Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church That Is in Purgatory · Book I: On Purgatory
Chapter 3: Purgatory is proved from the Scriptures of the Old Testament
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae est in Purgatorio, Book I, the third general controversy. 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).
First, then, that there is a purgatory we shall prove by five kinds of arguments. For we shall bring forward, first, the Scriptures of the Old Testament; second, the Scriptures of the New Testament; third, the councils; fourth, the Fathers; fifth, reasons; and then at last we shall solve the arguments. The first place is found in 2 Maccabees, chapter 12, where, after Scripture has related that Judas Maccabeus sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand drachms of silver for a sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, it adds: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” For from this it follows, first, that the dead can be loosed from sins after this life, and accordingly that there is a purgatory. Second, that the sacrifices and prayers of the living profit the dead. Third, that not all the remains of sins are always expiated in death, as Luther says; for those for whom he ordered prayer to be made had died a violent death, and for religion, and yet Judas believed they were not yet fully purged. Fourth, that a man can die holily and piously and yet have some debt to pay, either on account of venial sins not remitted in life, or on account of satisfaction for mortal sins remitted not fully completed; for Scripture in this place says that those for whose sins Judas ordered prayer had received their sleep with godliness. Fifth, that this is a matter of faith.
To this place the adversaries answer, first, that this book is not canonical, since the author himself at the end of the book asks pardon if he has erred in anything: “Let us then,” says Brenz, “grant him pardon for having erred when he praised suffrages for the dead.” Second, that at least this part cannot be canonical (thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, for except he had hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), for it contains a plain error, namely that souls die and rise with their bodies; otherwise it would not be superfluous and vain to pray for the dead even if they were not to rise again. Ochino adds that from this very clause purgatory can be removed; for if there were a purgatory, even if there were no resurrection of the dead, it would still not have been vain to pray for the dead, because prayer would have profited them toward deliverance from the punishments of purgatory. Third, that that conclusion, It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought, and so on, does not seem to fit the history, and was perhaps some marginal note which was afterwards violently thrust into the text. Fourth, that there is no mention in this Scripture of purgatory, but only of the resurrection; for Judas is said to have ordered prayer for the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. Fifth, that sacrifices and prayers are ordered by Judas Maccabeus to be made for those who, it was agreed, had died in mortal sin; for in the same place we have that there were found under the coats of all those slain certain things of the gifts of the idols, which they had seized against the express prohibition of God, Deuteronomy 7; and so it was manifest to all that they had fallen for this cause; therefore either that deed was superstitious, or they did not pray that they might help those souls, but only that they might console themselves. Sixth, that it does not follow: prayer and sacrifice were made for the dead, therefore they were in purgatory; for those for whom prayer was made could have been in hell, and those who prayed could have prayed and sacrificed to show a pious affection and remembrance toward them, and to console themselves. Seventh, that this Scripture does not set forth any law or decree, but only the example of one man; and we are not bound to imitate, nor indeed can we, all the examples of the Scriptures. Nor does it stand in the way that the example of Judas is praised in this place; for in the same book is praised the example of Razias, who killed himself, 2 Maccabees 14.
To the first I say that the book of Maccabees is not canonical among the Jews, but is among Christians, since the whole Church reads this book in the Mass, and read it long ago, as is plain from the epistle of Peter of Cluny against the Petrobrusians; and it had been forbidden in the third council of Carthage, chapter 47, that any book be read in the Church under the name of the divine books unless it were canonical. Besides, it is counted among the divine books, from the councils, by the third of Carthage, canon 47; from the Pontiffs, by Innocent I in the epistle to Exuperius, last chapter; from the Fathers, by Augustine, book 18 of the City of God, chapter 36, where he says thus: “The books of Maccabees not the Jews, but the Church holds for canonical.” By these testimonies is refuted the most impudent lie of Ochino, who in the dialogue on purgatory says thus: “That they are apocryphal is manifest from the synod of Laodicea and the African synod, and indeed from all the sacred doctors who, going through the catalogue of the sacred books, make no mention of the Maccabees.” So he. And how openly he lies anyone will easily learn who reads the third council of Carthage, which Ochino calls the African, and besides Innocent in the place cited, Augustine, book 2 on Christian doctrine, chapter 8, Gelasius in the decree on the canonical books, which he published in a council of seventy bishops, Isidore, book 6 of the Etymologies, chapter 1, and the other Fathers cited by us in book 1 on the Word of God, chapter 15. Peter Martyr, on chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians, answers that this book was received by Augustine and by the Church itself into the canon not of those books which avail for confirming doctrines, but of those which avail for the building up of morals; and he proves it because Augustine, book 2 against the epistle of Gaudentius, chapter 23, says that this book is not of equal authority with the law, the prophets and the psalms, but yet is useful if it is read soberly; likewise because Cyprian in the exposition of the Creed says that these books do not avail for proving doctrines. But the false martyr acts treacherously; for Augustine so far thought this book to avail for confirming doctrines that in book 1 on the care for the dead, chapter 1, he seeks from this book alone arguments to prove that prayer is to be made for the dead; and that this is a doctrine of faith the same Augustine teaches when in the book on heresies, chapter 53, he places Aerius in the number of heretics because he had denied prayers for the dead. And in book 2 against Gaudentius, chapter 23, he does not say that those books are not equal to the psalms, the law and the prophets in the Church, but among the Jews: “And this Scripture,” he says, “which is called of the Maccabees, the Jews do not hold as they do the law and the prophets and the psalms, but it has been received by the Church not unprofitably, if it is read or heard soberly.” From which appears the notable fraud of Martyr. And what Augustine says, that it ought to be read soberly, is not said because there are any errors in this book, but on account of the examples of those who killed themselves, which are related in this book and are not to be imitated; just as Genesis too is to be read soberly, lest we think the deed of the patriarch Judah, who committed incest, is to be imitated. The same Martyr was also deceived when he brought forward Cyprian for Rufinus; for that explanation of the Creed is Rufinus's, not Cyprian's, as is plain from the preface, where the author indicates that he is from Aquileia, and was baptized and brought up at Aquileia; and in the same place he mentions the heretic Photinus, who was a hundred years later than Cyprian; and where he enumerates the sacred books, in the same place he mentions Donatus, Manichaeus, Arius, Eunomius and other heretics who arose after the death of Cyprian. Nor ought it to seem strange if Rufinus thought these books not canonical; for the books of Maccabees are of the number of those about which there was at one time doubt even among Catholics, and which were afterwards nevertheless received by the whole Church as truly canonical. To the proof I say that the author does not ask pardon for errors, but for his manner of speech, as blessed Paul also excuses the unskilfulness of his speech.
