Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book I: On Sin, Mortal and Venial
Chapter 13: The objections from the Fathers are solved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book I. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now from the Fathers, in the first place, St. Basil is wont to be objected, who in the Questions briefly explained, question 4, writes that no sin is to be contemned as small, since in very truth none is small — seeing that blessed Paul pronounced generally of every sin that sin is the sting of death; and again, question 293, he affirms that in the New Testament there is found no difference of grave and light sins. I answer: it is not certainly agreed whether those questions are of the great Basil, or rather of Eustathius of Sebaste, whose many and grave errors are condemned in the Council of Gangra; for that this work was of old ascribed by many to this author, Sozomen is witness, book 3 of the History, chapter 13, and Nicephorus, book 9, chapter 16, and book 13, chapter 29. To this comes also that the author of these questions, in questions 1 and 95, seems not to admit unwritten traditions — whereas contrariwise St. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, chapter 27, sharply defends them. Wherefore, since it is very probable that those questions were published by a man of little approved credit, there is no reason why we should make much of their testimony. Yet we can explain those sentences, whosesoever they be, in a good sense. For that author seems only to have wished to show that no sin among Christians — and above all among monks — is to be contemned as small and light. For although one sin is graver than another, as the same author teaches, question 106, yet all, even the lightest, are to be guarded against with all one's strength by the Christian man, from whom a greater perfection of life is demanded than from a Jew; and if this is rightly enjoined on Christians in common, how much more must it be enjoined on monks, whose instruction that author had chiefly undertaken? And what he adds — that every sin is a sting of death — can also be admitted: because every sin either effects death, if it is mortal, or disposes toward it, if it is venial.
In the second place can be objected the testimony of St. Jerome, who in the second dialogue against the Pelagians, before the middle, seems to hold all sins for mortal, when he speaks thus: “If anger, and injury of speech, and at times a jest, are bound over to the judgment, and the council, and the fires of gehenna, what will the appetite of base things deserve, and avarice, which is the root of all evils?” I answer: without any doubt St. Jerome did not take those liabilities conjointly, as though he judged that anger, or a jest, makes men liable to the judgment, the council, and the fire of gehenna. For if he meant this, he would fight with the very sentence of the Lord, which the same Jerome had adduced a little before; since in that sentence the three liabilities answer to three kinds of sins — or rather to three degrees of the same sin — each to each, not all to each. And although Jerome, in enumerating the degrees of sin, placed anger in the first place, injury of speech in the second, a jest in the third, and in enumerating the liabilities placed the judgment first, the council second, the gehenna of fire third, yet the gehenna of fire does not answer to the jest, but to the injury of speech, as is gathered from the text of the Gospel. Wherefore St. Jerome had regard not to the order in that enumeration, but only to the number.
Third, some object St. Augustine, who in book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 3 [al. 16], has these words: “Who could depart from this life with any hope of obtaining eternal salvation, while that sentence stands — that whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all — did there not follow a little after: but mercy exalteth itself above judgment?” For by these words St. Augustine seems to signify that any sins whatever, even venial, of themselves deserve eternal death, and that in very truth men would be condemned for any sin whatever, did not mercy temper the judgment. Like to which sentence is that of the same author in epistle 29: “When the just King shall sit on the throne, who will glory that he has a chaste heart? or who will glory that he is clean from sin? What hope, then, is there, unless mercy exalt itself above judgment?” And that from the Confessions, book 9, last chapter: “Woe even to the praiseworthy life of men, if, mercy being removed, thou sift it.” There are moreover many places of the same author which teach that many venials gathered together condemn a man; from which it seems to follow that, if a few venials do not condemn, this comes from the mercy of God, not from the nature of the sin itself. The places are these. In epistle 29 to Jerome: “Finally,” says he, “St. James from this place now speaks of the works of mercy, that he may console those whom that sentence had vehemently terrified, when he admonishes how even the daily sins (without which one lives not here) are expiated by daily remedies: lest the man who, when he has offended in one, becomes guilty of all, by offending in many things — because in many things we all offend — should come to the tribunal of so great a judge with the great heap of his guilt gathered little by little, and should not find the mercy which he did not show; but rather, by forgiving and by giving, should merit that his sins be forgiven him and the promises rendered.” In epistle 108 to Seleucianus: “There is also the penitence of the good and humble faithful — the daily penance, in which we beat our breasts, saying: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. For we do not wish those things to be forgiven us which we doubt not were forgiven in baptism, but those, assuredly, which, though small, yet frequent, creep upon human fragility; which, if they be gathered against us, will so weigh us down and oppress us as some one great sin. For what difference does it make for the shipwreck, whether the ship be covered and overwhelmed by one great wave, or the water, creeping little by little into the hold, and left through negligence and contemned, fill the ship and sink it?” In the third discourse on Psalm 118: “But since the life of man upon earth is a temptation, even if we be far from crimes, yet there is no lack of occasions where we obey the desires of sin, in deed, or word, or thought; since, while we watch against the greater, certain minute things creep upon the unwary, which, if they be gathered against us, though they do not crush us singly by their own motions, yet all together overwhelm us by their heap.” Tractate 12 on John: “How do minute sins, if they be neglected, kill? Minute are the drops that fill the rivers; minute are the grains of sand; but if much sand be laid on, it presses and crushes. This the neglected bilge does, which the inrushing wave does [not]: little by little it enters through the hold; but by long entering, and by not being bailed out, it sinks the ship.” Finally, tractate 1 on the epistle of John: “Those light things which we have mentioned, do not contemn. If thou contemn them when thou weighest them, tremble when thou countest them. Many light things make one great thing; many drops fill a river; many grains make a mass.”
