Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church That Is in Purgatory · Book I: On Purgatory
Chapter 14: The objections drawn from reason are solved
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).
Last, they take arguments from reasons. The first reason: after fault is remitted no punishment remains; for the remission of fault takes place through the merit of the passion of Christ, which is infinite and most sufficient for taking away all fault and punishment; nothing, then, remains to be purged after justification. I answer, first, by turning the argument back; for if Christ satisfied for all our fault and punishment, why after fault is remitted do we still suffer so much, and at last even die? And lest they say these are fatherly chastisements as a remedy for future sin, why do baptized infants fall sick, who are not capable of actual sin? I say, then, that the merit of Christ suffices for taking away all fault and punishment, but that it must be applied; otherwise all men would be saved. Now it is applied through our acts and the sacraments. But God willed that after baptism, through contrition and confession with the absolution of the priest, the merit of Christ should be applied to take away fault, and through satisfactory works should be applied to take away temporal punishment; for eternal punishment is commuted into temporal when fault is remitted; because when fault is remitted, friendship is restored, and consequently a right to glory is given; and so the man ought not to be punished for ever, because in that way he would never come to glory; and yet justice demands that sin be punished in some way; therefore the eternal punishment is changed into a temporal one; of which matter something has been said above, and more will be said in the disputation on satisfaction.
The second reason: in baptism all fault and punishment is remitted; but penance is a certain commemoration of baptism, indeed is a certain baptism; nothing, then, remains to be purged after penance. I answer: if the sacrament of penance is taken in the Catholic and complete sense, as it comprises contrition, confession and satisfaction, full and already perfected, the whole argument can be admitted; but if it is taken for absolution alone, in which the sacrament chiefly consists, the consequence is denied; for there is a very great difference between the sacrament of washing and the sacrament of absolution, ignorance of which is the cause of all the errors about satisfaction, about the keys, about indulgences, about purgatory. We say, then, that in the sacrament of baptism God acts most liberally, and applies the merit of Christ through that one action of absolution to take away all fault and punishment of the world to come, that is, both of hell and of purgatory; for not even baptism takes away the temporal punishments of this life, as is plain in baptized children who fall sick and die. But in the sacrament of absolution God draws back his hand somewhat, and applies the merit of Christ to take away fault and eternal punishment; yet still requires works of penance by which we may redeem temporal punishments; which is plain from chapter 6 of Hebrews, where the Apostle says that it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, that is, baptized, to be renewed again to penance, namely baptismal penance, because God uses that liberality only once. And chapter 10: For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, that is, after the illumination of baptism, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, that is, there is left no other Christ suffering and dying, with whom we could again die through baptism; for so all the ancient Greeks and Latins expound these two places. From which a notable argument for purgatory is had; for at once the adversative particle is set down: but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. For if that fire signified only the fire of hell, it would follow that all who sin after baptism are necessarily to be damned, or certainly that Paul speaks ineptly. For we do not rightly say to one who sins after baptism, no other baptism is left you, but hell; for besides baptism there are other remedies, as is certain. It must be said, then, that blessed Paul understands by fire, fire in general, whether of hell or of purgatory, so that the sense is: to one who sins after baptism no other baptism is left, that is, no equivalent remedy, that is, none which at once frees from all punishment; but fire is necessarily left, either perpetual, if the man is not converted, or temporal, if he is converted; which temporal fire of purgatory will be in the other world, unless a fire of affliction voluntarily taken up has purged the man in this life; and this is what we call satisfaction. Which is plain from the Fathers, who for this reason call the baptism of water an easy baptism, and compare it to a ship in which we are carried without labour; but call penance a laborious baptism, of tears, of fire, and a second plank after shipwreck. Finally reason persuades the same; for he who sins after the first reconciliation sins so much the more grievously as he is more ungrateful, and had greater light and help. See Gregory Nazianzen in the oration on the holy lights, and Theodoret in the epitome of the divine decrees, the last chapter but one, and Damascene, book 4, chapter 10.
