Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church That Is in Purgatory · Book I: On Purgatory
Chapter 4: Purgatory is proved from the New 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).
The first place is Matthew 12, where the Lord says that there is a certain sin which is not forgiven either in this world or in the world to come. For from this the holy Fathers gather that certain sins are forgiven in the world to come through the prayers and suffrages of the Church: so blessed Augustine, book 21 of the City of God, chapter 24, and book 6 against Julian, chapter 5; blessed Gregory, book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 39; blessed Bede on chapter 3 of Mark; blessed Bernard, homily 66 on the Canticle, who was content with this testimony alone against this heresy. Likewise Peter of Cluny in the epistle against the Petrobrusians; Rabanus, book 2 on the instruction of clerics, chapter 44; and all the glosses, the ordinary, the interlinear, and so on.
But against this place Peter Martyr objects, first, that these things are said by exaggeration. I answer: in this way we could also take away hell, and say it is an exaggeration when it is said, Depart into everlasting fire. Besides, an exaggeration ought not to be foolish, as it is when a division is made and nothing answers to one member. Second, some say it is a threat. I answer in the same way. Third, others object: Christ compares the sin against the Holy Spirit with the gravest mortal sins, with blasphemy against the Father and against the Son; therefore if he wished to say that some sins can be forgiven in the other world, he would mean above all those with which he was then comparing the sin against the Holy Spirit; but this is false, because in our view only venial sins are washed away in the other world, and so on. I answer: Christ speaks of perfect remission, which includes the remission of fault and of punishment, in which way the gravest sins are forgiven even in the other world, because there their remission is completed. Fourth, they say Christ would seem to signify that graver sins are forgiven in the world to come, and in this one only lighter ones, if he wished any to be forgiven there; otherwise he would not say, neither in this world nor in the world to come, but on the contrary would have said, it shall not be forgiven neither in the world to come nor in this, so that the speech might rise. I answer: the speech does rise, because in the world to come there is a greater space for washing away sins than here; and besides this world is put first because the remission of offences is begun here and completed there. Fifth, Calvin objects: the Lord speaks of the remission of fault; therefore you wrongly allege this place for the remission of the punishment of purgatory. I answer: in purgatory faults too are remitted, at least venial ones; besides, it is false that Christ speaks of fault alone. For this is the sense: the sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven in this world nor in the world to come, neither as to fault nor as to punishment, whereas other sins are either forgiven in this world as to fault and in the other sometimes as to punishment, as mortal sins; or both here and there as to fault and as to punishment, as venial sins. Sixth, says Calvin: in this world and in the world to come means to say, in this judgment and in the last it shall not be forgiven, and so there is no mention of purgatory. But on the contrary: for who will those be to whom it was not forgiven here, and will be forgiven in the judgment? Are they not those who will either need the purging of venial sins, or will be debtors of punishment alone? For those who depart hence with injustice will certainly not be absolved in the judgment. Seventh, Peter Martyr objects that since in good dialectic an affirmation does not follow from a negation, it is not lawful to infer: the sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven in the world to come, therefore certain other sins can be forgiven in it; just as it does not follow well: King Philip is not king of the Venetians, therefore someone else is king of the Venetians. And Ochino confirms it: for Christ could have said, this sin shall not be forgiven in this world nor in hell, and yet we would not gather from it that certain sins are forgiven in hell. I answer that what we infer from the words of the Lord does not follow according to the rules of the dialecticians, but does follow according to the rule of prudence, because otherwise we would make the Lord speak most ineptly. For he would say ineptly, this sin shall not be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come, if in the world to come none is forgiven; just as he would speak ineptly who said, King Philip will not absolve you either in the court of Spain or in the court of France. But he would not speak ineptly if he said, neither in the court of Spain nor in the court of Brabant. Whence in John 18, when Christ had said, My kingdom is not of this world, Pilate inferred, Art thou a king then? and Christ did not answer that an affirmative does not follow well from a negative, but approved it. Nor does the likeness brought by Ochino avail; for Christ could not say, neither in this world nor in hell, except ineptly, both because this world is a time and hell is a place, and accordingly they are not opposed as this world and the world to come are; and also because it is agreed that in hell no remission is made. Eighth, they object that, neither in this world nor in the world to come, signifies the same as never, or for ever, as Mark expounded it, who in chapter 3 says, hath not forgiveness for ever; and as Peter says in John 13, Thou shalt never wash my feet. I answer that Matthew ought not to be expounded by Mark, but rather Mark by Matthew, since Matthew uses more words, and it is agreed that Matthew wrote more fully and Mark made as it were a compendium of Matthew's gospel. Nor did Mark take the word, for ever, as Peter did in John. For Peter would have said ineptly, thou shalt not wash my feet either in this world or in the world to come, since in the world to come feet are not washed. But the Lord did not speak ineptly in Matthew: it shall not be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come. And so Peter in John took the phrase, for ever, improperly, for the time of this life alone; Mark properly, for the whole space of this world and the next. Besides, either Christ spoke as Matthew has it, or as Mark has it, or in both ways; if the first or the third, I have my intent; if the second, although this is not probable, then Matthew, led by the Holy Spirit, expounded the words of Christ, and unless he expounded ineptly, he indicated that in the other world some sins are forgiven. Ninth, they say it is a Hebrew phrase. I answer that this is false; that of Peter, for ever, is indeed a Hebrew phrase, for the Hebrews everywhere say le-olam even of temporal things; but, neither in this world nor in the world to come, is not a proper Hebrew phrase. Nor does Mark use a Hebrew phrase, but speaks properly.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
Purgatorium esse probatur ex Testamento
novo.