I answer: two things are to be held as ascertained, on which depends the explication of these places. The first is that St. Augustine did not judge that he who offends venially in one becomes guilty of all, according to the sentence of St. James, but only he who offends deadly. Which is clear from epistle 29 to Jerome, where St. Augustine more than once repeats that he who offends in one becomes guilty of all for this reason — that he fights against charity, on which all the commandments depend. Wherefore, by St. Augustine's judgment, he who sins with charity kept safe does not so offend as to become guilty of all. And the same St. Augustine in the same epistle writes that venial sins are committed by the sons of God, just and having charity — but not so great as they will have in the heavenly fatherland; for from this — that in this life charity is not so perfect as it will be in the future life — he says all venial sins are committed. And so he will have it that deadly sins simply cannot stand with charity; but that venial sins do indeed stand with charity, yet not with that perfection of charity which we shall have in the fatherland. From which it follows that he who offends deadly in one becomes guilty of all; not he who offends venially. Wherefore at the end of the epistle, where he speaks of venial sins, he says that they who commit many light and daily sins are terrified by blessed James saying, Whosoever offend in one is become guilty of all — not because one light and daily sin has that force, to make one guilty of all, but because a great pile of light sins seems to equal some one great sin, which he who shall have committed will become guilty of all. For this is what those words above cited signify: those whom that sentence had vehemently terrified, he consoles when he admonishes how even the daily sins, without which one lives not here, are expiated by daily remedies, lest the man who, when he offends in one, becomes guilty of all, by offending in many — because in many things we all offend — should come to the tribunal of so great a judge with the great heap of his guilt gathered little by little, etc. The second is that those sentences of St. Augustine in which he teaches that many light sins gathered together kill and condemn a man no otherwise than one great sin are not so to be taken as though a multitude of venial sins, while they remain venial, could be equaled to one mortal. For that this is false is proved by most open reasons. For venial sins, by the consensus of all the theologians, neither take away nor lessen the habit of charity, but only hinder its act and fervor; wherefore, even if all venial sins were gathered together into one, they would never effect that which one deadly sin does — namely, straightway to exclude charity. Then, the punishment of mortal sin is everlasting, the punishment of venial temporary; but no temporal spans can equal eternity; therefore neither will any multitude of venial sins ever equal the gravity of one mortal sin — since the proportion of punishment to punishment is that of fault to fault, punishment following fault. Moreover, if many venials were equal to one mortal, an incredible perplexity would arise in the minds of the faithful, since neither the Scriptures, nor the Councils, nor any authors have ever defined how many venials are required to make one mortal. Finally, it would then be necessary to lay open venial sins, when they are many, of necessity to the priests in sacramental confession — which is repugnant both to the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 5, and to the common sense and custom of Christians. The judgment of St. Augustine, then (as blessed Thomas rightly teaches, 1-2, question 88, article 3 [al. 4]), was this: that many venials, if they be contemned and neglected, little by little dispose a man toward mortal crime — as a curable wound, if it be neglected, little by little breeds a death-bearing abscess, and in that manner is said to become incurable. Which St. Gregory writes more openly, book 10 of the Morals, chapter 14, in these words: “If we neglect to cure small things, insensibly seduced, we boldly perpetrate even greater.” And before them both Ecclesiasticus wrote the same, chapter 19, when he says: he that contemneth small things, shall fall by little and little. It could also be said that many venials, according to Augustine's judgment, are equaled to one mortal as to the temporal punishment to be paid in purgatory.
