JOHN M. KELLY LIBRARY
Donated by
The Redemptorists of the Toronto Province
from the Library Collection of Holy Redeemer College, Windsor
University of St. Michael's College, Toronto
HOLY REDEEMER LIBRARY, WIN
PURGATORY.
PURGATORY
DOGMATIC AND SCHOLASTIC
THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH IT CONSIDERED AND PROVED.
BY THE
REV. M-JIOTY, P.P.
DUBLIN M. H. GILL AND SON
O'CONNELL STREET.
1886 <
HOLY REDEEMER LIBRARY, Wj£&
a 0 bstrd :
THOMAS MAGRATH, S.T.D.
CENSOR DEPUT.
Imprimatur :
% GULIELMUS J. WALSH,
ARCHIEPISCOPUS DUBLINENSIS, BIBERNI^E PRIM AS.
imprimatur :
% EDUARDUS THOMAS O'DWYER,
EPISCOPUS LlMERICENSIS.
Die 20 Oct. 1886.
[All rights reserved.]
PREFACE.
THIS is the only work in the English language, at least as far as I know, in which the existence and circumstances of Purgatory, and the other questions connected with it, are treated dogmati cally and scholastically. Though the subject may not be found treated in a similar manner in English, I do not on this account mean to pretend that there is much originality of thought in what I have written. The subject is one that has been discussed by many celebrated theologians. I have endeavoured to lay before my readers the various points in connection with it, and the ar guments by which they are sustained, in a simple and familiar style, suited, as I believe, to the cir cumstances of our time, in which people differ so much in language and in education, not to speak of race and country, from the readers of ancient theologians.
VI PREFACE.
There are other excellent works on Purgatory written in English, in which the subject is treated ascetically. I may instance Father Anderdon's " Purgatory Surveyed/' and " The Prisoners of the King " by Father Coleridge, both reverend authors of the Society of Jesus, which are so full of thoughtful reflections, calculated to move us to render succour to the souls that are in affliction, But in the present book, the very existence and circumstances of Purgatory, the utility of our prayers and other good works for the dead, &c., are proved, and the various arguments drawn from the Scripture, Tradition, and other sources, are laid before the reader.
In order to bring such subjects under the at tention not only of the ordinary, but even of the most intelligent laity in this country, it is neces sary to depart from the language of the Church, and to adopt the English in its stead. Otherwise they cannot be brought under the observation of Irish Catholics, who naturally desire to see the reasons for the faith they profess, and to be able to show these, if necessary, to others. In this age of inquiry, especially, intelligent laymen seize with eagerness every opportunity of learn ing the arguments by which the several points of Catholic teaching are sustained against the here tic and the unbeliever. I hope that the present
PREFACE. Vll
work may satisfy such a desire, as far as con cerns the one subject on which it treats.
It appears to me also that many of my reverend brethren would consider it an advantage to be able to study such a subject in English. There is no doubt that it has more interest and attraction for them in the vernacular than in Latin. Though they are thoroughly conversant with Latin, and many of them have a far deeper knowledge of it than I can pretend to, still it may be said in general that there is no language in which a person finds it so easy and pleasing to study any subject as in his native one, or that which he uses in daily conversation.
In compiling this work I have consulted the most approved theologians. Where any question of doctrine was involved, I have carefully followed their opinions, as the reader will discern in the quotations from, and references to their works. I esteem this as my passport to the confidence of the public. Not often obtruding my own opinion, I have, I hope, faithfully reflected the opinions of the best and most reliable authors.
If in the following pages, which are in a great measure dogmatical, I have unintentionally ad vanced any opinion which is false or inexact, I unequivocally retract the same. I submit my work to the infallible judgment of the venerable
Vlll PREFACE.
Pontiff who sits in the chair of Peter. If he disapproves or condemns anything in it, that I also disapprove and condemn.
I do not apprehend, however, that there is any thing in it to call for censure. It has had the good fortune to be revised by the present learned and illustrious Lord Bishop of Limerick, the Most Rev. Dr. O'Dwyer, who, to the great joy of priests and people, was raised to the mitre of St. Munchin as the proof sheets issued from the press. His name, his brilliant talents, which found their triumph in his early elevation to the episcopate, and his scholarly attainments, are a sufficient guarantee to the reader for the accu racy of the opinions that I have put forward. I beg to publicly thank his Lordship for his great kindness in rendering such assistance to my humble effort.
This book was written during the hours that I endeavoured to snatch latterly from the duties of my calling. The life of a priest in a country parish is always a busy one, divided between many labours, and involved in many anxieties. It was during the time I could spare from such cares that I have written this treatise, which I now lay before the public, and ask a patient reading for. I beg of the readers to have for bearance with the imperfections which no doubt
PREFACE. IX
they will discover in it ; and to believe that I have been actuated by a desire to propagate the knowledge of an important point of doctrine wherein we differ from Protestants.
Finally, if my words will induce any one to be more impressed with the reality of Purgatory, and to render assistance to the souls that are suffering in it, I shall consider myself to have obtained ample reward for the time I have em ployed in writing the following pages.
M. C.
Ardpatrick)
All Souls' Day, 1886.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. PAGE
I. Explanation of Purgatory . . . . I
II. History of the opponents of Purgatory . . a
III. The existence of Purgatory . . .7
IV. It is proved from the Scripture — from the Old
Testament ..... 7
V. It is proved from the New Testament . 14
VI. It is proved from the Fathers of the Church . 24
VII. It is proved from the Councils . . -35
VIII. It is proved from the Liturgies . . 40
IX. It is proved from the custom of the Synagogue . 46
X. It is proved from theological reasons . . 47
XI. It is further proved from the practice of the early
Irish Church . . . . -52
XII. Objections to Purgatory answered . . 56
XIII. The place where Purgatory is . • 5&
XIV. They who go to Purgatory . . .104 XV. The capacity of the soul to merit or demerit . 1 1 1
XVI. The certainty of the soul as to its salvation . 130 XVII. The nature of the pains of Purgatory . . 143
XVIII. The gravity of the pains of Purgatory . .153
XIX. The duration of Purgatory . . .162
XX. The way to render assistance to the faithful de parted . . * - -. . 1 68
Xii CONTENTS.
XXI. The suffrages of the living are of advantage to
the dead . . . . .^77
XXII. Objections answered . . .184
XXIII. The suffrages of the living are not of advantage
to the dead in the same manner or with the same virtue ; nor are they of advantage to all of them ..... 199
XXIV. The conditions required on the part of those who
offer them for the value of suffrages . . 200
XXV. The conditions required on the part of those in
whose favour suffrages are made . . 206
XXVI. The duty of the living towards the souls in Pur
gatory . . . . . .211
APPENDIX. On the divine authority of the Books of Machabees
ERRATA.
Page
|
7, line 14, for |
acceptacle |
read acceptable. |
|
11, „ 2, „ |
that that |
that they that. |
|
11, „ 24, „ |
because |
„ Because. |
|
12, ,. 4, „ |
apostle* peak |
„ apostle speak. |
|
15, „ 11, „ |
His |
This. |
|
15, „ 24, „ |
mean |
„ means. |
|
28, foot-note „ |
requium |
,, requiem. |
|
75, „ 33, „ |
could prove |
,, we could prove. |
|
101, „ 11, „ |
awhile |
„ a while. |
|
101, „ 17, „ |
supply |
„ supplies. |
|
145, foot-note ,. |
Liv. Dei. |
Civ. Dei. |
|
146, foot-note „ |
Liv. Dei. |
Civ. Dei. |
|
158, „ 29, „ |
is is |
it is. |
|
180, „ 31, „ |
, |
» '> |
|
185, „ 26, „ |
in |
is. |
|
198, ., 32, „ |
time |
„ time. |
|
219, „ 9, „ |
diciplines |
„ disciplines. |
|
224, „ 15, „ |
be authentic |
„ be divinely inspired. |
|
224, „ 18, „ |
authentic |
„ inspired. |
|
228, „ 4, ,. |
authenticity |
„ authority. |
|
228, „ 31, ,. |
authenticity |
„ divine authority. |
|
242, „ 31, „ |
it (to be omitted). |
ON PURGATORY.
CHAPTER I.
EXPLANATION OF PURGATORY.
/ IN ancient Liturgies Purgatory was known by many names. It was called a "place of purgation;" a "deep pool;" a "place of pain and sighing;" a " dark way ; " a " transitory fire ; " and even " hell." In different phrases they expressed the same doc trine. But that all Catholics may know it by the same name in future, Innocent IV., in the thirteenth century, decreed that this place, in which the souls of the just, who owe satisfaction to God, are punished, should be known thenceforth by the name of Purga tory.
In Butler's Catechism, the one in use in this diocese of Limerick, Purgatory is defined " A place or state of punishment in the other life where some souls suffer for a time before they can go to heaven." Dens, in his Theology, calls it "A place in which the souls of the departed just, that are liable to temporal punishment, suffer." The souls that are in Purgatory are just, and in the friendship of God.
jj Purgatory was not created for the damned, for whom there is no hope and no redemption. It was created only for the just ; not all the just, but only those just that deserve it. Though the stain of sin may be forgiven, and the soul restored to the grace of God, a punishment sometimes remains due, which, if not paid in this life, must be paid in the next.