To the second I say that the sentence of this book seems foolish for this reason, that it is not observed that among the Jews of old it was most usual to hold the question of the resurrection and that of the immortality of souls as the same question, although in truth they are distinct. For among the Jews, those who denied the one denied the other, as the Sadducees; and those who confessed the one confessed the other, as the Pharisees, as is plain in Acts 23. And not without reason; for since the rational soul is the true form of the body, and accordingly a true part of man, it is not likely that God willed the soul to live for ever without the body. Hence the Lord, Matthew 22, about to prove the resurrection to the Sadducees, uses that testimony of Scripture: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob; and adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; from which he intends to infer, therefore the dead rise. But this argument concludes nothing unless it is presupposed that the question of the immortality of souls and of the resurrection of bodies is taken as one and the same; for otherwise the consequence could be denied. For God will be the God of the living even if the dead do not rise, since the souls themselves live. By like reason the Apostle, when he says in 1 Corinthians 15, What doth it profit me, if the dead rise not again? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die, concludes nothing unless he presupposes that souls are mortal if bodies do not rise. For if the soul is immortal, even if bodies do not rise, it will profit much to fast and live well, because it will profit for acquiring the glory of the soul. The Scripture of the book of Maccabees, then, speaks altogether in the same way as blessed Paul does here, and presupposes the same thing. For it means to say: if the dead do not rise, it follows from this that souls are mortal, and accordingly it is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead unless the resurrection is hoped for.
To the third I say that in the Greek text the particle, therefore, is not found; for we read thus: Then, considering that for those who had fallen asleep with godliness the best grace was laid up, which was a holy and pious consideration, he therefore made expiation for the dead, that they might be loosed from sin. Yet the sense is altogether the same. Nor can the Latin reading be rejected without the Greek also being rejected. Nor is it unusual for historians sometimes to gather from the deeds done something which belongs to imitation and good morals.
To the fourth I say that it is not necessary that express mention be made of purgatory, since it is gathered plainly enough from what is found here. For we contend not about the name, but about the thing itself. Nor indeed, when Judas is said to have ordered prayer for the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, is the sense that he ordered prayer for the dead that they might rise again; but the sense is that Judas, since he religiously considered the resurrection to come, and accordingly that souls are immortal, and feared lest the souls of his slain soldiers should be punished in another world on account of some sin, ordered prayer and sacrifice to be made for them, that they might be loosed from sins, as is expressed at the end of the chapter.
To the fifth I say that their sin was either venial, because perhaps they were ignorant of the prohibition of the law, and did not take from those gifts in honour of the idols, but only from the desire of growing rich, which can be venial; or certainly, if it was mortal, that those soldiers at the moment of death grieved for the sin, and it was remitted to them as to fault, according to that of Psalm 77, When he slew them, then they sought him: and they returned; or at least that Judas Maccabeus so thought, for otherwise Scripture would not say that he considered that those who had fallen asleep with godliness had the best grace laid up. Add last that at least the state of those men was uncertain, and therefore it was lawful to pray for them even if they had been damned.
To the sixth I say that our consequence is not this: they prayed for them, therefore they were in purgatory; but: they prayed for certain dead, therefore they thought it could happen that those were in purgatory; or this: prayer for the sins of the dead is praised in Scripture, therefore there is a purgatory in the other life; for otherwise prayer would be in vain, and Scripture would err in praising such a prayer. And that in this place prayer is praised for the expiation of sins, and not for showing human affection, is plain both from this, that the occasion of this prayer was the sin of those dead men uncovered by the gifts found under their garments, as the history says; and from this, that it is expressly said that Judas ordered twelve thousand drachms to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the dead, and below, that they might be loosed from sins. Add that if there were no purgatory, it would indeed be lawful to weep to show human affection, but not to pray; for to what purpose is prayer for those who either do not need it, or cannot be helped?
To the seventh I say that the argument is not taken from the example of one man, but partly from the ancient and solemn rite of the Church of the Old Testament, partly from the infallible testimony of the sacred writer. For that this was a solemn rite of the Church is plain, since it is said in this place that all who were with Judas turned to prayers, and then, a collection being made, that is, each contributing something, that a great sum of money was gathered and sent by Judas, in the name of all, to Jerusalem for sacrifices for the dead; and this indeed is a great argument; but greater, and making for the Catholic faith, is that which is taken from the words of holy Scripture praising prayer for the sins of the dead as holy, pious and religious. Nor does the instance of the praise of Razias, who killed himself, avail; for, as Augustine shows in book 2 against the epistle of Gaudentius, chapter 23, Razias is praised for having acted bravely and manfully, not piously and holily; or, if they wish this deed to have been approved by the author of this book, it is rather to be said that Razias had a particular inspiration and command of God to do this, as Samson had, on the witness of Augustine, book 1 of the City of God, chapter 21, than that this author could have erred. Besides this place there are certain others which only persuade probably, and which nevertheless the holy Fathers have used. So we shall briefly note these too here.