The third reason: the honour of Christ ought to remain undivided, for he alone is our deliverer and redeemer. But if we satisfy, we now divide the honour with Christ; for we too are in some part our own redeemers, and we shall owe to Christ not the whole of our salvation but only a part. I answer: if it is a matter of words, Scripture openly says, Daniel 4, Redeem thou thy sins with alms; and Philippians 2, With fear and trembling work out your salvation, where a man is called his own redeemer and saviour; nor on that account is any injury done to Christ, since the whole virtue of our works and satisfaction depends on the blood of Christ; and if we redeem sins or work out salvation, we do it through his Spirit given to us, or rather the Spirit of Christ himself works these things in us; just as nothing is taken from God by his working through second causes; indeed it is rather added to his glory, because from this the power and efficacy of God appear the more, since he can not only work, but also give to other things the power of working.
The fourth reason: if the satisfaction of Christ is applied to us through our works, either there are two satisfactions joined together, one Christ's, the other ours, or only one; if two, then the same fault is punished twice, and two punishments answer to one fault; if only one, either it is Christ's, and then we do not satisfy; or ours, and then Christ is excluded, or truly we divide the honour with Christ; for he will pay for the fault, we for the punishment. I answer that there are three ways of speaking. The first is that of some who assert that there is only one, and that it is Christ's, and that we do not properly satisfy, but only do something in consideration of which God applies to us the satisfaction of Christ; which is to say that our works are only conditions without which the satisfaction of Christ would not be applied to us, or at most are dispositions. So Michael Baius, book on indulgences, last chapter; which opinion seems to me erroneous, for Scripture and the Fathers everywhere call our works satisfactions and redemptions of sins. Then, if a just man can by his works merit eternal life from condignity, why can he not satisfy for temporal punishment, which is less? The second is that of others, that there are two, but one depending on the other; which way does not seem to me improbable; for even if one sufficed, yet for the greater glory of God, to whom satisfaction is made, and the greater honour of the man satisfying, it pleased Christ to join ours to his. As one drop of the blood of Christ sufficed to redeem the world, and yet he willed to pour out all his blood, that the redemption might be most plentiful; as also a just adult man has a right to the same glory by a double title, one from the merits of Christ communicated to him through grace, the other from his own merits. The third way, however, seems more probable, that there is only one actual satisfaction, and that it is ours; nor is Christ, or his satisfaction, thereby excluded; for through his satisfaction we have the grace by which we satisfy, and in this way the satisfaction of Christ is said to be applied to us, not that his satisfaction itself immediately takes away the temporal punishment owed by us, but that it takes it away mediately, insofar namely as from it we have the grace without which our satisfaction would be worth nothing.
Besides these objections of the heretics we shall also discuss two other objections which theologians are accustomed to propose, that the truth of the matter may shine out more clearly. Let there be, then, the fifth reason: in purgatory there is no merit, therefore no satisfaction; for the same thing is required for meriting and for satisfying, and every satisfaction is meritorious. I answer that the consequence is to be denied; for there are indeed required certain things common to merit and satisfaction, but also certain proper to each, from the lack of which there is some merit without satisfaction, and the contrary. For both is required indwelling grace, but this does not suffice; for satisfaction requires that the work which is done be penal, which is not required for merit. Merit requires liberty, on which praise follows, which is not required for satisfaction; for he who is compelled by a judge to pay a debt truly satisfies, although compelled. Besides, for meriting the state of the way is required; for God, our judge of the games, willed the time of the race to be the present life; hence, then, the souls which dwell in purgatory, because they are in a middle state between wayfarers and the blessed or damned (for they are confirmed in good, and yet are still delayed from obtaining the highest good), can satisfy, not merit; while we can do both, and the blessed and the damned neither.