These two things being premised, I answer to the first testimony, from book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, that for two causes St. Augustine wrote, “Who with any hope of obtaining salvation,&rdquoo;rdquo; etc. First, because any crime whatever, though it be single and least, suffices for the eternal perdition of a man; and no one certainly knows whether he does not have, or has not had, some crime of that kind whereby he has drawn upon himself the wrath of God, and has not returned to his grace through true penitence; and therefore no one would depart from this life with hope of obtaining salvation, unless he knew that he has a good Lord, and hoped that through his mercy his sins, above all the deadly, have already been forgiven. Second, because in venials we all offend, and many venials dispose (as we have said) toward mortal; and he who offends deadly in one becomes guilty of all; therefore, unless God had provided us daily remedies for purging the daily sins, there would be almost no one who would depart from this life with any hope of obtaining salvation. To the second place, from epistle 29, and to the third, from book 9 of the Confessions, I answer that St. Augustine speaks of the punishment of purgatory, which is most bitter, and which scarcely any just men escape, save from the great mercy of God, so as to fly straight from the body to heaven. And that this is so is clear from the same book 9 of the Confessions, last chapter. For Augustine, being about to pray for the soul of his departed mother, whom he had vehemently praised, lest perchance anyone wonder why he prayed for her whom he had so greatly commended, gives the reason, saying: “Woe even to the praiseworthy life of men, if, mercy being removed, thou sift it.” Where, if that “woe” regarded eternal damnation, there would have been no reason why prayer should be made for his departed mother; for it is not permitted to pray for the damned. And so he wished to signify that men even of praiseworthy life lack not venial sins, for which, if they be severely judged, they must pay the heaviest penalties in purgatory. And that the penalties of purgatory are greater than all the penalties and torments of this life, and that therefore it is rightly said, Woe to those who go down to pay them, the same Augustine witnesses in the tractate on Psalm 37, where he speaks thus: “He shall be saved as it were by fire; yet that fire will be heavier than whatever a man can suffer in this life.” To the other places answer has already been made.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Solvuntur objectiones ex Patribus. Jam vero ex Patribus primo loco objici so¬ let S. Basilius, qui in quaestionibus compen¬ dio explicatis quaest. 4. scribit, nullum pec¬ catum esse contemnendum ut parvum, cum revera nullum sit parvum, quando B. Pau¬ lus de omni peccato generatim pronuntiave¬ rit, stimulum mortis peccatum esse ; et rur¬ sus quaest. 293. affirmat, in novo Testamen¬ to nullam inveniri differentiam gravium et levium peccatorum. Respondeo : non certo constat, an eae quaestiones sint Magni Basilii, an potius Eustathii Sebasteni, cujus multi, et graves errores damnantur in Concilio Gangrensi. Huic enim auctori a multis hoc opus olim adscriptum fuisse testes sunt Sozomenus lib. ili. historia cap. 13. et Nicephorus lib. 9. cap. 16. et lib. xm. cap. 29. Huc etiam acce¬ dit, quod auctor harum quaestionum quaest. i. et qu. 93. non videtur admittere traditiones non scriptas, cum e contrario S. Basilius in libro de Spiritu sancto ad Amphilochium, cap. 27, acriter eas defendat. Quare cum valde probabile sit eas quaestiones editas es¬ se ab homine parum probatae fidei, non est cur earum testimonium magni faciamus. Possumus tamen eas sententias cujuscum- que sint, in bonum sensum explicare. Solum enim videtur auctor ille demonstrare voluis¬ se, nullum peccatum apud Christianos, ac potissimum apud monachos ut parvum ac leve contemnendum esse. Quamvis enim unum peccatum sit alio gravius, ut idem auctor docet quaest. 