The second place is Tobit 4: “Lay out thy bread, and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked.” Of this place there can be no other sense than the one which the expositors commonly hand down, namely: prepare a feast, and call the faithful poor, that they, after receiving the alms, may pray for the soul of the dead man. For from this arose that custom, which both was in the Church of old and is now also, that the kin of the dead make a feast, and send food and drink also to the poor and the religious, that they may pray for the soul of the dead. Chrysostom, homily 32 on Matthew: “Why,” he says, “after the death of your people do you call the poor together? Why do you beseech the priests to be willing to pray for them?” Nor is the device of Münster worth anything, who interprets by the name of tomb the mouths of the just poor, because it is written in Psalm 5, Their throat is an open sepulchre, so that the sense would be: put thy bread in the mouth of the just, that they may not die of hunger. For this exposition is false. First, because Scripture nowhere calls the mouth of a just man a sepulchre, but only the mouth of a sinner, whence the stenches of vices breathe out. Second, because Tobit in the same chapter had commended the living poor in many words, and then passed to the commendation of the dead, as is plain in the letter.
The third place is the last chapter of 1 Kings, where we read that the inhabitants of Jabes Galaad, having heard of the death of Saul, fasted seven days. And in 2 Kings 1 David wept and fasted for Saul and Jonathan and the others slain, which he did likewise for Abner, 2 Kings 3. For although these things seemed to be done as a sign of grief and sadness, yet it is credible that they were done chiefly to help the souls of the dead, as Bede expounds at the end of the commentary on 1 Kings; which we gather from two things. First, from this, that it would have been unreasonable to fast seven days as a sign of grief. Second, from this, that David, 2 Kings 12, fasted and prayed for his infant son while he was sick; but afterwards, when he heard that he was dead, he fasted no more; by which deed of his he showed that he was accustomed to fast in order to obtain something from God; for he did not fast for the death of the boy because he knew the boy would not return to life, and besides did not need suffrages; to which also belongs that care of the patriarchs, who took pains to be buried in the land of promise, Genesis 47 and 50, namely that they might be partakers of the prayers and sacrifices which were offered there.
The fourth place is Psalm 37: “Rebuke me not, O Lord, in thy indignation; nor chastise me in thy wrath.” For although these words can be expounded in various ways, yet blessed Augustine so expounds them that to be rebuked by God in indignation is to be damned for ever; to be chastised in wrath is to be punished severely after this life, yet for correction and amendment. Whence he adds: “In this life,” he says, “purge me, render me such that I have no further need of the amending fire,” and so on. In the same way expound Bede, Haymo, Denis the Carthusian and others.
The fifth place is Psalm 65: “We have passed through fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment.” This place too can have various senses, yet Origen, homily 25 on Numbers, and blessed Ambrose on Psalm 36 and sermon 3 on Psalm 118, expound by water, baptism; by fire, purgatory: “Here,” he says, “by water, there by fire; by water that sins may be washed away, by fire that they may be burned out.”
The sixth place is Isaiah 4: “The Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” This place blessed Augustine expounds of the punishment of purgatory, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 25.
The seventh place is Isaiah 9: “Wickedness is kindled as a fire, it shall devour the briers.” Basil on this place says that by confession sin is made such that it can be consumed by the purgatorial fire after this life; and he proves it from this place.
The eighth place is Micah 7: “Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, because I am fallen: I shall arise: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will bear the wrath of the Lord, because I have sinned against him: until he judge my cause. He will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice.” That this place is accustomed to be brought forward for purgatory Jerome teaches on the last chapter of Isaiah, and the ordinary Gloss expounds: I will bear the wrath of the Lord here or in purgatory.
The ninth place is Zechariah 9: “Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water.” For although they everywhere bring forward this place for the deliverance of the Fathers from limbo, yet it agrees better with the deliverance of souls from purgatory, whom Christ led out when he descended there after his death. First, because these are more rightly called prisoners. Second, because in purgatory there is not the water of consolation which is in limbo, as is plain in Luke 16 of Lazarus: but now he is comforted. Whence Augustine, epistle 99 to Evodius, and book 12 on Genesis, chapter 33, contends that Christ, when he descended to the lower regions, visited not only the Fathers but also those who were tormented in the lower world, that is, in purgatory, and freed many of them thence.
The tenth place is Malachi 3: “He shall sit refining and cleansing the silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them,” and so on. This place is expounded of purgatorial punishment by Origen, homily 6 on Exodus, Saint Ambrose on Psalm 36, blessed Augustine, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 25, and blessed Jerome on this place; and although that purgatorial punishment is not the one of which we now treat, for that will purge the living, while we treat of the punishment of the dead, yet purgatory is rightly inferred from it. For a most grave tribulation will go before at that time, and afterwards fire also will come down and will most swiftly purge all the remains of sins in just men, because, as Irenaeus also notes at the end of book 5, then suddenly the Church which is on earth will be taken up to the bridegroom, and there will be no further time of purging, as there now is after death before the judgment.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPll III.
VuryiUiinum < . < imttmlur cj) Scn\ilnn*
ivstiivirnli vitrrin.