The sixth reason: purgatory is established partly for the remission of venial fault, partly for satisfying for punishment; but neither has a place after this life; for to rise from fault belongs to him to whom it belongs to fall into fault; but after this life souls cannot commit venial sins. Besides, all sins are remitted through penance, but after this life there is no penance; for death is to men what the fall was to angels, as Damascene says, book 2, chapter 4; but the angels by their fall were made immovable in evil. Finally, in this life, as a just man can merit an increase of grace, so also the remission of venial offences; but after this life there is no merit. As to punishment it is proved thus: punishment is on account of fault, and as fault grows punishment grows, as fault lessens punishment lessens; therefore fault removed, punishment is removed. I answer that there have not been lacking those who on account of these arguments denied that venial sin can be remitted after this life, as blessed Thomas reports on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 1, article 2; but they said that all venial sins are remitted in death itself through final grace. But they erred, because the Scriptures and the Fathers expressly teach that light sins are remitted after this life; nor is their foundation solid; for final grace cannot remit a sin which actually pleases, indeed which does not displease in some way; but one can die in complacency in a venial sin, or certainly without any act, as if one dies suddenly, or delirious, or asleep. Others, as Scotus on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 1, say that sin leaves in a man, after the act has passed, only the guilt of punishment, and that therefore venial sin is said to be remitted in purgatory because it is wholly punished there; but that mortal sin is not said to be remitted after this life, because it is never wholly punished there; for unless in this world the guilt of eternal punishment is changed into the guilt of temporal punishment, and so remission begins here, it cannot be purged there. This opinion is false, both because without any doubt sin leaves in a man, besides the guilt of punishment, a stain too, or something similar, by which the man is called formally a sinner and deserving of punishment; and also because in this way in truth venial sins could not be said to be remitted in purgatory, for what is wholly punished is not remitted; for remission means forgiveness. There is another opinion of the same Scotus in the same place, that venial sins are remitted in the first instant of the separation of the soul from the body, but are remitted through preceding merits. For he says that every good work which pleases God more than a venial sin displeases him remits venial sins; but that while a man lives, not all venial sins are remitted through good works of this kind, because there is the hindrance of complacency in the sin itself, which hindrance removed, which happens in the first instant after death, the sin is at once remitted. This does not please, because it is not probable that venial sins are remitted through every good work unless there is at least a virtual displeasure at those sins. Then, because it would follow that after this life never more than one sin is remitted, namely that whose act is continued until death, which he himself admits; but this is against the Scriptures and the Fathers, as is plain from what has been said. Third, because there would be no need to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from venial faults, as the Church does, as is plain in Dionysius, last chapter of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and from the prayers of the Church, in which we ask that there be forgiven them whatever they contracted through human frailty. The true opinion, then, is that of blessed Thomas on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 1, article 2, that venial faults are remitted in purgatory through an act of love and patience; for that acceptance of the punishment inflicted by God, when it proceeds from charity, can be called a certain virtual penance, and although it is not properly meritorious, because it does not merit an increase of glory or grace, yet it is remissive of sin. To the first the major is denied universally; for it has place only in mortal sins; for as to venial sins, a soul can in purgatory be freed from a venial sin, because it has the fitting means, that is, an act of love contrary to the sin; but it cannot fall into a venial sin, because it lacks the fomes, and besides because it is confirmed in good. To the second I say that after this life there is no penance for mortal sins, because the damned are hardened in evil, and this is what Damascene means; but in the souls of purgatory there can well be a displeasure at sin, and that from charity, and accordingly useful. To the third I say that the souls of purgatory are not altogether in the way, and therefore cannot merit an increase of grace; yet neither are they altogether at the end, and therefore can do something which belongs to the remission of venial sin. To the latter part of the argument I answer that punishment depends on fault in its coming to be, not in its being; and therefore that, as fault lessens punishment lessens, if it is understood that the less the fault is, the less punishment it generates, is true; otherwise it is false, for punishment is owed even on account of a past fault.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV.
Solvuntur objectiones ex raiione depromptae.
Ultirao, argumenta sumunt a ralionibus. Prima
ralio ; Post remissam culpam nulla remanet poe-
na; Nara rcraissio culpae sit per meritum passio-
nis Chrisli , quod cst infinitum et sufllcientis-
simum ad tollendum omnem culpam et poenam,
nihit igitur purgandum superesl post justificatio-
nem.
Respondeo: Primum retoniuendo argumcntnm ,
nam si Christus satisfecil pro omni culpa et poc-
na noslra , cur post reraissam culpam adhuc lam
mulla paliraur et landem eliam morimur?etne
dicant esse paternas castigaliones in remedium fu-
turi peccali , cur infanlcs bnplizali acgrotanl , qui
non sunt capaces peccati actualis?Dico igitur Chri-
sti meritura sufliccre ad omnem culpam et poenam
I iiii.ii i'i nii s
3h|
ti»llt'nil.»iM. simI (lclicrc ii|»|)lic;iri iil il iIIIimv .ilm
i|iii oiiiiics liDiniiins siilviircntiir.