106. tamen omnia, etiam levissima Christiano homini, a quo major vitae perfectio exigitur, quam a Judaeo, pro viribus cavenda sunt. Quod si id Christianis in commune recte praecipitur,* quanto magis monachis, quos auctor ille potissimum insti¬ tuendos susceperat, praecipiendum erit ? Quod vero ille addit, omne peccatum esse stimulum mortis, potest etiam admitti, quia omne peccatum, aut mortem efficit, si est mortale, aut ad eam disponit, si est veniale. Secundo loco objici potest testimonium S. Hieronymi, qui in ii. dialogo adversus Pela- gianos ante medium, videtur omnia peccata habere pro mortalibus cum ita loquitur : a Si ira, et sermonis injuria, atque interdum jocus, judicio concilioque, et gehennae igni¬ bus deligatur, quid merebitur turpium rerum appetitio, et avaritia, quae radix est omnium malorum ? » Respondeo : sine ulla dubitatione S. Hie¬ ronymus non accepit illos reatus conjunctim, quasi existimaverit, iram, vel jocum reos homines efficere judicii, concilii, et gehennae ignis. Si enim hoc vellet, pugnaret cum ipsa Domini sententia, quam ipse idem Hierony¬ mus paulo ante adduxerat. Si quidem in ea sententia tres reatus tribus peccatorum ge¬ neribus, vel potius tribus gradibus ejusdem peccati respondent, singuli singulis, non singulis omnes. Et quamvis Hieronymus in enumerandis gradibus peccati primo loco po¬ suerit iram, secundo sermonis injuriam, ter¬ tio jocum ; in enumerandis autem reatibus, primo loco posuerit judicium, secundo Con¬ cilium, tertio gehennam ignis : tamen non respondet joco gehenna ignis, sed sermonis injuriae, ut ex Evangelii textu colligitur.Qua- re S. Hieronymus non habuit rationem or¬ dinis in illa enumeratione, sed tantum nu¬ meri. i CAPUT XIII. 243 Tertio objiciunt aliqui S. Augustinum, qui in lib. ii. peccatorum meritis et remiss. cap. 3. habet haec verba : « Quis cum spe aliqua adipiscendae salutis aeternae, de^ftac vita migraret, manente illa sententia, quod quicumque totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus, nisi post paululum sequeretur, superexultat au¬ tem misericordia judicium? » Videtur enim his verbis S. Augustin. significare, peccata quaecumque etiam venialia ex se mereri mor¬ tem aeternam, : t re vera ob quodlibet pec¬ catum damnandos homines nisi misericor¬ dia judicium mitigaret. Cui sententiae similis est illa, ejusdem auctoris in epist. 29 : « Cum Ilex justus sederit in throno, quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor ? aut quis gloriabitur, mundum se esse a peccato ? quae igitur spes est, nisi superexaltet misericordia judi¬ cium? » Et illa ex confessionibus lib. xi. cap. ult. : « Vae etiam laudabili vitae homi¬ num, si remota misericordia discutias e- am. » * . Sunt praeterea multa loca ejusdem aucto¬ ris, qui docent, multa venialia simul collecta damnare hominem : ex quo sequi videtur, ut si pauca venialia non damnent, id fiat ex misericordia Dei, non ex natura ipsius pec¬ cati. Loca sunt haec : In epistola 29. ad Hie¬ ronymum : « Denique, inquit, S. Jacobus jam ex isto loco de misericordiae operibus loquitur, ut quos vehementer illa sententia terruerat, consoletur, cum admonet, quo¬ modo etiam quotidiana peccata (sine quibus hic non vivitur) quotidianis remediis expien¬ tur : ne homo, qui cum in uno offenderit, fiat omnium reus.: in multis offendendo, quia in multis offendimus, propter magnum aggerem reatus .sui minutatim collectum ad tribunal tanti judicis perveniat, et eam, quam non fecit, misericordiam non inveniat, sed potius dimittendo, atque dando merea¬ tur sibi dimitti peccata, reddique promissa. » In epist. 