Primus locus est Malth. 12. ubi dicit Dominus ,
esse quoddam peccatum, quod non remiltilur ne-
que in hoc soeculo , neque in futuro. Hinc enim
colligunt sancli Patres, quaedam peccala remilli in
fuluro saeculo per oraliones el suffragin Ecclesiae:
ita b. August. lib. 21, de Civil. Dei cap.24. et lib.
6. in Julianum cap. .5. b. Gregorius iib. 4. dialo-
gorum cap. 39. b. Beda in cup. 3. Marc. b. Cer-
nardus hom. G6. in Cant. qui hoc soio testimonio
contentus fuit conlra hanc haeresim. Iiem Petrus
Cluniacensis in epislola conlra Pclrobrusianos.Iia-
banus lib. 2. de Insliluit. cleric. cap. 44. et omnes
glossae, ul ordinaria, interlinearis etc.
Al contra hunc locum objicit primo,Petrus Mar-
tvr. haec dici per exaggeralionem. Respondeo :
Hoc modo polerimus eliam tollere infernum , et
dicere esse exaggeralionem , cum dicilur : /te in
ignem aeternum. Praelerea exaggeralio non de-
bet esse inepla, qualis cst, cum fit partitio , el
uni membro niliil respondet.
Secundo : Dicunl aliqui esse comminationem.
Respondeo eodem modo.
Terlio : Objiciunt alii, Chrislus comparat pecca-
tum in Spirilum sanctum cum gravissimis peccalis
morliilibus, cum blasphemia in Patrem el in Fi-
lium; ergo si vellel dicere , aliqua peccata posse
remilli in alio saeculo, inlelligeret maxime de iis ,
quibuscum comparabal tunc peccaluin inSpirilum
sanctum ; at hoc esl falsum, quia sola venialia di-
luiUuntur. per nos,in alio saeculo elc. Respondeo:
Ghrislus Idquitur de perfccla remissione, quac
complectilur reraissionem culpae et poenae , quo-
modo peccala gravissima remittunlur eliara in alio
saeculo, quia ibi complelur eorum rcmissio.
Quarlo,inquiunt; Chrislus viderelur significare.
graviora peccala remilli in fuluro siieculo, in hoc
autem solum leviora, si aliqua ibi reioilli vellel ,
alioqui non diceret : INeque iii hoc saeculo, ne-
quc in futuro, sed e conlrario dixissol: Non dimil-
telur, ncquc in fuliiro, ncque in hoc;ul oralio cre-
scat. Respondeo : Orationem cresccre, quia in fu-
turo majus spalium esl diluendi peccala , quam
hic ; cl praeterea praeponitur hoc saeculum ,
quia hic inchoatur , ibi perficitur reraissio deli-
clorum.
Quinlo, objicil Calvinus: Dominus loquilur de
remissionc cuIpae,ergo male ailegalis hunc locum
pro remissione poenae purgatorii, Respondeo: Iii
purgaforio remilti etiam culpas sallem veniales ;
praeterea falsum est, loqui Chrisluiu de sola cul-
pa.Hic enim est sensus ; Peccalum in Spirilum
sanclum non remittitur in hoc saeculo, nec in fu-
turo, neque quantum ad culpam, neque quanium
ad poenam,cum alia pcccala vel rerailtantur in hoc
saeculo, quoad culpara, el in alio interdum quoad
poenam, ulmorlalia; vel et hic et ibi quoad cul-
pam, et quoad poenam, utvenialia.
Sexto, inquit Calvinus: In hoc saeculo et in fu-
luro, vult dicere: In hoc judicio et in novissimo
non remillelur, et sic nulla sit mentio purgatorii.
At contra, nam qui erunl illi, quibus hic non est
remissum, et in judicio remillelur; nonne illi,qui
aut venialium purgalione indigebunl. aut solius
poenae debilores erunl? Qui enim hinc cum in-
justilia decedunt, certe in judicio non absolven-
lur.