I*riimim ii?iliir inn^Mliiriimi rsS(>. (|iiiminc ^;ni» -
1 ibiis ar^mmnloruiii piolinliiimis. .MViTcimi^ • iiiiii
primo. Striplmiis TcsIimihmiIi voloris. Socumlo ,
Srriplmiis ii-st.iim'iili nuvi. Tfrlm, rom-iliii. (,)ii;ir-
lo, |»iilri's. U'""'"' riilimif.s, ('llmii iliiimmi solvc;-
imis iir^mmMilii. iMiimis Iimmis linlKliir 2. Mncliiil).
nip. 12. iihi posliMii|Uitiii SiMiptuni niirriivil, Jmlnm
M.uliiiliiHMim misisso iii lliiM"iis;ilrm 12. (MK). ilia-
rlKii.inim iuj^iMili iii sncriliiMii pro iimilms cNpi ii-
deiKl», suhjiiii^jit : Sanvla civ/o vlnaluhris rsl co-
yitalio i>ro di'l'uncli8 (ix<irarr, ul a itcccatia sol-
cantur.
Iliiic ciiiiii s(Mpiiliir. l»riino:IN)SSC inorluos posl
liiinc viliim II ptMMMlis sulvi . (^l prnimlc (;ssc pui-
l^iilorium. SimuiuIo: SiuMiliciii.cl (ir<ilimics \i\(irmii
proilcsse (lolimclis. Tcrlio: Noii expiiiri scinper iii
iiiorlo omncs peccjiloriim rcliijiiiiis , ul I.iiIIktus
tlicil : N;im isli pro (^mhus or;iri jiissil, innrlm o-
nml morto violciiUi, cl pro rclii,'ioiio . Uimcu rrc-
(lebul Juil;is ;ulliuc illos non plono cssc pur;;:ilus.
()uiirlo : Posse liomiiicin s;incle ct pie iiiori , cl
lamen hubere dehilmn alKpiud soIvimkIuiii , vel
proplcr vcnialia pcccala non remissii iii vila, vel
proplcr salisriiclioncm pio m(uliili[)us remissis
11011 plcne explcliun: I\;im Scriplurii liuo loco dicit
eos, pi" (luoruip pecculis jussil oriiri JuJiis , cuni
pictnlc (lonnilioncm acccpissc. (^uinlo : Iloc esse
de rulc.
Ad liunc locum respondent advcrsarii. Primo ,
librum liunc non esse canonicum.cum auclor ipse
in line lihri vcniam pclal. si (]Uii iii re crriivoril :
Ergo, inquit, Brenlius. demus Uli vcniani quod
erraveril. cum sulfradia pro defunclis laudavil.
Secundo. qui;i siilicm liiiec p.irs non polcst cssc
cnnonica(sanc/e et pie de resurrectione cogitans,
nisi enim eos qui cecideranl resurrecturos^spe-
raret. superlluum viderelur , el vanwn pro de-
functis orare } conliiicl ciiim expluratum crrorom
quod nimirmn animae cum cori)oribus moriaiilur
el resnrganl, alioqui non csset superfliium et va-
luim orare pro inorluis, eliamsi noii resuigercui.
Addil Ochinus, cx hac ipsa parlicuhi lolli po<se
purgalorium: INum si purgalorium essel , cliamsi
resurrectio morluorum iion esset, non lamcii fuis-
sel vanum orare pro morluis . quia proruissel iilis
orplio ad libiralionem a poeiiis purgalorii.
Tcrlio, quia ill.i conolusio : Sancta ergo et sg-
lubris est cogitatio etc. non videlur hislorioocon-
venirc, et forie erat aiinolalio aliqua marginalis,
eliiide in lexlum violenler inlrusa est.
Quaflo. quia non sit menlio in hac Scriplura
purgatorii, sed solum resurreclionis; dicitur enim
Judas jussisse orare pro morluis sancle el pie de
resurreclionc cogilans.
Quinto, quia sacriDcia, et orationes jubentur Qe-
ri a Juda Machabaeo pro illis, quo.s constabal in
peccalo morlali decessisse; nam ibidem habcmus
reperta fuisse sub tuuicis omiiium illorum occiso-
rum quaedaiu de douariis idoluri^m, (^uae illi ra-
pucrunl coiilr.i fiprc»»i«iii prohihiliuiiem 1)(mjI' io'
iK 111. 7. Inirnrrnnt. Impnt. unh lnniii>* inlirfr
(liirnni dr. ilonantH utolDrunt , quar aiiml Jan\
niam furrunl , a qutlpnn lr,r prnlithrl Jtidaroi.
Omuihus iM^o muiiiro^diiii fiK-iiiiii cmI , ol» li.iric
oiii|..siim cus (•urrinssc, im'^o vi-l HiipiMnlioMiui fiill
fiicliim liuc Jii I.K', vcl iKiii oiuriiiil iil iiiiiiu.i^t illuH
jiivaronl . Hcd hoIuiii iil smpHoi coiisul.irciilur.
Scviu, qiiiii iiuii scqniiiir: (ir.iiiiui ci s:irri(lca-
liim csl pK» iiuulips, iM';,'!» iMMiil III puri.MiurK»:iiiiiii
potiicruiil, pro (pnhiis or.ibiilnr, cssc lu lufcniu .
ct puiiKMuiil qiii oriih.iiit, ur irc ct HaiMilliMrc, ul
pimii cr^.i cus iilVcc.liim, cl uicinoriiim u i.u.Iim(miI
el scipsus coiisojiircnlur.
Scplimo, (piiii Scripturii isla iiori piuforl lugr.ni
aliqiiam, iiiit dc(M-eluiii, so<l soliim iiiiius homililH
ovcmpluiii, iiuii liMKMimr aulciii iinilari, iiiiuk» ucc
pussuiiiiis oiiiuiii ('xcmplii Scriplurariim. Ncqiic
uhslat ipiu.l lauihitiir liuo loco cxcmpluui Jiuiao ;
iiam iii (Miih 111 llhid liiiKJ.iliir cMMiiplum Iht/.iiiu ,
qiii se ocridil, 2. .Miichah. 14.