PURGATORY.
latter case they shall be ^aved, as the Apostle says, by fire. They suffer in Purgatory, but do not merit. Once the soul leaves the body it can no longer merit. It can satisfy the divine justice, it can pay the debt due to God and release itself, only by suffering. Its sufferings do not constitute repentance, pro perly so called. Repentance consists in regret for sin, with a firm resolution of sinning no more ; but the souls in Purgatory know very well that they can no longer sin. They cannot purify themselves, as in this life, by repentance, by the Sacraments, or by good works ; but they endure the temporal punish ment due to venial sin, or to mortal sin, which had been remitted in this life, as to its guilt and eternal punishment.
This short explanation sufficiently distinguishes Purgatory from heaven and from hell. From heaven, of which the Psalmist sung: "How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts ! "* From hell, where, as we read in the Apocalypse.f they "shall be tor mented day and night for ever and ever." There shall be no suffering in heaven, and the torments of hell shall never end ; whilst they suffer in Purgatory but only for a time.
CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE OPPONENTS OF PURGATORY.
THE first enemies of Purgatory, of whom we find mention in ecclesiastical history, were that sect known by the name of A^osiolicals. They were so called because they pretermed to^ follow closely on the footsteps of the Apostles. Toward the end of the
* Ps. Ixxxiii. t xx, 10,
HISTORY OF THE OPPONENTS OF PURGATORY. 3
second century they denied that the soul could be purified after it departed tl*is life.
In the fourth century .Aerius, an Armenianj)and bitter supporter of the Arlan KefeTyropposed the teaching of the Church on Purgatory. He sought the mitre of Sebaste, and because his ambition was not gratified he began to declaim against the epis copal dignity itself. One error drew him into others, lie soon taught that prayers for the. dead and other '"good" works performed in their favour were useless to them, and should be discontinued. As, however,^ Suarez^very properly remarks, this error does not necessarily imply that he denied the existence of Purgatory. His words merely show he denied that the souls in Purgatory can be relieved by our prayers. It is one thing to deny that we can assist, the souls in Purgatory, and quite a different thing to deny the existence of such a state. Though one error approaches very near to the~ other, there is no necessary connection between them. These are the words of Aerius, as given by Epiphaniusf: " What reason is there for calling the names of the dead after death ? For that the living may pray, or dis pense his goods among the poor, what advantage is this to the dead ? But if the prayers of those they leave behind them can assist those who have departed this life, no one would any longer live piously . . . but he will acquire for himself some friends . . . who may entreat God for him that he may not suffer any disadvantage there." In these words Aerius asserts that they who are in the other life cannot be assisted by the living; but he does not deny that they suffer some disadvantage, aliquid incom??wdt) there. However, he may have denied the existence of Purgatory. Perhaps his words should not be un derstood in their strict logical sense. The enemies
* Tome 4, in 3 p. S. Thomae, disp. 45, sec. i. t Haer. 75.
PURGATORY.
of the Church are not accustomed to reason closely ; and therefore we cannot know from his words but he may have denied even the very existence of Purgatory.
In the seventh century the Armenians asserted
that there was no Purgatory in which souls may be ' purified, and that we should not pray for the dead.
The same errors were maintained by the Albanians in the eighth century. They were called Albanians from the country that produced them, Albania, a province of ancient Macedonia, and now a portion of Turkey in Europe. The heresy of the Albanians sprang up in the pontificate of Leo III., and was the worthy offspring of the errors of the Manicheans.
The sects known as the Petro-Brussiani and the Henriciani, which started up in the twelfth century, denied the utility of the prayers of the faithful for the dead. The Petro-Brussians were the disciples of Peter of Bruis, a Frenchman, who disseminated his errors about the year 1 1 10. One of the principal contemporary writers against this sect was^Peter, the venerable Abbot of Cluni. j In a work addressed to the Archbishops of Arles^and Embrun, and the Bishops of Die and Gap, Peter refuted the principal errors of the Petro-Brussians. In his preface to this
~~~work he reduces their errors to five, one of which was that prayers, alms and sacrifices were of no use to the dead./yThe Henricians were so called from Henry of Toulouse. He was Italian by "birth". After having embraced the monastic state, he became an apostate, and began to declaim against the doctrine of the Church. He denied the utility of prayers for the dead. He advanced his errors with arrogance in succession at Lausanne, Mans, Poitiers, Bordeaux, and Toulouse. [The defender of the Church and of its time-honoured doctrine on this occasion was theV-- great St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux,
; The same errors, with some modifications, were put forth by the Albigenses. This sect took their
i \ ( /
\ vx_4>r\/u,c \+&^F*i ,
HISTORY OF THE OPPONENTS OF PURGATORY. 5
name from Albi, a town near Toulouse. Like the Petro-Brussians and Henricians, they were the off spring of the Manicheans, on whose errors they shaped their doctrine. They corrupted a great part of France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. They were remarkable for their ignorance, their brutality, and the confusion of their opinions. They were united in one thing, and that was in hatred of the Church, her external worship, and her hierarchy,. They propagated their errors with fire and sword. v The churches were burnt to the ground, the / monasteries were demolished, and the clergy every where outraged.* 'Peter the Venerable, of whom mention is made above, tells us that among their other extravagances, [they rejected prayers, sacrifices, and other good works Tor the dead. And they not-only did away with Purgatory, but also with hell.j | They taught the most extravagant and antisocial errors. In the zyth Canon of the Council of Lateran, held in 1179, it is stated that "they respected neither churches, nor monasteries, and spared neither orphans, nor age, nor sex, but pillaged and laid waste everything like pagans." Such were the Albi- genses, who, along with other errors, declaimed against the doctrine of the Church on Purgatory.]
The Greek schism also fell into this error. T)ne of the five articles, as instanced in the Council of Florence, in which the Greeks differed from the Latin Church, was that there is no Purgatory. It is beyond doubt that the Greeks fell into this error, for the Council of Florence, in its last session, con demned it. But the object the Council of Florence had in view was to condemn the certain or doubtful errors of the Greeks. v_SL. Thomas, also, in his work against the Greeks, condemns this error. This he would not do unless the Greeks professed it. On
* Rohrbacher xv., 467, 468 ; xvi., 409, 410.
-
I
PURGATORY,
the other hand, it is equally certain that the Greeks,
in the first session of the Council of Ferrara, asserted
" that they did not deny Purgatory, its pains, and its
""darkness, but only its fire. They did not deny the
existence of Purgatory, but the manner in which
sou]£_ajjQDunished there.
- ^ffTutherywho was so remarkable for his change of opinions", at first retained his faith in Purgatory. In his celebrated disputation at Leipsic with John Eckius, the defender of the Catholic cause, he said : " I, who firmly believe, nay I would dare say who know, that Purgatory exists, am easily persuaded that mention is made of it in the Scriptures." But we should not expect Luther to be consistent. His fickle mind cast aside dogma when it did not suit his purpose. Accordingly we afterwards find him changing his mind so far as to " firmly believe " and " know " that Purgatory did not exist. He says : " When you deny Purgatory, you condemn vigils, convents, monasteries . . . . to all I also give my approbation, per omnia etiam probo"*
Like Luther, Calvin and all the other reformers of tlie~^ixleen tlf" century rejected the doctrine of Pur gatory. Calvin, whose rabid hatred of the most • hallowed dogmas of the Church was so notorious, did not shrink from calling Purgatory "a mischievous invention of Satan, which makes void the cross of hrist, which inflicts intolerable contumely on the mercy of God, which weakens faith," &c.f The various sects into which Protestantism has broken up have adhered on this point to the teaching of their first founders, the only exception, that I am aware of, being the Ritualists of our day.
Origen, who wrote in the third century, went to another extreme. He not only admitted Purgatory, but went so far as to recognise no other punishment
* Lib. ad Wald. t Lib. 3 Instit. c. 5, 86.
THE EXISTENCE OF PURGATORY. 7
after this life except that of Purgatory. Hence he promised salvation, after a just expiation, alike to the demons and the damned. *
After this short sketch of its enemies, and their notions of it, let us see what is to be said in favour of the existence of Purgatory in the following chapter.
'CV^CJv-J CHAPTER III. (
THE EXISTENCE OF PURGATORY.
JT is of faith that Purgatory exists^ The ChurcF "Fas defined only two things concerning Purgatory : " That Purgatory is ; and that the souls detained there are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptacle sacrifice of the altar."f Besides these two points the Church has defined nothing else of Purgatory. She has defined 'nothing about its situation, its duration, the nature and acuteness of its punishments, or the manner in which the souls there are assisted by our prayers. To speak at present only of the existence of Purga tory, it is proved by arguments drawn from the Scripture, the Fathers, Councils, Liturgies, the custom of the Synagogue, and theological reasons.
C V^O ^ C A _ {) Q
CHAPTER IV.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURE— FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.
WE find incontestable arguments in the Scrip ture in favour of this doctrine— arguments that
St. Augustine, lib. 21, de Civ. Dei, cap. 17.