Pnrrn ii|i|tli(;ili"i III pcr iicliis iin..lr(»s ci siirrii-
niciilii. Voliiil iinlcin hcnsiil |ii»st |»;i|)lisiiiiini pcr
('onliilKiiicni cl CDtilcssiMiicin.cnni iibsolntionc s;i
ODrddlls, npplictMnr iniMitiini (!lirisli iid lollcniliiiii
nilp;iiM . pcr opcr.i ;inlcni s;itisr;iclori;i ;ipplicclnr
;nl t()llcii(i;iiii pocii;iin lciiipor;ilciii; niiiii pnciiii iic-
lornii cotninnliilnr in tcinpnnilcni, (piiiiiilo rnniilli-
tiir (Milp;i; (pii<i cnin rcniitlitnr cnlp.i.rcildiliii' :iini-
ditiii.ct (liilnr coiis(Mpi(Milcr jns iid ^-loriiini.^ic. |>ro
iiidi; noii il(>li(^l piniiri in ;icl(Mnnin, i|ni:i co iiiodo
iiimKpiiini iid jjloriiiin pcrviMiircl, cl Iiiiikmi jnsliliii
•'\i'^il : nl pcciMtnin |)niii:ilMr ;ili.pio inodo , idco
innl;ilur pocn;i ;icI(m°ii;i in lcinpor^dcin . dc ipiii rc
(lirliim csl alKpiid snpra, ot plnrii dicciUnr iii dis-
pnlalionc, dc siilisnictionc.
Sccniida nitionc ; lii l);iplisiiio riMnillilnr oinnis
cnlpa ol potMiii; simI pocnilcntiii csl (]Uii(Mlam bap-
lismi (•onimcmoriilio , iinino cst h^iplisiniis ([iii-
dam ; niliil i^ilnr posl pucnil(Mili;un rciiKiiiot pnr-
^iindnm.
Uos|)Oiidoo : Si sacramcntnm poonilonliao acci-
l)i;itnr calliolico ct inlc^Mc, nl coniprcluMulil coii-
Irilioucm, conrcssioncmct s;ilisl'actioiiciu, pliMKiin
cl jam porroctam , potosl admilli lolum ari,'umon-
luin ; si ;uiloiu acci|)i;iUir pro sol;i absoluliono , in
qiia priiocipuc s;icr;iuKMiluiu coiisislit,nc}f;ilur con-
so(puMitia : Niim maxinium (lis(M'imon ost iiilor sa-
cramonlnm idilnlionis el sacraiucnlnm absolutio-
iiis.onjus ijiuoralio caussa ost oinniuiu orroriim do
Siilisriulionc, dc daviijus, dc indulgcnliis, dc pur-
ffalorio.
Dicimns ergo , in sacrnmcuto baplismi . Douin
liboralissimc atjcrc , cl apiilicarc Clirisii mcrilum
por uuani illam aclioncm absolulionis , ad lollcn-
d;mi oinnom culpam cl pocuam tuluri sacculi, i-
dost. liuu }:;olicuiiac (luam jMirizatorii: nam luicuas
ttMuporalos liujus vituc uc baplisinus qnidoin au-
ferl, ul patcl in pueris bapli/.atis actirotaulibus cl
nioriiMiIibus. Al in sacramcnlo absolulionis Doiim
(M)ulri)li( rc nonniliil mannin . ol applioarc Clirisli
morilnm ad lollcndam cuip;iin ol pocnam aeter-
iiaiu ; l;iii)on aiilmc rcquirere opera poiMiihMiliac ,
quibus rodimamus lemporalcs pocnas, id quod pa-
tet ex cap. 6. ad Ilaebracos, ubi dicil aposlol. Im-
jnmibile vssc eos,qui semel sunt iUuminaU,\d(is{,
l)apti7,ali,i;eri(??i rcnovari ad pnenilentiam. nimi-
rum baplismalcm , quia Dcus semcl limlum ulilur
ea libcralilate.El cap. 10. \oluntarie peccantibus
nobis post acccptam notiliamvcritatis, idesi.post
illumiuationcm baplismi . non rclinquitur liostia
pro peccalo . idcst. non rclinquilur alius Chrislus
paliens ot mnriens . cui possimus rursnm com-
uiori per baplismum: Sic euim exponunt liaec duo
loca omnes velcres Graeoi el Lalini.