Ad priimim dioo, lih. Machiihacorum iion csso
canonicum apiid Jiul.ieos , scd apiid (ihrislianos
csse, si(|uiiliMii Kcchisiii univcrsa lcj^il hunc li-
hriiin in missa, ct lcgchat jiiui olim , ut palet cx
epislola INlri (".liiuiiu-ciisis coiilni l'clrohni>i iiios ,
(;l l.micii |)iuhihittiiu fucrat iii coiicilio III. (Mrlliag.
cap. 47. 110 ullus lihcr lcgerelur in Eoclesia suh
nomiiu' diviuurum lihruriim. iiisi raiiuiii(Mis essel.
Praelerea (miiii nunu-ral cum diviiiis libris, ex con-
ciliis carth.igiuens. 111. canoii. 47. ex ponlilicibus,
luuucculius I. iii episl. ad Kxuperiuiii , Ciip. iill.
ex Palrihus, Augusl. lib. 18. de Civ. Dei cap. ?AJ.
ubi sic ail : Lihros Mackahaeorum non Ju<laei ,
sed Ecclesia pro canonicis hahel.
V.\ cpiihus tesiiiiioniis refellilur mcndacinm im-
puilenlissiinuiu Orhiiii. (pii iii dialugo d.i pnrga-
lurio sic ait : Quod apocryphi sinl. ex laodicensi
el afiicana sijnodo manifeslum esl. iuimo ex o-
innihus socris doclorihus qui sacrorum lihroruni
calalogum percensentes.de Machahaeicis :udlam
vienUonemfuciuut. Ihcc ille.Qui qua napertemcn-
liiitur. fiuMle cugnosoct, qui legerit carlhagiu. con-
rilium JII.(]uod Ochinus Africaiium vocal, el prac-
lerea InnOi-ent um loco cilato, Augusliu. lib. 2. de
dootriuii chrisliaiia cap. 8. Gelasium iu dccrelo de
libris canoufcis.quod edidit in concilio lO.episco-
porum, Isidorum lib. 6. etymologiarum , cap. 1.
aliosoue Patres a nobis citat()s lib. 1 .de Verbo Dei,
cap. 15.
Respondet Pclrns Marlyr in cap 3. 1. Corinlh.
ab Augustino. et Ecclesia ipsa hunc libruin rcce-
plum in canonem, non eorum lihrorum, qul valent
ad conQrmanda dogmata , sed eoruiii qui valenl
ad morum aedificalionem, el probal: quia Augusl.
lib. 2. conlra epist. Gaudcnlii , oap. 23. dicil hunc
librum nou esse paris aucloritalis cum lege, prc-
pliftlis el psalmis, sed lameii uiilem esse si sobrie
iegatur. liem quia Cypiianus in exposilione syra-
buli dicit, hos libros iion Yalere ad probanda dog-
mata.
At pcrflde agit pseudomarlyr; nara August. adco
pulabant hunc librum valere ad confirmaiida dog-
mata, utlib. 1. de cur.i pro monuis . cap. 1. e.v
DE PUaCATORIO
solo lioc libro argumenla petal ad probanduni o-
randuni esse pro morluis, el hoc esse dogma fidei
idem August. docet, cum in lib. dc haeres. cap.
.1!3. ponil Aeriura in numero hacreticorum , quia
negaveral oraliones pro defunctis.In 2. autcm lib.
coulra Gaudenlium, cap. 23. non dicil eos libros
non esse |)nres psalmis , legi et prophctis in Ec-
clesia, sed apud Judaeos : El Iianc quidem Scri-
jyluram, iuquit, quae appellalur Machabaeorum,
iion liabcnl Judaei sicut legcm et proj^lielas et
psalnws, scd recepta est ab Ecclesia non inutill-
ter, si sobrie legatur, vel audiatur. Ex quo ap-
parel insignis fraus Martyris. Quod autem Augu-
slin. dicit, debere sobrie legi , non ideo dicilur,
quia sint in hoc libro aliqui errorcs , sed propler
exempla eorum, qui so occiderunt , qui in hoc li-
bro narranlur, el imilanda non sunl; quomodo ct-
iam Gencsis sobrie legenda est , ne pulemus imi-
tandum factum Judae patriarchae , qui incestum
perpelriivil.
Deccplus esl aulem idem x^larlyr , cum Cypria-
nuni pro Unnino adduxit; illa enim symboli expii-
calio, RuCTini cst, non Cypriani , utpalel ex prae-
falione, ubi auclor indicat, se esse aquilejensem ,
et Aquilejne baplizalnm et educatum , et ibidem
meminil Pholini haerelici , qui cenlum annis Cy-
priano posterior fij.it ; et ubi libros sacros enume-
ral, ibidem meminit Donali, Manichaei, Arii,Euno-
niii, aliorumque haereticorum, qui post Cypriani
obilum exorti sunt. Neque mirum esse debet , si
RulTinus hos libros non esse canonicos pulavit :
Kam libri Machabaeorum sunl ex eorum numero ,
de quibus aliquando cliam inter catholicos dubi-
laluni est, et poslea tamen ab universa Ecclesia ,
lamquam vere canonici, recepli sunt.
Ad probalionem dico: Auctorem non pelere ve-
niam errorum,sed eloquutionis, quomodo eliam b.
Paulus excusat sermonis sui imperiliam.
Ad secundum dico: Ideo videri ineptam senten-
tiam liujus Iibri,quia non observalur apud Judaeos
olim fuisse usilatissimum,habere pro cadem quae-
slione illam de resurreclione et illam de animo-
rum immortalitate, et si revera dislinclae sunt.