8 PURGATORY.
are sufficient to convince the mind of any unpreju diced man. It is proved both from the Old and New Testament. Let us begin with the Old. ••\ LJn the Second Book of Machabees* we find that /rjuoras Machabaeus, the chief and high priest of thfi. "Jewish nation, a man not less remarkable for piety than valour, sent money to Jerusalem to have a sacri-. fice offered up in the Temple for the soldiers who had been slain in battle. Here is what the inspired writer' says in reference to what he did : — "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them. It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." Such are the words and reflections of the sacred writer. In them, along with faith in the re surrection, we have devotion for the dead, devotion which shows itself to us in all its beauty in the_ r.athn]fr r.H^|-r1h_r 'This church holds out its armsto "the living and the dead • it embraces time and eter nity. Its children, who have already obtained their crown in heaven, pray for those who yet combat on earth, and those latter pray for their brethren who are suffering for their faults in the place of purifica tion. /This is, in truth, the communion of saints. It is justified by the text quoted above. From this text it follows, in the first place, that all the penalties of sin are not paid, and that all its relics are not washed away at death. Judas had sacrifice offered for the sins of the dead. He would not have done this if
Chap. 12, v. 43, 44, 45, 46.
0 <V i C<^ w\v/w n
IT IS PROVED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, 9
there was no sin to be expiated in the other life, as Luther would have us believe. It follows, in the second place, that one can die a holy death — in the grace and friendship of God — and still die indebted to Him, either on account of venial sins, which have not been yet remitted, or the atonement, not yet made or insufficient, due to mortal sins, whose guilt and eternal punishment have been forgiven ; for the sacred writer says that they "had fallen asleep with godliness," and still sacrifice was offered up for their sins. Thirdly, it follows that the prayers and sacri fices of the living are of advantage to the dead, so as to free them from their sins. In any other hypothe-. s'fs the offerings sent by Judas to the Temple would
~~B~e useless. . So far, however, were the Jews from considering sacrifices and prayers for the dead as useless, that the sacred writer says *' it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins."
It is useless for the opponents of this doctrine to say that the Books of Machabees are not canonical. We shall prove, further on, that they are.* But even though we granted that they are not, .their historic truth cannot be denied. As mere history, they are of as muc'h value in support of the Jewish rites, as profane writers in support of those of the Gentiles. If a profane writer describes the rites of the Gentiles, we place implicit confidence in what he says. Why not do the same where a writer of religious events is concerned ? Moreover, the Lutherans place the Books of Machabees in the
JBible, and admit that they are read "for the edifica tion of morals" (ad morum aedificalionem). Hence, prayers for the dead are not only compatible with Christian morality, but tend very much to promote it. It is further to be observed that the author of
* See Appendix I.
JO PURGATRY.
the Second Book of Machabees was coeval, or almost.
_coe.val, with the facts he describes. He mentions public facts, describes the doctrine and practice of
~~nts nation, and there is no reason why we should not place, at least, as much confidence in what he says as in the words of any profane historian.
Our adversaries gain nothing by saying that' it is not the part of a historian to draw the moral conclu sion : " It is, therefore, a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins;" or that this conclusion was placed in the margin by some after hand, and, in course of time, came to be inserted in the text. It is not unusual for historians to draw moral conclusions from the facts they relate for the instruction or imitation of their readers. This would be especially true if there was any prevalent error they would like to condemn. The Sadducees taught that the soul died with the body. Many are of opinion that this sect, which spread its branches far and wide among the Jews at the time of our Lord, had existed in the days of the Machabees, or at least when their history was written. It would be the part of a sacred historian to draw a conclusion condemnatory of the error of such a sect. Not only is it gratuitous to*say that this verse was patched into the text, there being no proof of such patchwork ; but even it is unreasonable, for there is no version and no copy in which it is not found. But even were we to omit from this chapter the verse in question, our cause is sufficiently sus tained by the preceding verses. Whatjytseuwas there in offering sacrifice for the deadrTTTt did not cleanse
.them from their sins ? But it could not cleanse .the
. reprobate, for whom there is no redemption, _ whose miserable fate is beyond the hope of mercy. Then it can be of use only to the souls in Purgatory, whose sins alone can be forgiven after death, and in re ference to whom exclusively these verses can be understood. v.
IT TS PROVED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT* 1 1
It does not follow, from the words of Machabees, "For if he had not hoped that that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed super fluous and vain to pray for the dead," that the soul dies with the body and is raised with it to life again. The mind of the sacred writer is to prove, from the "^TESurreclTpn of the body the immortality of the soul, which he says can be assisted by our prayers, if it is uot free from every stain of sin. It was the custom . among the Jews to connect the dogma of the resur-. rection with the immortality of the soul. To admit _ one was to admit the other; and, on the other hand,, to deny one was to deny the other. , This was not unreasonable ; for, as the soul is a part of man, it is only natural to conclude that the providence of God, JLVho disposes all things in the utmost order, would not oblige the soul to live for ever without the body, the partner of its labours. Hence, to prove the resurrection of the dead to the Sadducees, who denied it, our Lord uses these words of Exodus :* " I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," to which He adds from Himself: " He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.''! because the soul lives after the death of the body, (for He is the God of the living), He argues the re surrection. He supposes one dogma to follow the other, as did the Jews. The connection in this text is this : because He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose souls are not dead but living, the body shall rise again. In a similar sense St. Paul speaks when he says : " What doth it profit me if the dead rise not again ? Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die."J The apostle tells us we may live like the impious, who have no faith in the resur rection, and clearly pre-supposes the soul to be mortal, unless the body rise again. For, if he pre-
* iii. 6. t Matt, xxii., 32. * i Cor. xv. 32.
12 PURGATORY.
supposed the soul to be immortal without the resur rection, it would be for its eternal profit to lead a good life and to practice mortification. Hence Christ and His apostles peak on the hypothesis, as in use among the Jews, that the soul is mortal, un less the dead rise again ; and it is on the same hypothesis the historian of the Machabees writes, when he describes it to be superfluous and vain to pray for the dead without hope in their resurrection.
It will be of no advantage to those who dissent from the doctrine of Purgatory to say that the whole text, if canonical, would show that our prayers are also of advantage to those who die in mortal sin, as they for whom Judas wished to offer sacrifice died in this deplorable state. This conclusion is come to, because, " under the coats of the slain," were found "the donaries of the idols," which the Jews were forbidden to covet or appropriate.* In a word, it may be objected to us that the text proves too much, and consequently, according to the philoso phical adage, that it proves nothing. The least re flection will show us how futile is this objection. What proof have we that those soldiers died in mortal sin ? They may have been in bona fide ignorance of the law prohibiting them from taking or appropriating such donaries. Or, if they were aware of it, they may have repented for their crime, when the vengeance of God overtook them and before they breathed their last. Moreover, it may be, that they took these things through mere avarice, which may be only a venial sin. It was the part of a charitable and pious man, such as Judas Maccha- baeus, to presume that one or other of these excuses was in their favour and exempted them from eternal damnation.
II. Another proof of the belief in Purgatory in the
* Deut. vii. 25.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 13
Old Law is found in Tobias,* wherein is recorded the custom of giving alms for the dead. After saying: "Eat thy bread with the hungry and the needy, and with thy garments cover the naked ;" the " elder Tobias continues to exhort his son : " Lay out,, thy bread and thy wine upon the burial of a just_ man." What do these words mean ? Simply this :, after the death of a just man, give alms to the poor, ~fnaf they may offer up their prayers to God in his favour. Tobias could not mean to have his son place bread and wine on his grave for the use of the .
- just man himself. This was a Pagan custom which
—we should not even suspect such a pious man to advise or encourage. If such a superstitious practice existed among the Jews in His time it would not have escaped the censure of our Divine Lord, Who so often reproved the Pharisees for lighter faults. The Fathers interpreted the words of Tobias in the
"~ same sense that we do. Let us instance St. Chry- sostom,f who asks: "Why do you call together the poor after the death of your friends ? Why do you, entreat the elders that they may pray for them ?" It was from a conviction that there was such a state as Purgatory, that the custom existed in the Church in olden times, according to which the relatives of a deceased person instituted a banquet, of which
, they sent some to the poor, to pray for his soul.
\ III. Our doctrine is further sustained by the . /wonts of Ecclesiasticus :]: " Restrain not grace from
f the dead." This grace cannot be for the body of the dead, but for his soul ; and how can it affect his .., soul but by wiping off its stains ? The sacred writer would have us afford the dead IKe benefit of our alms, prayers, and sacrifices ; and he wrote about two hundred years before Christ.
* iv. 17, 18. t Homil. 32, in Matt. * vii. 37.
PURGATORY.
I -•
CHAPTER V.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I. THE Scriptural proofs in favour of Purgatory are not confined to the Old Testament. It is sustained in many parts of the New. Let us begin with^U Matthew.* In his Gospel our Lord says : " Who soever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it, shall be forgiven him ; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come." This-text' teaches us that there is a Purgatory. It forces us to that conclusion. We learn from it that there are sins which may be forgiven in the world to come. St. Augustinef uses this passage in favour of a middle state. He says that the words, "in the world to come," show that there are sins that can be remitted in the future life. His words are these : " For it would not be truly said of some that it should not be forgiven them, neither in this world nor in the world to come, unless there were persons to whom, though not in this, however, it is forgiven in the world to come." There must be sins then that can be re mitted irTthe other life, unless we wish to go so far as to say that Christ spoke foolishly and absurdly. Let us take a phrase of similar construction : " I shall not get drunk in this world .or in the world to. *come.n The latter is impossible, and the person who would so speak would render himself ridiculous: just in the same way our Lord's words would be without meaning and absurd, unless there be some sins that can be forgiven in a future life. St. Gregory,.}; the Ven. Bede,§ St. Bernard,j| and~Catholic writers geLerally interpret this text in the same sense as St,I
* xi:. 32. •*• De Civ. Lib. 21, c. 13. + Lib. 4 Dialog., cap, 39.