Ex quo babelur arguraenlum insigne pro purga-
torio : Nam stalim ponilur adversativa parlicula .
scd terribilis expectalio judicii,ct ignis acmula-
tio , quae consumptura est advcrsarios. Si enim
istc ignis significarei, solum ignem gehennae , se-
querelnr , oinncs qui pcccanl posl baplismuin nc-
cessario damnandos , vel cerlo Paulum ineple lo-
qui. Ncc enim recte tiicimus. peccanti post bapli-
Bellarmim. VoI. 11.
sniiini,iiu(i ridiiKpilliii hImih liiiplJMiiuH.KiMl |/;i;Iiimi-
n I >i prarHcr ItiipliMiiiiiii hiiiiI <iIi;i riMiioih.i, iil rn-
\cni Minl.
iiporlcl i'r^'() diiiri', h.l'.iiihiiii pcr Ikiiohi iiilol
li^'iMi! i^'iiom III ^f.uorc , Hivi! ^olicniiac, sivc pur-
^alorii, llii iil hif, Hit KnnMiis; I*cc,c;iiiii poitt bapllii'
imim , iioii rclinipiiliir iiliiis hiipliMiiiii, n i >'i-
(piol iciiicdiinn iicipiiv.ilcii> , kIc',! , iicijii . . iir.
ipio I ni<)\ lihorot ai> oiiiiii |)Oi>nii ; 8p,iI rt:liii(|iiiliir
ilfiiis iK'(C>s,irio, ;iii( pi'r(>oliins. si homo noii coii
vort;itur , iiiil lciiipor;dis , si ooiivi-rtihir , qiii lii-
niiMi i^tiis lomponilis purijntorii crit iri alio AtictMi
lo, iiisi iiiniotionis i^rnis vidiiiiinrio usbumpliis [lur-
^'avcril iKiinincm in li ic vil;i,ol hacc cst quarn vo
tMiniis s;ilisr.iclioiKMii.
Miin pald o\ Palrihus.qni pr()|)tcrcu haptisrnuin
aqiKic voc.iiil h.iplismiiin racilcm.ct i'iiiiip;irant na-
vi, qu;i I.M ih; lr;iJioiUMlnr nnmitiii; At |iotMiilcntiaiii
vi)c;iul b;iptisiiiiim hiborioMim.lachrymaruiii, ignis
ot sccniid;iiii liihiihiin post tiaurra^'iiim.
DiMiiipic r;ilio iiloiii sii;id(;l;ii;im pnst prim;im rc-
coiicili;ilionoin qui pcco;il , t;iiito ;,'riivius pcccal .
(]uant(> cst ma;.;is ini,'ralus, ct inajus lumtMi ct aii-
\iliuin li;ihiiil. Vidc (iroj^orinm ii;i:',i;in/(Miuin oni-
lioiic in s;iiK'l;i luiiiin;i,ol Thcodorclum in opilomc
divinorum dccrctorum, capilc pcnultimo,cl Dama-
sccnum lib. i. c;)p. H).
Torlia r;ilio: (lliris!i hoiior dcbct iliib;ilMS maiic-
rc. ipso cniin sohis csl libcralor cl rcdemplor no-
slor. At si nos satisfacimus , jain diviilinms cum
Chiislo honorcm; siimus cnim ot nos cx parle ali-
qua rcdcmplorcs iioslri,ncc tolam s;ilulcm iiostiam.
scd solnm partcm Chrislo debchimus.
