enchiridion, cap. 69, where he says: “That such a thing as that happens after this life does not seem unbelievable. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left hidden, whether some believers will pass through a sort of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion transitory goods, be less or more quickly delivered from it.” In his book on eight questions of Dulcitius, quaest. 1, he says: “Whether in this life only, men suffer such things, or whether some such judgments also follow after this life, the meaning that I have given of this sentence, as I suppose, does not abhor the truth.” He says the same thing in de fide et operibus, cap. 16. Then, in book 21 of City of God, c. 26, he says: “But if it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the bodies of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind; if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation either here only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter — this I do not contradict, because possibly it is true.” 5) The fifth reason is because Scripture clearly disagrees with it, as John 5, Luke 13 and Apocalypse 14, as we advanced and refuted above. These are the mainstay of it and they do not move us at all, so that we resolutely again assert that Purgatory is a dogma of faith, so much so that one who does not believe that Purgatory exists will never arrive there, rather he is going to be tortured in the fire of hell. Now it is customarily proven as a dogma of faith in four ways. Firstly, from the express testimony of Scripture with a declaration of the Church, in the way we prove that Chris is ὁμούσιον with the Father from that of John 10: “The Father and I are one,” with the addition of the Council of Nicaea; for otherwise the quarrel with the Arians could not have been ended, since that passage, and others which they usually advanced they would explain otherwise. Secondly, by the evident deduction from those which are expressly held in Scripture; in the way we prove Christ has two wills, divine and human, because according to the Scriptures, he is God and man, with the addition of the decree of the Sixth Council. Thirdly, from the word of God not written by the Apostles, but handed down, in the way we prove the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul are divine Scriptures. Fourthly, by the evident deduction from the word of God handed down, how St. Augustine everywhere proves that it must be believed that infants have original sin, even if it is not contained in Scripture because it is evidently deduced from Apostolic Tradition on infant Baptism. From that it is clear the sufficiency of these four modes is clear, because that alone is of the faith which has been revealed by God mediately or immediately. Moreover, divine revelations are partly written, and partly unwritten. Consequently, the decrees of Councils, Popes and the consent of doctors and all others are reduced to these four, for only then do they make a matter de fide, when they explain the word of God or deduce something from it. Indeed, Purgatory is proven from all of these modes. From the first mode it is clear from twenty passages of Scripture, which we have advanced, and some of which are explained by the whole Church to be on Purgatory, as is clear from the Councils and the Fathers whom we cited. In regard to the second mode, it is clear from the first two reasons which we gave. On the third mode it is evident from the fact that we do not find the beginning of this doctrine, but all the Greek and Latin Fathers from the time of the Apostles constantly taught that there is a Purgatory. For such things must be related to Apostolic tradition, as St. Augustine affirms (lib. 4 de Baptismo contra Donatistas, cap. 24). On the fourth mode it is clear from Clement, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom cited above, because they assert that prayer for the dead is Apostolic tradition, and none of the Fathers ever said the contrary. From that, it is evidently gathered that there is a Purgatory. If tradition is Apostolic, that it is necessary to pray for the dead, who does not see that it follows thence that souls after this life need assistance and hence they will not suffer eternal, but only temporal punishments? Nor will it be difficult for us to answer the arguments of Peter Martyr. 1) Therefore, to the first I respond: firstly it is not necessary for Scripture to say all things everywhere. I say secondly, to that of Genesis that it was not an occasion of placing the doctrine on Purgatory. Genesis is not a book of dogmas, but a certain history of the Patriarchs. Thus, doctrine in that time is not preserved in Scripture but in tradition. Otherwise, we will say that before the times of Abraham no one was ever justified because Scripture does not hand down how men were justified in the time of Adam, Enoch and Noah. Lastly, I say that mention of Purgatory is at least implicitly made in Genesis, for when it is said in Genesis 23 “And Abraham rose from the office of the funeral,” what prevents that word, office (officium) from being taken to mean not only tears, but also prayer and fasting? And