? Cap. 3, S. Marci. i: Serm. 66 in Cant.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15
^Augustin, and urge it as a solid argument in favour of the Catholic doctrine. ,
Dupin, following the same line of argument as the Calvinists, says that the words, " Neither in this world nor in the world to come," are to be taken in the sense of never, which very word St. Mark uses to express what our Lord said on this occasion, " shall never have forgiveness."* According to Dupin the words of St. Matthew are to be taken merely in the same sense as those spoken by St. Peter to Christ: "Thou shalt never wash my feet."f His argument does not stand. Our Lord, indeed, meant to say that sin against the Holy Ghost would never be forgiven, or, in other words, would not be forgiven for ever. But, in saying so, he made use of the words which are related by St. Matthew, and given in an abbreviated or contracted form by St. Mark. If the words of the former have any meaning, they mean what we have said ; they clearly indicate that there are sins that can be forgiven in the life to come, unless we repre sent Christ as using words without any reasonable meaning, which would be blasphemous for us to do. The whole body of the Fathers interpret his words in the same sense as we do. St. Mark's never mean the same. It is to be understood as embracing the whole of this and of the future life — " this world" and "the world to come" of St. Matthew. But never was used in a different sense by St. Peter. He did not use it so as to embrace the future life. It would be foolish of him to say : " Thou shalt not wash my feet, neither in this world nor in the world to come." If he were to say this, or to mean it, he would be laying down the foolish supposition that feet are washed in the other world. St. Peter did not intend thi?. Hence his never — which embraces the whole of this life — differs vastly from St. Mark's never, which
* iii. 29. f St. John, xiii. 8,
1 6 ^f PURGATORY.
also embraces the whole of eternity, and is to be understood in the same sense as the words in St. Matthew. Furthermore, why would Christ, instead of using the word never, which would be a more simple form, adopt the circumlocution, " nor in the world to come," unless there were really some sins that are forgiven in the world to come ?
The position of our adversaries is not strengthened by saying there is question in the text of mortal sin which is not remitted in the other world. There is mention made of a sin, which is remitted neither here nor hereafter. But it is not said what sin may be remitted here or hereafter. J££l,.it is clearly indicated that there are some which may be remitted here or hereafter. Moreover, Christ speaks of the remission both of the fault and punishment due to it, for in St.- Mark it is said, " shall be guilty of an everlasting, sin," that is, shall be guilty of the eternal punishment due to sin. The sense then is this, that sin against the Holy Ghost, both as to fault and punishment, is forgiven neither in this life nor in the next. It is quite different, however, with other sins, which, if they be venial, are forgiven in the present and the future life, but, if mortal, are forgiven as to their fault in this, and as to their punishment in the other life.
The reader will, no doubt, expect some explana tion of this sin against the Holy Ghost, which is said to be so irremissible. The most correct one seems to be that which, by sin against the Holy Ghost, understands that blasphemy by which a per son knowingly attributes the works of the Holy Ghost to the devil, and does this not through infirmity or ignorance, but through mere malice, and denies these works to the Holy Ghost, with the intention of pre venting the propagation of the true faith and the extension of the kingdom of God amongst men. But why is this sin said to be against the Holy
IT IS PROVEt) FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT). 17
Ghost any more than other sins ? Because this sin directly contradicts that working of miracles and that enlightenment of the mind by which we arrive at the knowledge of the truth, and which are the effects of the Holy Ghost. If we commit sin through weakness, we are said to sin against the Father, to whom is attributed power ; if, through ignorance, against the Son, to whom is attributed wisdom; so, in like manner, the sin of which there is question is said to be against the Holy Ghost, because it is directly opposed to that enlightenment of the mind, which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. This opinion is supported by the all but unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers, and receives additional weight from this, that Christ reproaches the Pharisees, who had accused Him with casting out devils in the name of Beelzebub. This was a manifest perversion of truth : it was clearly attributing to the evil spirit the works of the Holy Ghost.
When our Lord says this sin shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come, His words imply not the absolute impossibility, but the great difficulty of its remission. On this point St. Chrysostom* says : " Shall the bfasphemy of the Spirit be not forgiven to those who repent ? It is apparent that this is altogether false. For we know that also this sin is forgiven, since it is certain that pardon is granted to many of those who have said such things against the Holy Spirit. What, then, is this that he says ? He wished to signify that this is much less pardonable than other sins." In other parts of the Scripture we find similar hebraisms, which, while according to the letter they imply a real im possibility, according to the sense intended mean only a very great difficulty. For example, IB tte tiosp^ of St. Matthewf Christ says : " It is easier fora camel to
*Hoiiu xlii. in Matt. +x!x. 24.
PURGATORY.
>ass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." This text, taken literally, would imply that it is utterly impossible , for a rich man to be saved, whilst our Lord only in-" tended to convey that it is very difficult. Under-" standing it in the former sense, the Apostles asked : " Who then can be saved." He, correcting them replied : " With men this is impossible : but with God all things are possible." The sense He intended to convey is, that it is very difficult for a rich man to be saved, but still that he can be saved by the aid of God. In like manner in the prophecy of Jeremias* it is said : "If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots; you may also do well when you have learned evil." Here we are not to under stand that it is quite impossible for a person to be converted or to do good, after he has contracted an evil habit, as it is for the Ethiopian to change the colour of his skin, or the leopard his spots : but merely that it is very difficult for him to be converted, or to do good.
While on this point, we may observe that it is so hard to obtain forgiveness of this sin, because it has no extenuating circumstance. Other sins are com mitted through infirmity, through fear, or through error ; but in this a person knowingly and criminally opposes the truth. Add to this, that sin is forgiven only by the light and grace of the Holy Ghost. Now he shuts his eyes against both, who obstinately attributes His works to the evil spirit. Though it is so very grave, still it is pardonable, for there is no sin of which we cannot obtain pardon, provided we repent.
II. In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ saysf : " Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him ; lest perhaps the ad versary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver
* xiii. 23. + Matt. v. 25, 26.
IT 15 PROVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 19
thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing." To be sure, these words can be understood of a judge and prison of this earth. But if we refer to the chapter in which St. Luke* relates them, the context there will lead us to understand them solely of the judgment of God. There we read : " Be you then also ready : for at what hour you think not, the Son of man will come."t This shows us He speaks of a future judgment, against which we should prepare ourselves. When, then, He says : " Thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing," we must understand that there is a prison in the other life, from which the soul is set free after it has paid its small debts — after it has satisfied God in full for them. This is further proved from the scope of the parable, which presents to us one who is in prison, not for any crime such as murder or theft, but for a money debt. When one has paid this, it has been always the custom to set him at liberty. To apply the parable : we should satisfy the justice of God, a thing that we can easily do, while we are in this life, which is the way to eternity. Should we fail to do so, He will deliver us up to Christ, to Whom the Father has given all judgment, and we shall be severely punished by Him in the other life — we shall pay even " the last farthing." Though this interpre tation of the parable, as a proof of Purgatory, is not admitted by many, even Catholic, theologians, it is admitted in this sense by many others, and among them the well-known Bellarmine, who cites the Fathers in support of it.
III. In his First Epistle to the CorinthiansJ Saint Paul says : " Other foundation no man can lay but. that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if
* Luke, xii. + Luke, xii. 40. t iii. n.
<Nf\C
20 [ PURGATORY.
build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be manifest: for the day of the Lord" shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire : and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. . It anyTrian's work abide, which he hath built there on : he shall receive a reward. If any man's work ' burn, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" The foundation, of which mention is made by the Apostle, is Christ and his holy doctrine; or true faith in Him, enlivened by charity. The gold, silver, and precious stones denote the more perfect preaching and practice of the Gospel; the wood, hay, and sttibble, the preaching of the Corinthian teachers, who affected human eloquence, and made a great display of words. The wood, hay, and stubble also include that practice of the Gospel, which is mixed with small sins and imperfections. The day of the Lord, and the trial by fire in the particular judgment, which takes place immediately that one dies, shall disclose what sort every man's work has been. It is not easy to form a judgment of a man's work during life ; but after death the fire of God's judgment shall reveal it. They whose works are like wood, hay, and stubble, and on this account cannot stand the fire, shall suffer loss ; how ever, because they built upon the right foundation, having died in true faith and in grace, though with ~~ imperfections, they " shall be saved, yet so as by fire" They shall suffer, because they mixed wood, hay, and stubble with their building. Though this text of St. Paul, according to St. Augustine, is difficult to be understood, still we can draw two conclusions from it, First, that there are venial sins, which are denoted by wood, hay, and stubble ; and secondly, what comes more within our present purpose, that there is a Purgatory. Purgatory is a place of punish ment, in which they, who have built up wood, hay,
[T IS PROVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21
and stubble, that is sins differing in degree, but still not mortal, are purified until they are fit for heaven. Such a place the Apostle not obscurely admits in the text cited above. St. Ambrose understands it in this sense. Here are his words: "When Paul says: 'Yet so as by fire,' he shows indeed that he will be saved, but that he shall suffer the punishment of fire, that purified by fire he may be saved, and not like the damned be tormented for ever with eternal fire." Though all the Fathers do not agree with this interpretation, on account of the difficulty of the passage, it is to be preferred for this reason, that it is the more general among the Greek and Latin Doc tors, and offersno violence to thewords of theApostle.