Septimo, objicit Pelrus Marlyr: quia ex nega-
tione non sequitur afTirmalio in bona dialeclica •
non licet inferre, peccalum in Spiritura sanclum
non remittitur in fuluro sacculo, ergo quaedam a-
lia peccata in eo remitti possunt , sicut non bene
sequilur, rex Philippus iion esl rex Venelorura ,
ergo aliquis alius esl rex Venelorum. El confirmat
Ochinus ; IVam poluit Chrislus dicere : Hoc pecca-
tum non remitlelur in lioc saeculo, neque in infer-
no: et tamen non colligeremus inde, quaedam
peocata remitli in inferno.
Rcspondeo: Non sequi secundum regulas diale-
cticorum, id quod inferimus ex verbis Doraini, sed
lamen scqui secundum regulam prudenliae , quia
aiioqui faceremusDorainura ineptissime loquulum,
Ineple enim dicerel: Hoc peccalum non remilletur,
neque in hoc saecuio, neque in fuluro, si in fulu-
ro nullum reinittitur: sicul ineple loquerelur qui
diceret:RexPhilippus non absolvel te nequc in au-
la Hispaniae, neque in aula Franciae. INon autcra
loqucrelur ineple. si diceret, neque in auIaHispa-
niae, neque in aula Brabanliae.Unde Joan. lO.cum
dixisset Chrislus: Regnum meum non est de hoc
mundo.h)\uVa Pilaliis : Ergorcx estu; nec re-
spondit Chrislus, non bene sequi ex negalivo affir-
malivum, sed approbavil. Neque valet simililudo
illala ab Ochino ; nam Chrislus non poluit dicere:
Neque in hoc saeculo, neque in inferuo , nisi ine-
/
1
uitKu ritniii
iiO
|lt('.l(>(|lll \()llllk.-it'l,llilll i|(il.l .H.IOCdllilll ll'lll|IIIS CSl,
iiiliMiius vcro locii^; |iii)iii(li) , iioii ()|i|ii)iiiiiiliir ,
sl(Mil siicciiIdii) |>>''i*''>i'<>^ ('Uiitiiiiiiii; liiiii cliiiiii ,
(iiiia iii iiilcnHi ciiii^l.il ikiIIhiii IIcii r('iiii;.>iiiiii;iii.
Ocliivi), (iliiiciiiiil )lliiil: iV('r/t((> i/t liur huccuIo,
nnnii' iii /'n/i/ro, kIciii si^'iiiliciit'(i,(|(io(| iiiiiiii|iiiiiii,
sivo iii iiclcnKKK, >>> c\|iosiiil Marciis, (|iii i iip. .'l.
ilii iiil: Non lialn'1 rriniHHitmmn in aclcrnuin. Kl
siciit Pctnis jiilJoaii. l.'t. Non laviibin inihi piHlrn
in iwlcviiHiii.
Hcstioiiilco: Niii) ilclicri) («xpoiii itliiltliiKMiiii pcr
Rlarciiiii, s(^il potiiis .M.irciiiii p(!r MiillliiKMiiii, ckiii
Rliiltliaciis pliiril)KS vcrhis uliitiir. cl coiistot Miit-
IIkkkiki copiosiiis scripsissc, cl .MiircKiii fccissc
qiinsi coinpciKliuiii o\ cvaii^jclio iMattliiiol. Nc(pic
ita iicccpit Miirciis vocciii, lii iK'tcriiiiiK . siciit l*c-
Iriis iipml JoiiiiiiciK. .\iiKi iiicplc diMtJScl Pclriis :
iioii lavabis iiiilii pcdcs. iiciiko iii lioc sncculo ,
iiciiuo in rolKid.cKiii iii liilKro iioii laNciilur pcdcs.
Noii iiulciii iiicplc di\il DoiiiiiKis iipiid Miittliiiciiiii:
!\'ou rviniUclur nvquc in liov savvulo , nvquv. in
fuhiro. ItiKpio I*clrus iipud Joaiiiiciii iicccpil vo-
ccik: //( (1('/(WJ1M»I. improprii' pro solo tciii|iorc
hujus vitac. MiircKS ;kiIciii proiirio pro lolo sp;itiu
liujus sacculi ol fuluri. Praoleroa aul Clirislus di-
xit, ut liiibct M;ililiaous, vcl iil liiihct Miircus. vcl
iitriKiKO niodo , si priinuni vcl terliuiii . IkiIico iii-
lonlnin; si socundKin.^iuiiiiKpiain lioc noii csl pro-
l);il)ile. tuiic Miiltliaous. duco Spirilu saiicto, oxpo-
siiil verba Christi, ot iiisi iiioplc oxposucrit , iiidi-
cavil , tii alio Siicculo diinitli ali(iu;i pcccalii.
Nono. diciinl cssc plirasim licliriiicain. Ucspoii-
(leo, falsuni osso. plirasis (luidcin licbraica ost illa
Pctri : In avlernuin; dicuntcnim p;issiiii Ilacbraci
D?V>*? eliani dc rebus leniporalibus: At ncque in
hov saeculo, nvquc in fuluro , non csl propria
plirai>is llcbracorum. Acquc Marcus plirasi licbrai-
ca ulilur, scd proprio loiiuitur.