why, I ask, when Jacob and Joseph were dying in Egypt, they desired their bones to be brought into the promised land, except because there alone they knew sacrifices were going to be offered for the dead? To that of Leviticus, I deny that sacrifices were not instituted for the dead in Leviticus, seeing that those which were instituted for sins were understood for the sins of both the living and the dead, which is clear from 2 Maccabees 12. To that of Paul I say, that in that passage Paul only means to say one should not immoderately weep for the dead in the way the pagans do. Given his scope, however, it would not be of no benefit to his purpose, but even harm it to make mention of purgatory. For, to say the souls of our neighbors are severely tortured in Purgatory is not to advance matter for consolation, but greater mourning; Paul, however, meant to console them, as is clear, and therefore he mentioned the resurrection and glory and concludes: “Therefore, console one another with these words.” But in other places, as earlier in 1 Corinthians 3:15 as well as chapter 15, and Hebrews 10, Paul precisely places the fire of Purgatory and the laborious baptism received for the dead. 2) I say to the second that the Greek Church never doubted about Purgatory, as is clear from the Fathers we have cited, Dionysius the Areopagate, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraim, Chrysostom, Cyril, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylactus, Damascene, and the Council of Florence itself. For, what Peter Martyr says, that in that Council the Greek Fathers resisted for a long time, is a lie, accordingly in the first session, and again in the last, they affirmed that they always believed in Purgatory as well as prayers for the dead, but only called into question the nature of the punishment, whether it is fire or something else. So what he boasts about the Greeks is either absolutely false or must be understood to be about individuals. 3) I marvel at the third argument of Peter Martyr, for even if Dionysius does not say Purgatory by name, nevertheless he expressly says that prayer is made for the dead to free them from sins. “With prayers he directs, by divine goodness, that all sins which were committed from human frailty would be forgiven to a man once he leaves this life.” Next, he asks why prayer is made for the dead, so that his sins would be remitted, since it was written that all are going to receive insofar as they acted in their body? He answers therefore, they are prayed for, because they are made worthy by the merits of this life for the prayers of the living to benefit them. Even if St. Dionysius opposed himself, he could not ignore Purgatory or deny it since he so clearly asserted prayer for the sins of the dead. 4) To the fourth, we oppose other citations of St. Augustine. In the same Enchiridion, c. 110, he asserts that prayers and sacrifices benefit souls and similarly in quaest. 2 ad Dulcitium, as well as City of God book 21, ch. 24, he says it is certain that souls are cleansed after this life, and in chapter 1 de Cura pro mortuis, he says: “There is no doubt that prayer benefitted the dead.” Peter Martyr responds that these passages ought to be explained by those in which he doubts. But how, I ask, will we explain “it is certain,” and “there is no doubt,” by “It is not unbelievable” and “Perhaps it is true”? It is necessary to say that Augustine held something about Purgatory with certain faith, and doubted on some matter. What exactly he doubted we will easily explain. But Peter Martyr will not so easily be able to explain what it is on which Augustine did not doubt, for nothing less can be granted than that he had not doubts about purgatory in general, i.e. that there is some purgatory after this life. With some certain faith, doubt could exist on the type of punishment which is inflicted, on the nature of the sin which is punished in the place, the time, etc. Yet, no certain faith in regard to purgatory can correspond with uncertainty about Purgatory in general; nevertheless, Augustine says he has certain faith in regard to it. Therefore, I say that Augustine, in those four citations, only doubts on the type of sin which is punished, namely, whether it is like immoderate love toward temporal things in this life which is purged by God through various afflictions, such as the death of a wife and children, etc. So also it would be believable, after this life, for certain other relics of such actual affections which ought to be cleansed by tribulations and troubles to still remain in the disembodied spirit. Even if disembodied spirits do not seem to be able to be touched by corporal affections of this sort, nevertheless, when they are forms of bodies and were in the body for a long time as well as desire to be reunited with the body, it is not unbelievable that they still remember the desire which they experienced through corporeal instruments and thereby hold onto some desire. But because the matter is so difficult, Augustine rightly said it could be inquired after and perhaps the answer would never found. 5) The fifth has already been answered above. 

END BOOK I