Against this interpretation our adversaries say that by fire we are to understand either the trials of this life ; or the fire of hell, which shall punish mortal sins, denoted by wood, hay, and stubble ; or the judgment of God, which especially at the hour of death approves of true doctrine, as fire proves the gold, and consumes false doctrine, as if it were hay. This is the interpretation of Calvin and Peter the Martyr, who observe, that otherwise the Apostle would have used the word fire in two different senses in the same sentence — once for the judgment of God : " Fire shall try every man's work ; " and once for the fire of Purgatory : "Yet so as by fire."
None of these objections holds. The first — that by fire are understood the trials of this life — does not hold, because the time of this present life is not a certain and specified day, such as the Apostle indi cates. The day of which the Apostle speaks is the same as that to which he refers, when he says : "There is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day."* It is further to be observed, that the space
22 PURGATORY.
of this life is not called in Scripture the day of the Lord, but our day ; whilst, on the other hand, the space of the other life is called the day of the Lord, and not ours. The former is evident from St. Luke* : " If thou also hadst known, and that in this thy day, the things that are to thy peace ; " and againf : " But this is your hour." The latter is evident from SophoniasJ : " The great day of the Lord is near ; " as well as from Joel§ : "The day of the Lord cometh ... A day of darkness and of gloomi ness." Moreover, the Apostle says : that the day of the Lord shall declare what sort each man's work has been. Now the present time does not declare this, for the just suffer tribulations in this life as well as the unjust, and oftentimes a Stoic seems to bear them more patiently than a Christian. Nor does the second objection hold — that is, that by the fire, of which there is question, we are to understand the fire of hell. The fire, of which the Apostle speaks, shall try every man's work, whether it be of gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble. But the fire of hell can lay no claim to the gold, silver, or precious stones. Neither can it touch the wood, hay, or stubble, for they who build up such things, will be saved, though it be by fire.
The third objection, that by the fire we are to understand the judgment of God, approving of true, and condemning false doctrine, cannot stand, because, the Apostle says, " he shall suffer loss." Now the judgment at the hour of death, by which false doctrine is condemned, and errors are consumed like hay, shall cause no loss, but great gain, for it will lay bare to us the truth. Moreover, in that interpretation, all that would be saved should be saved by fire. But this is against the distinction of the Apostle, who says those only shall be saved by fire who, having held on to the foundation — true
*xix. 42. t xxii. 53.. * i. 14. \ ii. i, 2.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23
faith in Christ — have built on it wood, hay, and stubble. In the Catholic interpretation the word fire is taken in a double sense, once for the divine judgment (fire shall try every man's work], and once for Purgatory (he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire}. It is not unusual for St. Paul to use the same word in a double sense. Thus he says in his second Epistle to the Corinthians* : Him, that knew no sin, for us he hath made sin. Here he uses sin in a different sense, taking it in the latter case for a sin offering, or a victim for sin, whilst in the first case he takes it for an offence against God.
Another objection that has been raised against the sense in which we receive the text is, that when it is said, he shall be saved, yet so as by fire, the words so as express a similitude or likeness, but not the truth, or what really takes place. But to give them this meaning would accord but badly with this other text from the Gospel of St. Johnf : " And we saw his glory, the glory, as it were, of the only-begotten of the Father." The Latin for " as it were " is the same as that for so as in St. Paul. The very same Latin word (quasi} is used in each case. In St. John it expresses not the likeness or similitude, but the truth and the reality of the Only-begotten. In like manner we are to understand St. Paul as speaking of what really takes place, when he says that some people " shall be saved, yet so as (quasi} by fire" It may be observed, too, that in the Greek the same word is used in the two texts. If there is a similitude or metaphor in the text of the Apostle, it has reference not to the fire, but to the person who passes through the fire. Then it will come to this, that the man who has built up wood, hay and stubble shall reach heaven, but only in the same way as one reaches a place after having passed through fire to it, that is, he has saved his life, but he is scorched.
24 PURGATORY.
"
CHAPTER VI.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.
I. ONE of the earliest of the Fathers whom we find speaking of Purgatory is Tertullian, who was born, a little after the middle of the second century, and died about the year 220. When speaking of certain apostolical traditions, he says:* "We make yearly offerings (or sacrifices) for the dead, and for the feasts of the martyrs." Describing the duty of a faithful widow to her deceased husband, he says :f " She prays for his soul, and begs repose for him and his company in the first resurrection, and offers (sacrifice) on the anniversary days of his death. For if she does not these things, she has, as much as lies in her, divorced him." From this we see that it was a public custom in the days of Tertullian to offer up prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and to impetrate eternal rest for them.
^ f II. St. Clement of Alexandria, whose death is >j__ /likewise assigned to the year 220, says]: that by , \ punishment after death men must expiate the least Asin before they can enter heaven.
III. Origen, in many parts of his works, § teaches Jp /that all souls are purified by fire before they enter y ^ ^P ( heaven, unless they are so pure as not to need
_
IV. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and disciple >. /of Tertullian, who laid down his life for the faith in < I 258, bears witness to the same doctrine. He makes mention]] of the usual practice of offering sacrifice for every deceased Christian. He makes a distinction, however, in the case of martyrs, who do not need
* Lib. de Cor., c. 3. t Lib. de Monog., c. 10. t Strom, i. 7, pp. 794, 865.
\ L. 5, Contra Cels., p. 242 ; Horn. 28 in Num. ; Horn. 6 & 8 in Exod , &c.
II Ep, i., Ed. Oxon. See Fleury, t. 2, p. 273.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE FATHERS. 25
prayer or sacrifice, as martyrdom washes away not only all sin, but also all the temporal punishments due to it. "It is one thing to be cast into prison not to be released till the last farthing is paid, and another thing through the ardour of faith immediately to attain to the reward : it is very different by long punishment for sin to be cleansed a long time by fire, and to have purged away all sin by suffering."* Again,f he uses the following language, as clear as the sky above us, in favour of Purgatory : " The bishops, our predecessors, decreed that no brother, when dying, should nameaclergyman to the guardian ship or care of his property, and if anyone should do this, that there should not be an offering made for him, nor sacrifice celebrated for his rest : for he does not merit to be named at the altar of God in the prayer of the priests, who from the altar wished to draw away priests and ministers .... And there fore since Victor, contrary to the rule laid down for priests in the Council, has dared to constitute Geminius Faustinus, a priest, his guardian (adminis trator), let there be made by you no offering or prayer for his rest (dormitione)" These words speak as loud as a trumpet for the existence of Purgatory. They tell us that it was the custom to offer prayer and sacrifice for the dead ; and that, not to-day or yesterday, not in the sixteenth century, or the middle ages, but more than sixteen centuries ago, in the age of St. Cyprian, aye and long before it, from the very dawn of the Christian church, for he tells us that it was the custom in the time of the bishops who went before Jiim.
s<^. Arnobius, an African philosopher, and a COTN
vert from paganism, who lived in the end of the third
century, speaks of the assemblies of the Christians
V as follows]: : " In these the supreme God is prayed
* Ep. Cypr. ep. ad. Antonian. t Ep. 66, alias 17. \ Lib. 4 contra geuU
26 PURGATORY,
to, peace and pardon are begged of him for kings, magistrates, friends, and enemies, both the living and those who are delivered from the body" Peace and pardon were not asked for the saints, who do not need them, nor for the damned, to whom they cannot reach. Therefore this peace and pardon were in voked on those who were in a middle state.
/' VI. Lactantius* teaches that after death the soul has to be purified by fire, unless it may have been \ already purified.
VII. St Basiljf whose period belongs to the third aTrd fourth century", says ; " I consider that the active athletes of God, who have fought bravely with in visible enemies during all their life, when arrived at the end of life, shall be examined by the prince of the world, so that if they may be found to have re tained either wounds after the contests, or any stains or relics of sin, they should be detained \ but if they may be found without wounds and stains, as victorious and free, they would be translated by Christ to rest. Therefore, David prays for the present and the future life" Then, according to St. Basil, whilst some are immediately translated by Christ to rest, more of the faithful are detained at the end of life. The latter are not detained for ever, since they were active athletes of God, who retained some stains or relics of sin, for whom, in the future life, prayer was offered up. Hence they are detained only for a while. But that place, in which the souls of the faithful are de tained till they have expiated every vestige of sin, which is laid to their account at death, is what we call Purgatory. Again, in the same writer, or who ever may be the author of the treatise on the 9th chap, of Isaias, who was held for a long time to be St. Basil, we have not only the thing that is meant,
"EuFeven the very name of Purgatory. He speaks of_
* Lactant. i., 7, Instit., chap. 21. t In Psalm 7.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE FATHERS. 27
a sin that deserves " that the purgatorial fire may entirely feed on and devour it.1' Lest there may be a doubt as to his meaning, he adds : " It does not threaten utter ruin altogether, but it means cleansing (innuit purgationtm} according to the opinion of the Apostle : 'But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.' " Here is Purgatory, which is nothing else than a place in which sin is devoured, not for the utter ruin of the sinner, but for the cleansing of sin. Thus he who dies with certain sins in his conscience shall be saved by fire.