Hcspondco: Si di; vcrbis aLiilur. Scriplura apcr-
lc ilicit Danicl. i. Peccuta tua eleemosi/nis redi-
mc. El IMiilip. 2. Cum metu el iremore sululcni
Tcstram operamini , ubi liomo sui ipsius redcra-
plor cl salvalor appelhitur ; nec proptcrca ulla til
Chrislo injuri;! , siqnidcm tota virlus opcruin el
salisfaclionis nostrac a Christi sanguine pcndct.
ot si rcdimimus piiccala , vcl opcramur salu-
tem , id lacimus pcr cjus spirilum noI)is dona-
tum , vel polius ipse Chrisli spirilus in nubis isla
opcralnr , sicul nihil dolrahilur Dco , qiiod pcr
seciind;is caussas operelur ; imrao polius additnr
ad glori;im ejus . quia hinc apparcl magis polcn-
tia ol eiritacilas Dei , cum non solum opcrari
possit , scd oliani d;irc aliis rebus vim operandi.
()uarta ridio; Si applicidur nobis pcr nostra ope-
ra Clirisli salisfiictio . vel sunt duac satisfactiones
simul junclae , una Cliristi , allera nostra, vel una
tautum; si duae, ergo bis punitur cadem culpa, ct
duac poenae rcspondent uni culpae.si una tantum,
vel ilia est Christi , et tunc nos non satisfacimus;
vol noslra . et tunc excludilur Christiis . aut vere
dividcinus cum Christo honorem ; Nam iile solvet
pro culpa. nos pro poena.
Rospondeo : Tres esse modos diccndi. Primus
quorund;im est, qui asseruul esse unam lantum.el
illam Cliristi osse. ac nos propric non salisfacere.
sed solum facere a!iquid.cujus inluilu Deus appli-
cal nobis Chrisli salisfaclionem , cjuod est dicere .
noslra opera non esse nisi condiliaaes , sine qui-
bus non applioarelur nobis Chrisli satisfaclio , vel
4lt
382
UE PIROATORIO
ad siimiiuiin. esso disposilioncs. Ila Micluiel Bajus
lib. (ie iiuliilgeiiliis cup. ullimo, qiiae senlenlia cr-
ronea niilii vitielur , nam Scriplura el Palres pas-
sim vocanl nostra opera snlisracliones, el pcccaUt-
rum redempliones. Deiiuie si polesl Immo juslus
suis operil)us mcreri (ie condigno vitam aeternam,
cur non salisfacere pro poena lemporali, (|uod esl
minus?
Secundus esl aliorum, quod sinl duae , sed una
ab ailera pen(iens,qui nujdus non videlur iniiii im-
probabilis : Nam eliamsi una suiUcerel , lamen ad
majorem gloriam Dei, cui salisfil, et majorem lio-
norem bomitiis satislacientis, placuit Cbristo con-
jungere nostram suae. Quomodo una gutla sau-
guinis Clirisli suiriciebal rediinere mundum , et
lamen voluil toluin sanguinem elTundere, ut esset
copiosissima rcdemptio;quoinoiio etiain liomoju-
stus adullus , duplici tilulo jus iiabet ad ean-
dem glonam , uuo ex nieritis Cinisti sibi com-
municalis per gratiam , aitero ex merilis pro-
jjriis.
Terlius tainen modus videlur probabiiior, quod
uiia lautum sil actualis salisraclio, et ea silnoslra;
ueque hiiic cxcluditur Cliristus.vel salisfaclio ejus;
nam per ejus satisractioncm habcmus gratiam, un-
de salisfacimus, et hoc modo dicilur applicari no-
his Clirisli satisfactio , non quod immediale ipsa
ejus satisfactio lollat poeiiam temporalem nol)is de-
bilam . seti quod rneijiale eam lollal , quateuus vi-
deiicet ab ea gratiam habcmus,sine qua nihil vale-
ret nostra satisfaclio.
Praeter has haereticorum objecliones discutie-
mus etiam duas alias objectiones , quas thcoiogi
proponere solcnt , ut rei vcritas ciarius ciucescat.
Sil igiiur
Quinla ratio; In purgatorio non esl meritum,er-
go nec salisf.ictio : l>'am idem r(!qu!ritur ad mcren-
dum et satisfaciendum,el omnis satisfaclio est mc-
ritoria.