108. ad Seleucianum : « Est etiam, inquit, poenitentia bonorum, et humilium fi¬ delium poena quotidiana, in qua pectora tundimus, dicentes : Dimitte nobis debita nostra : sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Neque enim ea nobis dimitti volu¬ mus, quae dimissa non dubitamus in bapti¬ smo, sed illa utique, quaj humanae fragilitati, quamvis parva, tamen crebra subrepunt, quae si collecta contra nos fuerint ita nos gravabunt et oppriment, sicut unum aliquod grande pecccatum. Quid enim interest ad naufragium, utrum uno grandi fluctu navis operiatur et obruatur an paulatim subrepens aqua in sentinam, et per negligentiam dere¬ licta, atque contempta impleat navem, atque submergat ? » In concione 3. super Psalm. 118 : « Sed quoniam, inquit, tentatio et vita hominis su¬ per terram, etiamsi a criminibus longe simus, non tamen deest, ubi desideriis peccati, vel facto, vel dicto, vel cogitatu obediamus, quando adversus majora vigilantibus quae¬ dam incautis minuta subrepunt, quae si ad¬ versus nos colligantur, etiamsi non singula suis motibus conterunt, omnia tamen acervo nos obruunt. » Tract. 12. in Joan. : « Quo¬ modo, inquit, minuta peccata si negligantur, occidunt ? Minutae sunt guttae, quae flumina implent. Minuta sunt grana arenae, sed si multa arena imponatur, premit, atque op- primit. Hoc facit sentina neglecta, quod fluc¬ tus irruens paulatim per sentinam intrat : sed diu intrando et non exhauriendo, mer¬ git navim. » Denique tract. 1. in epist. Joan. : « Ista levia, inquit, quae diximus, noli contemnere : si contemnis, quando ap¬ pendis, expavesce quando numeras. Levia multa faciunt unum grande. Multae guttae implent flumen. Multa grana faciunt mas¬ sam. » Respondeo : duo quaedam pro compertis habenda suut, ex quibus pendet horum lo¬ corum explicatio. Primum est, S. Augusti¬ num non existimasse, eum qui venialiter of¬ fendit in uno, fieri omnium reum, juxta sen¬ tentiam S. Jacobi, sed solum eum, qui le- thaliter offendit. Id quod perspicuum est ex epist. 29. ad Hieronymum, ubi S. Augusti¬ nus non semel repetit, ideo, qui offendit in uno, fieri omnium reum, qui pugnat contra charitatem, ex qua pendent omnia mandata. Quare ex sententia S. Augustini, qui peccat salva charitate, non ita offendit, ut fiat om¬ nium reus. Idem autem S. Augustinus in ea¬ dem epistola scribit, peccata venialia com¬ mitti a filiis Dei justis et charitatem habenti¬ bus, sed non tantam, quantam in patria ce- lesti habebunt. Ex eo enim quod non est in hac vita charitas tam perfecta, quam erit in futura vita, omnia peccata venialia committi dicit. Itaque vult peccata lethalia simpliciter cum charitate non posse consistere ; pecca¬ ta autem venialia consistere quidem cum charitate, sed non cum perfectione illa cha- ritatis, quam habebimus in patria. Ex quo 254 LIBER I. sequitur, ut qui lethaliter offendit in uno, fiat omnium reus ; non autem quivenialiter. Quocirca in extrema epistola, ubi loquitur de peccatis venialibus, dicit eos qui multa pec¬ cata levia et qnotidiana committunt, terreri a B. Jacobo dicente : Qui offendit in xino fa¬ ctus est omnium reus ; non quia unum pecca¬ tum leve et quotidianum eam vim habeat, ut faciat omnium reum ; sed quia magna con¬ geries peccatorum levium videatur aequare unum aliquod grande peccatum, quod qui commiserit, fiet omnium reus. Hoc enim sig¬ nificant illa verba supra citata, quos vehe¬ menter illa sententia terruerat, consolatur cum admonet, quomodo etiam quotidiana peccata, sine quibus hic non vivitur, quoti¬ dianis remediis expientur, ne homo qui cum in uno offenderit, fiat omnium reus, in mul¬ tis offendendo, quia in multis offendimus, propter magnum aggerem reatus sui minu- tatim collectum <id tribunal tanti judicis per¬ veniat ete. Alterum est, sententias illas S. Augustini, in quibus docet multa peccata levia simul collecta occidere, et damnare hominem non secus atque unum grande peccatum ; non sic esse accipiendas, quasi multitudo pecca¬ torum venialium, dum venialia manent, ae¬ quari possit uni mortali. Id enim apertissi¬ mis rationibus convincitur esse falsum. Nam veniala peccata, ex consensu omnium Theo¬ logorum, neque tollunt, neque minuunt ha¬ bitum charitatis, sed solum actum, et fer¬ vorem ejus impediunt : quare etiamsi om¬ nia peccata venialia simul colligerentur in unum, nunquam efficerent