VIII. St. Epiphanins, who lived in the fourth and [the beginning of the fifth century, relates that when ^"Aerius, a bad Arian priest, denied prayers for the
dead, this heresy was condemned by the whole Church, and its author numbered amongst the heretics. Speaking* on this subject, the saintly bishop says : " As to the rite by which the names of ours are pronounced, what can be more useful than it: what more opportune, or truly more worthy of admiration." ^Further on he says; "But the prayers that are offered up for the dead are useful to them . . . I say that the Church, which has received that rite handed down to it from our ancestors, of necessity per forms it." Behold a doctrine, than which there is nothing more useful, which the Church of necessity holds and practises, which, even in the fourth century, had come down from our ancestors, but which Protestants, if you except, perhaps, a few Ritualists, look at in the light of fiction.
IX. St. Cyril of Jerusnlem, in his instruction to Calrchnmensf on the liturgy, tells them that they should pray for the emperor and all the living, that they should name the martyrs and saints to com mend themselves to their prayers, and that then they should make mention of the faithful departed, to pray for them. "We remember," 1;
* Haer. 75. t Catech. 9, 5. 328.
28 PURGATORY.
that are deceased ; first, the patriarchs, apostles, and martyrs, that God would receive our supplications through their prayers and intercession. Then we pray for our fathers and bishops, and in general for all among us who are departed this life, believing that this will be the greatest relief to them, for whom is offered up the holy and tremendous victim which lies on the altar." These words were quoted by Eustratius in the sixth, and Nico the monk in the tenth century. St. Cyril illustrates the value of such prayer for the dead by the comparison of a whole nation who should, in a body, address their king in favour of some persons whom he may have banished, and, at the same time, offer him a crown. The holy father continues : " Will not he grant them a remis sion of their banishment ? We, in like manner, offering our prayers for the dead, though they are sinners, do not offer a crown, but Christ sacrificed for our sins, studying to render the merciful God propitious to us and to them."
X. The next, in the order of time, of the Fathers that we find speaking of Purgatory, is St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, whose death occurred in 397. With the approval and applause of the faithful, he often commended to God the souls of the emperors, Theodosius and Valentinian, and others. In his funeral oration on Theodosius — that great and mighty emperor — he prays in these words : " Give perfect rest to thy servant Theodosius, that rest which thou hast prepared for thy saints.''* " I loved him ; " he says, "therefore I follow him into the country of the living. Neither will I forsake him, till by tears and prayers I shall bring the man whither his merits call him, unto the holy mountain of the Lord." He speaks of most solemn obsequies and sacrifices
* " Da Requiem perfectam servo tuo Theodosio, requium illam quam praeperasti sanctis tij.is."
IT IS PROVED FROM THE FATHERS. 29
for the dead, on the third, seventh, and thirtieth days aftertheir departure. In his epistle to Faustinas, who indulged in immoderate grief at the death of his sister, he writes : "I do not think your sister ought to excite your tears, but your prayers ; nor that her soul is to be dishonoured by weeping, but rather recommended to God by sacrifices."
XI. St. Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople as is known to all the world, who ended his life in exile in 407, names it* amongst the grave and dread obligations of a priest, " that he is the intercessor with God for the sins both of the living and the dead'' In the third Homily,t he says : " It is not in vain that this rule has been laid down by the apostolical laws, that the memory of those who are deceased should be made in the venerable and terrible mysteries. It was known that from this they had much gam, much utility ; for during that time in which the whole people stand with extended hands .... how shall we not appease God, praying for them. And this only with regard to those who have died in the faith. But the Catechumens are not worthy even of this consolation, but are destitute of every help, one only excepted. But what is this ? It is lawful to give alms to the poor for them, and from this they receive some refreshing." In the latter portion, he refers to the ancient discipline of his church, accord ing to which it would not be lawful for her ministers to offer up, in her name, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, or her public offices, for those who died without bap tism, or separated from her communion. It is allow able, however, to give alms for them, and to perform private acts of devotion in their favour. But this only on the supposition that they may have died in the friendship of God. In another Homily,J
' D« Sacerd. 5., 6, p. 424, ed. Montfaucon. + Chap, i., Epist. ad Philip, n. 4. $ Horn. 41 or 51., in Epist. i ad Cor.
30 PURGATORY.
when inculcating what people should do in favour of the dead, St. Chrysostom says: "Help him, not by tears, but by prayers, supplications, alms, and oblations. For these have not been rashly devised ; nor is it in vain that in the divine mysteries we remember the dead, appearing in their behalf, praying the Lamb who has taken away the sins of the world, that thence comfort may reach them. Nor is it in vain that he, who stands at the altar while the revered mysteries are performed, cries out : Let us pray for all those who have slept in Christ. Let us not fail to succour the departed ; for the common expiation of the world is offered." He adds : "These things are done by the ordination of the Spirit." Here, in eloquent language, we are taught* our duty to the dead — we are taught to pray, to give alms, and to offer sacrifice for them: and this duty is laid upon us not by the invention, or self interest of man, but by the Spirit of God.
XII. " Other husbands," says St. Jerome, " strew violets, roses, lilies, and purple flowers on the tombs of their wives ; our Pammachius waters the holy ashes and venerated bones with the balm of alms . . . . knowing that it is written : as water ex tinguishes fire, so does alms, sin.'' So wrote St. Jerome, who died in 420, to one Pammachius on the death of Paulina, the wife of the latter. In his opinion, according to the teaching of his day, alms extinguishes the sins of the dead, as water extin guishes fire. He must refer to those who are in Purgatory alone ; for in heaven there is no sin, whilst in hell there are sins, but they can never be extin guished.
XIII. The doctrine of Purgatory is also openly taught by St. Augustine, who passed out of this life in 430. He introduces it in many parts of his works. He tells us that his mother St. Monica — she is called his mother in a double sense, because she brought
IT IS PROVED FROM THE FATHERS. 3!
him into the world, and afterwards brought him to -heaven-fry her advice, example, and prayer— earnestly . begged the prayers and sacrifices of the Church after her departure; .and that he warmly recommende3 ""the souls of his deceased parents to the prayersj)f Bothers.* His mother's words to him are celebrated 'throughout the Church to this day. When she was near death — that time when the passions make little impression on us, and the truth alone, according to our light, is on our lips — she spoke thus to himf : " Place this body anywhere ; be not troubled about it : this only I ask of you, that you remember me at the altar of the Lord wherever you be." He did not forget the dying request of his holy mother, for he was accustomed to offer up " the price of our re demption for her.'1'1 Similar is the teaching of the holy_ Doctor in many parts of his renowned works. In his book on heresy,! ne numbers Aerius among the heretics, because he denied that sacrifices should be offered up for the dead. He wrote a book on concern- for the dead (de Cura pro mortuis) in \yh_ich we find the following passage§ : — "We read in the book of Machabees that sacrifice was offered up for the dead ; but even if this were never read in the ancient Scrip tures, the authority of the Universal Church, which is remarkable for this custom, is of great weight, according to which (custom), in the prayers of the priest, which are poured forth to 'The Lord God at the altar, the recommendation of the dead has also- its place." Again he says|| : " We must not omit sup plications for the souls of the dead, which the Church undertakes to make for all those who have died in the Christian and Catholic Society . . . under a general commemoration, so that these (supplications) may be offered by one pious common mother, for
* Conf. L. 9, chap, xiii., n. 36, &c. t Conf. L. n. n. 27. t Chap. liii. \ Chap, i., Tome. 6. || Chap. iv.
32 PURGATORY.
those who have not parents, or children, or any relatives, or friends." The authority of the Church, sanctioning the custom of praying for the dead, was renowned throughout the earth. But the same illustrious Doctor tells us* that it is sheer madness to call in question what the Universal Church practices. Jn expounding the words of the thirty- seventh psalm : " Neither chastise me in thy wrath," he takes them to refer to Purgatory, for he says : " That you purify me in this life, and render me such that I may not stand in need of that purging fire." This father teaches that a funeral pageant and a monument are a comfort to the living, but of no assistance to the dead ; whilst prayers, alms, and sacrifices relieve thesef. He often states that sacrifice is offered in thanksgiving to God for the martyrs, but never for their repose. " It is an injury," he says, £ " to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought to be ourselves recommended." He further says : " You know in what place (in the liturgy) the martyrs are named.. The Church prays not for them. She justly prays for other deceased persons, but prays not for the martyrs, but rather recommends herself to their prayers." He frequently repeats this in other places. In his work, titled Enchiridion,^ is the following passage : " Nor is it to ba denied that the souls of the departed are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when the sacrifice of the " Mediator is offered for them, or alms are given in the Church. But these things are profitable to those ' who, whilst they lived, deserved that they might avail them. There is a life so good, as not to re quire them ; and there is another so wicked, that after death it can receive no benefit from them. When, therefore, the sacrifices of the altar or alms are offered for all Christians, for the very good they
*Ep5st. 54 ad JanUariunu fSerttt. 182. JSermisg, \ Chap. ex.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE FATHERS. 33
are thanksgivings ; they &\z propitiations for those who are not very bad. For the very wicked, they are some kind of comfort to the living." Thus far St. Augustine, one of the most renowned and illustrious Doctors and Fathers of the Church that lived since the age of the Apostles. His teaching is clear — as clear as an Italian sky — in favour of the existence of Purgatory. It was so clear that Calvin had no way of getting over it but by saying that Monica was doting, and that Augustine, instead of acting according to the rule of Scripture, was moved by natural affection. In this manner did that evil man blaspheme against two saints together.