Respondeo:I\egandam esse consequenliam; nam
requirunlur quidem communia quacdam ad mcri-
tum el satisfaclionem , sed etiam quacdam pro-
pria, ex quoruin defcctu aliquod esl merilum sine
Scitisfactione, et e contrario. Requiritur ad ulnim-
que gratia inhabilans , sed hoc non suilicil? Nain
ad salisfactionem requirilur , ut opus , quod fit ,
sil poenale , quod non requiritur ad meritum. Ad
merilum requiritur iibertas , quam sequitur laus ;
jd quod non requiritur ad satisfactionem ; qui e-
nim a judice cogitur solvere dcbitum , vere salis-
facit. eliamsi coactus, llequiritur praeterea ad me-
renduni slatus viae ; Deus enim Agonothela nosler
sladii tempus, praesentem vitam esse voluil; liinc
igitur animae , quae degunt in purgatorio . quia
inediae sunt . quoad statum inler viatores et bea-
tos, vel damnatos (nam sunt confirmatae in bono,
et tamcn adhuc retardanlur a consequutione summi
boni); ideo possnnt satisfacere, non mereri, cum
nos ulrumque possimus ; beali cl daninati neu-
Irum.
Sexla ratio ; Purgatorium constiluilur parlim ad
remissionem cuipae veiiialis,parlim ad satisfacien-
dum pro poena , scd neutrum habcl locum posl
lianc vilam; nam ejus esl a culpa resurgere, cujus
est in culpam iucidere , scd posl hanc vilam noii
possunt animae commiltere venialia peccala.Prae-
ie:-ea peccala omnia remittuntur pcr poenilenliam,
sed post hanc vitain non esl poenitenlia;nam idem
est hominibns mors , quod angelis casus , ut Da-
mascenus dicit lib. 2. cap. 4."Sed angeli per ca-
siim facli sunt immobiies in malo. Denique in hac
vita , sicut polest tiomo juslus mereri graliae aug-
mentam,ila eliam remissionem veniaiium ofTensa-
rum. At post hanc vitara nullum est meritum. De
poena aulem probalur sic : Poena esl proptcr cui-
pam, et crescentc cuipa, crescit poena.decrescen-
lc cuipa, decrescil poena : crgo reraota culpa, re-
moveret poena.
Uespondeo: Non defuerunt, qui propter haec ar-
gumenta negarcnt peccalum veniaie post hanc vi-
lam posse remitli , ul b. Tliomas refert m 4. disl.
21. quaest. 1. artic. 2. Sed dicebanl remilti omnia
venialia in ipsa morte per graliam finalem : Al er-
rabanl , quia Scripturac et Palrcs diserte docent.
post lianc vilam remilli peccata levia , neque fuu-
damentum eoruni est solidum ; nam gratia linalis
non potesl remitlere peccalum , (juod actu placet,
iinmo ([uod non displicet aiiquo modo ; Al polest
quis mori in complaceulia pcccati venialis,vel cer-
te sino uilo actu, ut si morialur repente,vel phrac-
neticus, vel dormiens.
Alii , ul Scotus in 4. dist. 21. quaest. 1. dicunl,
peccatum relinquere solum in homine , postquain
actus Iransiit, reatum poenae,et ideo peccalum ve-
niale dici remilti in purgatorio , quia totaliter ibi
punitur; mortale autem non dici remitti post hanc
vilam, quia non punitur unquam ibi tolaliter ; nisi
enim in hoc mundo mutelur rcalus poenae aetcr-
nae in reatum poenae temporaiis , et sic incipiat
hic remissio, non polerit ibi purgari.Haec senten-
lia faisa est, lum ([uia sine uilo dubio peccalum re-
linquit in hoinine praeler rcHlum poenae , eliam
maculam,aut aliquid simile,per quod dicaturhomo
formaliter peccalor , et dignus poena , tum etiam,
quia lioc modo revera pcccala venialia non possent
dici remitti in purgatorio,nou enim remitlitur.quod
totaiiler punitur ; remissio enim sonat condona-
lionein,
Alia est opinio ejusdem Scoli ibidem , peccata
venialia remitti in primo instanti separalionis ani-
mae a corpore , remitli autem per merita praece-
dentia. Dicit enim ipse , omne opus bonum quod
magis piacel Deo , quam dispiiceal veniale pecca-
tum , remittere veiiialia peccala ; caeterum dum
homo vivit , non remilli omnia venialia pcr hujus-
modi opera bona , quia esl impedimentum ipsius
compiacentiae peccalj , quo impedimento sublato,
quod Cl in primo inslanti post morlcm , mox re-
milti peccaluin. N(jn phiccl , quia non esl proba-
bile per omne opus bonum remilti veniaiia, nisi
adsit displicenlia saitem virlualis iliorum pccca-
loruin.