Num apud Judaeos, qui negabanl unum, negabant
alterum, ut Sadducaei; el qui unum fatebanlur, fa-
lebanlur alterum, ut Pliarisaei, ul patet Aclor. 23.
IVec immerilo; nam cum anima ralionalis sit vera
forma corporis, et proinde vera pars hominis, non
est verisimile. Deum voluisse animam perpctuo
vivcre sine corporc. Ilinc Dominus Matlh. 22.pro-
balurus Sadducaeis resurrcctionem , ulitur illo te-
stimonio Scriplurae: Ego sum Deus Abraliam ,
Deus Isaac, Deus Jacob , cl subjungit ; Don est
Deus mortuorum , sed viventium , ex quibus iu-
lerre inlendil, ergo morlui resurgunt.
Al hoc argumcnlum nihil concludit , nisi prae-
supponatur, quaestionem de immortalilate animo-
rum, elde rcsurreclione corporum accipi pro una
et eadcm; posset enim alioquin negari consequen-
lia. Nam Deus crit Deus vivenlium, etium si mortui
non rosurgant, quandoquidcm animi ipsi vivunt.
Pnri ratione apostolus cum ail 1. Corinth. l^^i.Quid
milii jnodest, si mortui non resurgunl ? come-
damus et lAbamus , cras enim moriemur ; nisi
praesupponal animas essc morlales , si corpora
non resurgunt, nihil concludit. Nam si animus est
immortalis, etiamsi corpora non resurganl ; mul-
tum proderit jejunare et bene vivere, quia prode-
rit ad gloriam animae acquirendam. Scriptura er-
go libri Machabaeorum loquilur omnino eodem
modo, quo hic b. Paulus, et idem praesupponit.
Vult enim dicere; Si morlui non resurgunt , inde
sequi , animas esse morlales , et proinde super-
fluum et vanum orare pro mortuis , nisi sperelur
resurrectio.
Ad terlium dico: In lextu graeco non haberi par-
ticulam; Ergo , sic enira legimus: Eh' ejjLpXsTiov
~o\q [«.£-' £U(r£p£[avxoii;.w[A£vo'.?xaXX'.c2vaT:ox2t;j.£vov
ia.rAq^{AO^, ooia xal eu(r.£pyi!; yj £Ti(voia, 60£VT:splTwv
-£Ov>jxoTcov Tov £^'.Xa(r|AC)v kzoiTflaLxo, -r^c, dfxapTia^
dkoXuO^vat, hoc esl: Deinde considerans, iis, qui
cum pietate obdormierant optimam rejjositam
gratiam , quae sancla et pia consideratio fuit ,
ideo pro mortuis expiationem fecit, ut a peccalo
solverentur. Tamen sensus esl omnino idem. Nec
polest rejici lalina leclio , quin rejiciatnr etiam
graeca. Neque est insolilum hisloricis, aliquid in-
terdum colligere ex rebus gestis, quod adimitalio-
nera, el bonos morcs perlineat.
Ad quartum dico:Non esse necesse Ceri mentio-
nem expressam purgatorii, cum salis aperte col-
ligalur ex iis, quae hic habentur. Non enim de no-
mine, sed de re ipsa conlendimus. Neque vero
cum dicilur Judas jussisse orare pro morluis, be-
ne et religiose de resurrectione cogitans , sensus
esl,jussisse eum orare pro mortuis,ut resurgerent,
sed est scnsus, Judam, cum religiose cogitaret re-
surrectioncm futuram, et proinde animas esse im-
mortales, et formidaret ne animae interfectorum
raililura suorura, propler peccatum aliquod , in a-
lio sacculo punirenlur, jussisse pro eis orari et
sacrificari, ut a peccatis solvcrenlur, ulin fine ca-
pilis cxprimilur.
Ad quinlum dico; Peccalum illorum aut fuisse
venialc.quia forte ignorabant legis prohibitionem,
el non acceperunl ex donariis illisin honorem ido-
lorum, sed solum dilescendi cupidilale , quae ve-
nislis esse polesl; aut cerle si morlale fuit,in mor-
tis articulo milites illos dolnisse dc peccato , et
quoad culpnm rcmissum illis fuisse , juxta illud
psalm. 77. Cum occideret eos , quaerebant eum
et revertebantur ; aut sallem Judam Machabaeum
ita existimassc, alioqui non diceret Scriplura,eum
considerasse eos, qui cum pielate obdormierant ,
optimara habere reposilara graliam. Adde ullimo ,
saltem incerlum fuisse stalum illorum , et pro-
ptcrca licuisse pro eis orare , eliarasi damnati
fuissent.
Ad scxlura dico: Noslram consequenliam non
esse istam, orarunt pro illis , ergo eranl in pur-
gatorio; sed, orarunl pro quibusdam defunctis, er-
go existimarunt posse fieri, ut illi essent in pur-
gatorio; vcl islam, laudalur in Scriplura oratio pro
defunctorum peccalis,ergo purgalorium est in alia
vita: Nam alioquin frustra oraretur, et Scriplura er-
raret laudando ejusmodi oralionem. Quod autem
hoc loco laudelur oratio pro cxpialione peccato-
rum, et non pro humano afTcclu ostendendo.patct.
iiui:ii I nMii:.s
»31
liiiii i'\ (Mi, i|iiO(i (iccnsio luijiis ornlidiiis fnil |i(>r>
<;itutn illdruiii iiiorluoniiii (IcUm-Iiiiii oIi (loiiaria
iiivciilii siih vcslihiis (■(iriiin. iil lilsloiiii ilicil. Iiiiii
(.'\ (!0 (llKul ('\|t|('Ss(! tlicillir Jlld.l.S UIISIssC 12, 0(10.