XIV. St. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, the coeval of Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, by whom he was very much esteemed, wrote an epistle to one Del- phinus, to whose prayers he recommended his brother's soul. In it* he says : " Cause that by thy prayers pardon may be granted to thee, and that a drop of rest flowing from the smallest finger of thy sanctity may sprinkle his soul." He everywhere shows the like piety towards the dead. In his epistle to Pammachius, the same to whom St. Jerome wrote, he congratulates him on having discharged his duty to the body and soul of his wife — to her body by tears, and to her soul by alms.
XV. St. Caesar, Archbishop of Aries, who presided over many~cotmcils in France," bears witness to tin; same doctrine in the sixth, as Paulinus" and Augustine^ aTTtf Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries. liis mind is very clear on the point. He gives us not only the substance and name, but 'even the very manm. r of Purgatory. Its pains shall be severer than the ' greatest torments that can be imagined in this life. No one among us knows how long he may have to endure them, whether for days or months or even
_. * Ep. 5, ad Dclpb.
.( 4
^ V * > ,*
.
34 y PURGATORY.
years. Here are the words of St. Caesar ;* " If we neither return thanks to God in tribulation, nor re deem sins with good works, we shall stay in the Purgatorial fire till the above-named small sins be consumed like wood, hay, and stubble . . . ^ But some one says : ' I don't mind how long I stay there^ if at length I shall arrive at eternal life.' Let no one say this, dearest brethren, because that Pur gatorial fire shall be severer than any punishment, that can be either thought of, or seen, or felt in this world. How can anyone know whether he is about to pass through that fire for days and months, or perhaps even fa\ years ?"
— -XYI. Pope St. Gregory the Great, whose reign fell in the seventh century, speaks thus of Purga tory :f " They who had the perfection of a good will in the confession of sin after death pass by Purga torial pain to life, if they may not have a sufficient^ amount of love to wash away their sins : and hence ^ St. Paul says: 'They are saved so as by fire.' But *" let the sinner who has deserved to be saved by fire " there, supply by affliction of the flesh here that defect „ of ardent love which he knows he wants." In another place he says : J " But, however, it must be believed that there is a Purgatorial fire for some light faults before judgment .... but we must believe that this can happen only in the case of small and very small sins."
Such were the opinions of the Fathers I have quoted, such were the sentiments they entertained with regard to Purgatory. To weary the reader any longer with quotations from other Fathers that may be cited as witnesses of belief in it — with quotations from an Eusebius, an Athanasius, an Ephrem, an Isidore, a Bede, a Bernard, or others, some of whom lived as early as the fourth, and more as late as the
* Serm. 104, n. 4, t Lib. 2, in. I.Reg., chap. 3. t Lib. 4, Dialog, chap. 39.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE COUNCILS. 35
twelfth century — would be unnecessary, and would prolong the discussion of the present subject too much. Yet this dogma, so clearly put forth by the most venerable men of ancient times, by renowned Fathers and Doctors, is rejected by those sects separated from the fold of the Church, who prefer to follow the selfish lead of modern reformers rather than embrace the affectionate teaching handed down to us from of old, and hallowed by the veneration of antiquity as well as of latter ages.
K
CHAPTER VII.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE COUNCILS.
THE rrmnrila f>f thft Phiirrh. h*]fj 'ft ffotPfi flnH ^ places far apart, furnish us with indirect proofs of- the doctrine of Purgatory. They, down to the Council of Trent, do not place it before us directly or issue a dogmatic decree on it. The Church do&s^ not do this, unless it becomes necessary to do so, on account of the doctrine being Jjkely to sufier because called .in doubt by many, fin other words, ; Ahe Church as a rule does not define any point of i /doctrine till it is in danger of suffering if there is no definition on it. There was no such reason for de fending the doctrine of Purgatory before the Council of Trent, because, if we except Aerius, it was denied by no man of any note before the sixteenth century. But the Councils establish it indirectly, or, as we may say, incidentally, that is, by referring to it, or by supposing its existence, when treating on some other subject.
I. The first Council we meet with in which its
\ existence is supposed is that alluded to by St. ,'Cyprian, to which attention has been drawn in the
J ~ - - —
36 PURGATORY.
preceding chapter. To refresh the reader's memory it is better to repeat his words : " The bishops, our predecessors, decreed that no brother, when dying, should name a clergyman to the guardianship or care (of his property), and if anyone should do this, that there should not be an offering made for him, nor sacrifice celebrated for his rest : for he does not merit to be named at the altar of God in the prayer of the priests, who from the altar wished to draw away priests and ministers .... And therefore since Victor, contrary to the rule laid down for priests in the Council, has dared to constitute Geminius Faustinus, a priest, his guardian (adminis trator), let there be made by you no offering or prayer for his rest."* The saint tolls us that a Council, whichever it beTTiad" ordered that sacrifices should not be offered up for the soul of a person who should constitute a priest his administrator.""" Therefore it supposed the existence of Purgatory," or a state where souls could be relieved by the" prayers and sacrifices of the living. This Council must have been celebrated in the'~*^Gtrontr, or, at furthest, in the early part of the third century, for St. Cyprian says that the matter was decreed in the" time of his predecessors, and he was consecrated * bishop as early as 248.
II ._ The next Council, whose opinion on Purga tory Ts recorded, is the third Council of Carthage^ which was held in 390 or 397. It says : " It hatlT pleased that the mysteries of the altar should be-* celebrated only by one who is fasting . . . For— *. "if the recommendation of any deceased persons is to be* made in the afternoon .... let it be done b^T* prayers alone."
III. The fourth Council of Carthage, held in 390, is clearer still on the point. <; If penitents," it sajsp"*
* Ep. 17.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE COUNCILS. 37
^jvho shall have.exactly fulfilled the laws of repent ance, may happen to die on a journey or at sea . . . let their memory be commemorated by prayers and sacrifices."
IV. The first Council of Nasensia (Naison), in *) 442, lays down the same rule with regard to penitents.
It says ; " Because it is unlawful to exclude from the salutary mysteries the commemorations of those who, with faithful affection, contended for the same mysteries."
V. A similar canon was published by other " Councils, such as the sixth Council of Rome, in
502; the Council of Agathense (d'Agde), in 506; the second Council of .Orleans, in 533 ; and the \ third Council of Orleans, in 538. C~-\ Vf. Tfa^i gprftnr* f!nnnrf| qf ftraca. in Portugal, is g ihe next that we shall cite. It was held in fi6*.. . It ruled " that no commemoration in the sacrifice should be made for those who, by the sword or by ~4X)ison .... or any other way may cause violent /deal ll IcTTF} e in s el v c s , nor that their dead bodies should be borne to the grave with psalms. •.. Like wise it hath pleased that if Catechumens die without •ttfe*"feHemption of baptism, in the same way let neither a commemoration of sacrifice, nor the office of singing be employed."
St. Chrysostom, long before the Council of Braca, speaks of the custom of not offering sacrifice for those Catechumens who did not receive baptism before death. We may observe, however, that this custom had reference only to the public offices which were performed by the ministers of the Church, as her representatives, and in her name. It was, and is, lawful to pray privately, and, as St. Chrysostom teaches, to give alms for them. We should add, that these decrees against offering up sacrifices or the public offices of the Church for Catechumens were directed against those who neglect baptism
38 PURGATORY.
through sloth, and die in this state. St. Ambrose dispensed with this law in favour of Valentinian, the younger, emperor of the West, who, pious as he was, earnestly requested baptism of the holy bishop a few days before he was strangled by his general, Arbogastes, at Vienne, in Gaul.
VII. The Council of Chalons, in 813, the sixth in order of the Councils held in that town, issued the following decree; "It has seemed good to us, that in all celebrations of Masses, at a suitable part, al prayer should be offered to God for the souls of the dead .... Holy Church retains this custom from of old." According to this Synod of Chalons, prayer should te offered to God for the dead, and , this, according to the custom transmitted to the -, Church from antiquity.
"~ The Councils we have till now considered were particular ones, whether national or provincial, or diocesan. All the same, they give us the faith of the different and widely separated churches in which they were held. They lay down decrees which were never changed by Pope or General Council, and which, consequently, must have been conformable to the prevailing belief of the respective times in which they were held, as well as to the faith of every age.