id, quod facit unum lethale peccatum, quod videlicet con¬ tinuo charitatem excludit. Deinde pcena mortalis peccati sempiterna est, pcena ve¬ nialis temporaria : at nulla spatia tempora¬ lia a;ternitatem adfequare queunt : igitur nec ulla multitudo venialium peccato - rum unius mortalis peccati gravitatem unquam adaaquabit. Siquidem ea est pro¬ portio pcenee ad poenam, qua) culpa) ad culpam cum pcena sequatur culpam. Ad haec si multa venialia uni mortali a)- qualia essent, incredibilis ambiguitas in ani¬ mis fidelium existeret, cum neque Scriptura), neque Concilia, neque ulli auctores unquam definierint, quot venialia requirantur ad unum mortale efficiendum. Denique oporte¬ ret venialia peccata, cum multa sunt, neces- sarioi n confessione sacramentali sacerdoti¬ bus aperire; quod ct Concilio Tridentino sessione 44. cap. 5. et communi Christiano¬ rum sensui, et consuetudini repugnat. Sententia igitur sancti Augustini (ut recte docet B. Thomas in 4. 2. qua)st. 88. art. 3.) ea fuit, multa venialia, si contemnantur, et negligantur, paulatim disponere hominem ad mortale crimen : quemadmodum vulnus curabile, si negligatur, paulatim gignit apo¬ stema lethiferum, et eo modo dicitur fieri in¬ curabile. Id quod apertius scribit S. Grego- rius lib. x. Moral. cap. 44. illis verbis : « Si curare parva negligimus, insensibiliter se¬ ducti audenter etiam majora perpetra - mus (4). » Et ante utrumque, idem scripsit Ecclesiasticus cap. xix. cum ait : Qui spernit modica , paulatim decidet (1). Posset etiam dici, multa veniala, secundum Augustini sen¬ tentiam a)quari uni mortali, quoad poenam temporalem in purgatorio luendam. Ilis duobus prmmissis, respondeo ad pri¬ mum testimonium ex lib. ii. de peccatorum meritis et remissione duabus de causis S. Augustinum scripsisse : « Quis cum aliqua spe adipiscenda) salutis etc. » Primo quia quodlibet crimen quamvis solum, et mini¬ mum sit, sufficit ad a)ternam hominis perdi¬ tionem, ct nemo certo novit, an non habeat, vel habuerit aliquod ejusmodi crimen unde iram Dei sibi conciliaverit, et ad gratiam e- jus per veram poenitentiam non redierit. Et ideo nemo cum spe adipiscenda) salutis de hac vita migraret, nisi sciret, se bonum Do¬ minum habere, et speraret, per ejus miseri¬ cordiam peccata sua, pra)sertim lethalia, jam esse dimissa. Secundo, quia in veniali¬ bus offendimus omnes, multa autem Yenialia disponunt (ut diximus) ad mortale; quivero offendit in uno mortaliter, efficitur omnium reus : ideo nisi Deus providisset nobis quo¬ tidiana remedia ad quotidiana purganda peccata, nemo fere esset, qui cum spe aliqua adipiscendse salutis, de hac vita migraret. Ad alterum locum ex epistola 29. et ad tertium ex lib. ix. confess., respondeo, lo¬ qui S. Augustinum de poena purgatorii, qua) acerbissima est, et quam vix ulli justi homi¬ nes, nisi ex magna Dei misericordia eva¬ dunt, ita ut recta ex corpore ad coelum evo¬ lent. Hoc autem ita esse perspicuum est ex eodem lib. ix. confess. cap. ult. Nam oratu¬ rus Augustinus pro anima matris sua) de- (l)Eccl. XIX, 4. CAPUT XIV. 243 functa}, quam vehementer laudaverat, ne quis forte miraretur, cur pro ea oraret, quam tantopere commendaverat, reddit rationem dicens : « Va} etiam laudabili vitse hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam. » Ubi si illud « va} » , respiceret damnationem te- ternam, non fuisset ratio, cur pro defuncta matre orandum esset : neque enim pro dam¬ natis orare licet. Itaque significare voluit, homines etiam vita} laudabilis, non carere peccatis veniali¬ bus, ob qua}, si severe judicentur, gravissi¬ mas poenas in prrgatorio luere debeant. Poenas autem purgatorii majores esse omni¬ bus poenis, et suppliciis hgjus vita}, et pro- pterea recte dici : Vee illis, qui ad eas luendas descendunt, testatur idem Augustinus tract. in Psalm. xxxvii. ubi sic ait : « Salvus erit quasi per ignem, gravior tamen erit ille ignis, quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita. » Ad alia loca jam responsum est.