Deinde , quia sequeretur post hanc vilam num-
quam remitli nisi uniim peccalum, nimirum iilud,
cujus aclus continualiir usqiie ad mortem,id quod
ipse adinillit , scd est conlra Scripluras et Patres;
ul ex dictis palel. Terlio, quia nou esscl opus ora-
re pro defunctis , ul a culpis venialibus solveren-
I iiiLii ri.iMi ^
3N3
Imi, iil K(r|«'>>iii (U.il.iil p.itcl .i|iiiil liiiiii)^iiiiii i'ii|i.
ull. Kcclo.s. liiiTiiitli. i!l i'\ oriiliomlnis KccIdsIih',
*|itiliiis |)cliiiiii^ , iil iliiiiiil.iiiliii «'is , (iiiiii> liiiiii.iii.i
IHIHlllllllC COIlllMMMIIIll.
Ksl or^o opiiiio vcr.i b.Tlioiiiac in ( .(lis(iiii*l.2l.
<|iiiicst. I. iirliciil. 2. (Iiinilli iii |Mir^iilorio ciiI|i:in
vciiiiilcs , |icr iicltiiii (lilcclioiiis cl ii.ilicnli.ic ; ill.i
ciiiiii iicccptiilio pociiiic ii Hco iiillicl.1,1'11111 c\ clm-
rilalu pro(lciil,(lici poicst virliiiilis i|uii()(liiiii pocni-
loiiliii, c( licct iioii sit propric iiicrilori;i . (pii;i iioii
llicrcliir t;loriii(! \cl ^jr.itiiic ;iii;-;iiicii!iiin l.iiiicii c>l
ruinissuriii pocciili.
Ad priiiuiiii nci^iiliir iii.i|or iiiiivcrs.ililcr ; .A;iiii
llillict locilMi soliiiii III iiioi liillliiis |)(>cc.ilis ; (pinil
ciiiiii :i(l vciiiiiliii iiKiiict , polcst iii piir^Mlorio iiiii
iiiii libcriiri a vcniiiti, (piiii liiihct iiicdia coiivoniiMi-
liii , iilcsl , iicliuii (iilcctioiiis |)(>cc;il() conlriiriiiin ,
Mon tililicii pot(\sl Ciii|(M'C 111 pccciitlilll viMii;ilc.(pii;i
carol roinilc , et practerpa (piia esl iii Ixmo coiilir-
iii.it;i.
\(l s(MMiii(liiin (lico : l'osl liiiiu; vilain luin cssi^
pociiitcntiiiiii (lc inorlaliliiis.ipiia (liiinniili siint ob-
tiriiiiiti III inalo , cl lioc sibi viill D.iiiiiisciMiiis , bi-
iiicii in aiiiiiiiibus piirj^iilorii bciic potcst cssc di-
splicciUiii pocciili , iie(|uc e\ cliarilatc , el proiiidc
utilis.
.\(l tcrtiuin dico:.Viiimas piir^ratorii non cssi; om-
iiiiu) in via,ct proptcrcii iion pusso iiierori iiii^Mncii-
lum j;riitiao:tameu uoipic cssc oiuuiiio iu lormino,
ct idoo possc iili(]uid raccrcipiod pcrtiiioat iid pec-
cali vcnialis rcinissionom.
Ad iilloriim |)artoiu iirj;umeuli respoiulco : Poe-
iiaiu pcndftrc a culpa iu lieri . non iu csse, el idco
illud (docroscente cul|ia. decroscit |)0oua) si iiiiid-
ligatiir quod quo miuor esl ciil|)a , oo miiiorcm
ycncral poenam, vcrum esl , alioqiii csl lalsiim,
nam etlam obculpam practeritam debctur poeuii.