(Irailiiiiiis ollVrri siM;rill(Miiiii pro pi^ccalis iiiortiio-
rinii, rl inrra, iit a pccciilis snlviinliir.
A(l(l(\ (|ii()(l si nulluiii csscl |iur;^Mt(iriiiiii , lici;-
rcl (piKlciii llcrc iid liniuiiuiiin iillcctiiiii oslcinlcii-
(liiin; al oraro iioii ihMii nuorsuiii iMiiui ortitio pro
illis, (|ui iiiil noii c;,^'!!!, ;iut jnvnii iin i pusMiiit?
A(l sc|)tininin dico, iir^Miniciitniii iioii siiiiii al)
('xiMiiplo iiiiiiis lioiniiiis, simI piirliiii ali iiiitiipio c.t
soUMiini rilii M(M'lcsiiic 'rcsliuniMiti vclcris ; pailiiii
a tcsliiiionio inl;illil)ili scriploris s;icri. Ouud ('iiiiii
liic fiKM-it soUMiiiiis ritiis Kcclcsiao, palcl, cuin lioc
loco dicilur: (hniics qiii ciiin Jiuld rnint dd pn'-
cfs comcrsos, cl (UmikIc: ('olUilinnc fiiclii., i(l(!sl ,
siii^ulis (',()id"cr(Milil)ns ali(piid,coll(!ctam es:s(! iiuil-
tani pcciiiiiain, cl iiiissain a Jiida, iioininti otiiiiiuni
in llicrus;ilcin, ad s;icrillcia pro inorluis ; cl lioc
(]ni(l(MU in;ii;iiii:n ost ar^iMncnliini: s(!d tii;iiiis csl,
ud lidoin catliolicain faciiMis, qiiud suiniliir a vcr-
Lis Scri|)lnr;ic s;K-f;ic l;iiKl;iiilis (»r;ili()iictii pro poc-
catis inorluoriiin taiiKpKini s;inctain, pi;iiii cl r(^li-
giosain. i\e(]no, v;ilot inslantia de laude Ha/iao,qni
seocoidil; [Nani . iil An^Mistinns oslendit lih. 2.
conlra c|>isl. (landcnlii, c;ip. 'l'.\. Uazias landiitur,
qnud rorlilor ot virililcr o^oril, nun (]U0(I jiie cl
sanclo, vel, si voliinl jjrobari lioc ractum ab au-
clorc liujns libri . iKitins diiMMiduni cst , biibiiisse
H;i7,iam i)oculi;ironi inspir;ilionom, el pracceplum
Dci, ul boc facerel sicut babnil S;impson, lcsle Au-
guslinu lib. 1. de Civ.Diu ciip.21. (piatn diccndum
csscl,liunc iUR-turom |)uluisse crrare.Praelcr bnnc
lucnm snnt alia quaedam, quae solum prubabililor
suiidonl. ol quibus l;imon sanoti Palrcs usi suul.
I-^ilur ea quuqiic liic breviler adnolabimus.
, Seouiulus locns osl Tubiae 4. Pancm tmim ct
rinum supcr scpulluram jusli constiluc. cl noli
cx comanducarcclbibcrc cum peccatoribus.lhi-
jus luci nun pulosl cssc alius sensiis,(]uam is.qucm
communiter e.xposilurcs Iradnnl. videliceUlnslruo
cunvivinm, el vuca (ideles piiupcros, ul ipsi posl
accopiain cleomosynam orcnl pro anima deruncli.
Hinc cnim nala esl illa consuctudo , quae el olim
in Ecclesia fuil . et nunc etiam est . ut aflines dc-
functi conviYium faciant, ct miltant etiam cibum
el poluni pauperibus et religiosis , ut orent pro
anima deluncti. Cbrysoslomus iiom. 32. in Maltb.
Cur, inqui!, post mortcm tuorum pauperes con-
vocas ? Cur presbyteros, ut pro cis lelint orare
obsecras? ^ieque valel quidquam commentum 3Iun-
steri, qui inlerprelalur noraine sepulcbri.ora pau-
perum juslorum, quia scriplum est ps. 5. Sepul-
chrum patens est gutlur eorum , ut scnsus sit ;
Poue panem luum iu ore juslorura,ut non morian-
tur fame. Haec enim falsa exposilio esl. Primo ,
quia nusquara Scriptura vocatsepulchrum os jusli,
sed solura os peccatoris,unde exhalanl foelores vi-
liorum. Secundo . quia Tobias in eodem capile
multis verbis commendaverat pauperes vivos, et
deindelransiit ad coramendalionem morluorum ,
ut in lilera palct.
Terlius locus cst l.Reg. ull. ubi legimus. (^uod
BtLLAUMI.M. V.il. II.
li:iliilnlor(*H JnhcH (•ilnad auditn morli} Sniil , jfju-
iiiiM Miitil si>p((Mii (licH. VA 2. iiug. 1. Ilnvid ncvil cl
icpiiKiv it jiro Sinilc (!t Jiin;dli;i ol idil'* oc(-i»^iH ,
(piod kIci;i fccil pro Abiii-r, 2. l('!;sMiiit .'(. <Jiuit!ivili
cniiii li;i(>c vidobaiiliir li(!ri in Ni(riiiiiiidoloriN ct Iri*
stiliao taiiioii crcdibiU: osl. |irii('('ipuc fiicln ush(; nil
iiiviuidas niiitiMS dcriiiM-.loniin, iit lto(ln ('\|i()riit in
linc (■(imiiion(;iiii iii lib. I. Itc(;. id (|tioil cx (luobuH
colli^inm^i. Primn. cx co , rpiod irralKuiabilc fiiid'
soi in si;;iiitiii ddUiris sr[)lPiii dtcs jojiin^irc. Sccuii-
do, r>x 00, ()\iO(l David 2. Iloj,'. 12. jojuiuivil et o«
ravit jiro (ilio suo inriitidilo, diiin ac^rotarct ; |)0'
slca V(M'o (]iintid() aiidivil i!iim osse mordium, iiori
:itnpliiis j(!jiiniivil, (]ito fiiclo sno ostciidil , .se jeju*
naro solitum, ut aliijiiid n iJoo impctrar(!l; idco c-
niin [iro inorlo pncri non jcjoitiivit , (jnia M-iobat .
noii (^ssc; jnioruin ad vitam icdilnriim. cl pracloren
oum sun'r;i^Mis non c^'cr(; , (jiio eti;iin s|teclal illa
sollioitudo ])atrinr('hariiiii, qiii cniiiorntit iti lerra
promissionis scpcliri, ()on(!s. 47. ct ."»0 nimiriim
iit osscnt parti(-i|)es proctim et sacrtliciorum, (piae
ibi ulTcrobanliir.
(}ii;irlns locns est ps;il. .'17. Dmninc, nc ia furo-
rc luo arriuas mc.ncciuc in ira lua corripias mc.
Ktsi onirn hiiec vorbn varie cxponi |)Ossint. laiiien
b. Aufrustinus ila c.v|)oiiit.ul in furore ar^'ui a Dro,
sil in aelornum damnaui; in ir;i corripi. sil pnniri
sevoro posl baiu' vil;im. ad corroplionem tainon el
emendalioncm. IJndc subdil : In hacvita. inquit ,
purqcs mc, talcm mcrcddas. cuijam cmcnda-
lorio ifinc non opus sit ctc. Rodein modo cxpoiiil
Beda. Hayrao, Dionysius Carlhusianus et alii.
Ouinlus lociis ost psal. (>">. Transivimiis pcr i-
fincm ct aquam . cl cduxisli nos in rcfrifierium.
llic cliam locus polest b;ibere Viirios seiisus,lamon
Origenes bora. 2j. in Num. ct b. Ambrosius in
psalm. .^G. ot serm. ^. in psalm. IIS, ex|)Onil per
aquam, baptismum; per ignem. purgalorintn: Ilic,
inqnit, pcr aquam. itlic perif]nem ; pcr aquam
ut ahhiantur pcccafa : pcr ifjnem ut cxurantur .
Sexlus locus esl Jsai. i.Piwfjabit Dominus sor-
dcs fiUorum ct filiarum Sion , et san<juincm e-
mundahil dc medio eorum spirilu judicii ct spi-
ritu combustionis. Hunc locum exponit de poena
purgatorii b. Auguslinus lib. 20 de Civit. Dei
cap. 2i>.
Septimus locus esl Isai.9. Succcnsa est quasi i-
gnis impictas. et spinas dcvorabit ; Basilius iu
bunc locum dicit , per oonfessionem peccatura 2-
reficri. ut igne purgatorio post hanc vilam absumi
possil; et ex hoc loco probat.
Oclavus locus est Michaeae 7. A'e laeteris.ini'
mica mea; nani si cccidi. resurgam; cum sedero
in tenebris. iram Domini portabo , donec caus-
sam meamjudiccl. Adducct me in lucmn; ridebo
juslitiam cjus. Hunc locum afferri solilura pro
purgalorio. docet Hieronymus in cap. ull. Isai. et
Glossa ordinaria exponit; Iram Domini portabo hic
\el in purgalorio.
Nonus locus esl Zach. 0.7'm autcm in sanguine
Testamenli tui cduxisti vinctos tuos de lacu, in
quo non est aqua. Elsi enim hunc locum addu-
cunt passim pro liberalionc Patrura ex limbo, ta-
men mclius convenit liberationi aniinarum exour-
4'J
35»
1»E PllU.ATOfUO
galorio, quas Chrislus c.iuxil , cuni co desceruiil
posl morlcui suam. Primo, quia isli reclius dicun-
tur vincli. Secundo, quia in purgalorio non est a-
qua consolalionis,qniie esl in iimbo: ul paletLuc.
16. deLazaro: Uic vero consolalitr. Unde Augu-
stinus cpislol. 1)9. ad Evodium , et lib. 42. in Ge-
nes. cap. 33. conlendit, Christum, cum descendit
ad inferos, non solum Patres invisisse, sed etiam
eos, qui cruciabantur in inferno, idest , in purga-
torio, etmullos eorum inde liberasse.
Dccimus locus est Malach. 3. Ipse sedebil quasi
ignis constans, et purgabit filios Levi , el colabit
eos etc.Uunc locura exponunl depoena purgatoria
Origenes hom. 6. io Exod. s. Ambrosiusin psalm.
36. b. Auguslinus lib. 20. de Civ. Dei cap. 25. el
b. Ilieronyirius in hunc locum, et quamquam poe-
iia illa purgaloria non est ea, de qua nunc agi-
mus: IVam illa purgabit viventes, nos autera agi-
nius de poena morluorum; lamen inde recte infer-
tur purgatorium. IVam idco lunc praecedet Iribula-
tio gravissima. oA poslea eliam ignis descendet ,
ct purgabit celerrirae omnes reliquias peccaloruni
in hominibiis lustis, quia, ut Irenaeus etiam nolat
in fine lib. 5. lunc repenle Ecclesia , quae est in
lcrris, assumenda eril ad sponsum , nec erit tem-
pus purgalionis uiterius, ut nunc est post mortem
ante judicium.