VIII. The fourth Ecumenical Council of Lateran, convoked by Innocent III., and assembled in 12 15, — supposes the dogma of Purgatory when it condemns %"the depraved exactions for the funeral solemnities^" of the dead," which were ^made by some for their1'"' own selfish purpose, and when, on the other hanTfT^ it approves of "the laudable custom " of making an offering to the Church on the occasion, which cus tom, it says, was " introduced by the pious devotion"" of the faithful," but " infringed by some laics through"*""""" the leaven of heretical depravity."
IX. The sixteenth Ecumenical Council, called of
IT IS PROVED FROM THE COUNCILS. 39
Florence, though celebrated partly at Ferrara and partly at Florence, in its last session, discussin,g the union of both Churches — the Eastern and theWestern — formulated the decree of "Union", in which we have the following paragraph : " Likewise if true penitents., depart in the charity of God, before they have made satisfaction for their sins of commission and omission by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls a.\o. cleansed by purgatorial pains after death, and, that they may be relieved from these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive are of advantage to them, that is. sacrifices of masses, prayers, and alms, and other. offices of pieiy, which are accustomed to be done by' ""the faithful for other faithful according to the custoni of the Church." So decreed the Council of Florence
X. It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader what the faith of the Church, with regard to Purga tory, was in the sixteenth century, when Luther and Calvin and other reformers rose up and blasphemed against it. The celebrated Council of Trent, which was summoned together to defend and proclaim the teaching of the Church against the innovators, de nned her faith on this point, under pain of anathema, in the following form : "If anyone shall have said that to every sinner who repents, after having received the grace of justification, sin is so remitted, and the guilt of eternal punishment blotted out, that no guilt of temporal punishment may remain to be paid, either in this world or in the future Purgatory, before the approach to the kingdom of heaven can lie open to him, let him be anathema." In this way does the Council of Trent embrace in its definition the faith of all antiquity.
40 PURGATORY
LI
CHAPTER VIII.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE LITURGIES.
LITURGY is a Greek word which means public ministry or office. Taking it in its strict ecclesiastical sense, it is understood to mean a certain order of prayers and ceremonies, which is adopted in the Mass, and according to which that holy sacrifice is performed. Rites and prayers, among which the words of Christ in instituting it held a conspicuous place, were always used by the officiating priest. Yet the discipline of the different churches in this matter was not always the same. Hence several liturgies came to be in use.
_Jn the Mass, the most solemn act of religious worship, the Church, from the very beginning, has T>eeh always accustomed to pray for the dead in her'" various liturgies. Then prayer for the dead must be_" no human rite, but it must have divine sanction.
Though the liturgies, like the Symbol and the forms ofThe Sacraments, were not committed to writing be fore the fourth or fifth century (at least this is the opinion of Le Brun, though he is contradicted by_ Muratori, Devoti, and others, of whom the first says, that the prayers and rites were committed to memory). still they were observed before that time. As there, was ._ always a sacrifice in the Church, so was there always a rite according to which it was offered up. Th's~ rite may have differed in accidental, but it was the same in substantial matters. It came down from the dawn of Christianity. This is why St. Epiphanius* says of the Apostles, that they were " the authors and makers of mysteries." The order of offering sacrifice, as Cardinal Bona observes, was received from the
* Hacr. 79, n. 13.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE LITURGIES. 4!
Apostles, and then spread abroad through the earth. For this reason, though the liturgies may differ in some points, they agree in many. They all have the Confiteor, the Inlroit, or beginning, the Psalms, the Lessons from Scripture, the Gospel, the Symbol, the ivashing of hands, the Commemoration and Invocation of the Saints, prayers for the living and the dead, re turning thanks, and benediction, in addition to the essential parts, the offertory, the consecration and com munion. This consent of the different churches, so far apart from each other, especially in ages when the means of transit and communication between them were very difficult, can be accounted for only on the supposition that jt was the work of the Holy _
- Ghost.
I. That th.e Church, in all its liturgies, poured forth its prayers for the dead who died in the Lord, and~~Jid' this, as Pope Celestine I. said,* so "uni formly that the law of supplicating may lay down, the _ law of believing," is proved in the first place from the Roman Liturgy. .Pope Innocent I.,f in the early years of the fifth century, attributed this liturgy to St. Peter: " It has been delivered by the Prin«-e of the Apostles, Peter, to the Roman Church.". Pope Vigil, \ in the sixth century, is of the same opinion. It has been never doubted' in Rome that this liturgy.
- -rnrc-rtrme down by tradition from St. Peter. In this
- Rom*» lllUlg'y V/6 hnd the same prayer— the very same Memento— for the dead, that is said in the Mass at the present day : " Remember, also, O Lord, thy servants and thy maid-servants, &c. To them, and all that rest in Christ, we pray Thee to grant a place of refreshment and light." What words conceived, or put in print, at the present day, could express belief in Purgatory with more clear-
* Epist. ad Gall, cpisc., chap ii. t Epist. ad Decentium, t Epist. ad Profut.
l/ir
42 PURGATORY.
ness ? s^u the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the most solemn function performed by a Christian priest, he makes a commemoration of the dead, and prays God to grant them rest, and he does this in the very same words that are in use at present on the same occasion of offering up the body and blood of our Lord.)
II. Prayer for the dead is found, in the second place, in the Gallican liturgy. This is the liturgy which was in use in the churches of Gaul until the year 758. It is thought to have been originally in troduced there by those eastern saints who brought the light of the Gospel into that country. Though it differs in some points from the Roman liturgy, it has the same Memento, or commemoration of the dead, as the latter.
>> III. The Ambrosian liturgy, observed in the church of Milan, also bears witness to the custom of praying for the dead. This liturgy is ascribed by some to St. Ambrose, and by others to St. Barnaba, either a very safe authority for what maybe the custom or faith of the Church. Like ours, the Ambrosian liturgy has its Masses for the dead. In one of the prayers at the Offertory it entreats rest and peace for the faith ful departed.
IV. The Mozardbic liturgy attests the faith of the ..Spanish "Church with regard to prayer for the dead. mozarabic is the adjective form of Mozarabes, which is a word corrupted from Mixtarales, a name given to the Christians who mixed up with the Moors or Arabs, by whom the fair provinces of Spain had1 been overrun. The Mozarattic liturgy has this prayer : " We offer to Thee, O God, the immaculate host .... for thy holy Church .... and the rest or indulgence of the faithfnl departed, that having changed the lot of sad mansions, they may enjoy the happy society of the just."
V._The eastern, as well as the western, liturgies^ afford usTexamples of prayer for theHead. TKere is^
IT IS PROVED FROM THE LITURGIES. 43
jioliturg.)Lpf an^secLnC_Qii£HtaL ChrisiiaoSj. some of whom have been separated from the Church since the fifth or sixth century, but has such prayer. A very ancient fragment of a liturgy is extant in the Apostolic Constitutions in which occurs this prayer for the dead : " For our brethren who have gone to rest in Christ, let us pray that God, the lover of men, who hath received the soul of a dead man, may re mit to him every voluntary and involuntary sin, and, being rendered propitious and clement, may place him in the region of the pious who rest in the bosom of Abraham.
• VI. Next comes the liturgy bearing the name of St. James, which was observed not onl^r in Jerusalem^ but al so fh rough out all Syria. There is no doubt as to its early antiquity, for it was treated on by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogic Catechism in the year 347 or 348. The orthodox and the heterodox alike have held this Apostolical monument in th i -utmost respect. In it is preserved the followinj / prayer: " Remember also, O Lord, the orthodoj i priests, long ago deceased, the deacons and the\ I sub-deacons .... Give rest to their souls, bodies, and spirits .... rendering them worthy of the joy] < whjrj]Js in thp bosom of A_braham_." v—
VII. The two principal liturgies followed by the Greeks subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople are those of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom/ There is no doubt that St. Basil was the author of one of them, whilst the other, which till then was named the liturgy of the Apostles, was attributed to St. John Chrysostom only three hundred years after his death. The latter is followed not only by all the Greek churches of the Ottoman empire which are subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but also by the Polish and Russian churches. In these liturgies, so universally, especially the latter, followed by the Greek churches, we have this prayer; " Give rest, O
44- PURGATORY.
Christ, with the pious and just to the souls of the dead, who, separated from us, have gone out of this world. Let thy cross be to them a bridge, and thy baptism a covering, thy body and thy holy blood be a way that may lead to thy kingdom." So we see the Church everywhere, he it east or be it west, be it in the city by the Bosphorus or in the more renowned city by the Tiber, be it on the banks of the Volga or on the banks of the Tagus, be it amid the valleys of Syria, or in the interesting land of the Gaul, adopting formulas substantially the same, indicative of her faith in Purgatory. What the Church everywhere and in every age professes it shows a great want of shrewdness to deny.
It requires some explanation that the Church, in some of these liturgies, begs " rest for the souls, bodies, and spirits" of the dead, "delivering them from infinite damnation." This prayer, according to the mind of the Church, refers to those who are at the very moment of death. The Church to-day prays that the dead may be delivered from the pains of hell, from the profound pit, and from the mouth of the lion ; and yet no one is so ignorant of her faith as to imagine that she believes that the damned can be relieved by our prayers. When she presents such a form of prayer for the dead it is for those who are at the very point of death. If such be the mind of the Church to-day, the same was its mind always, for, as Bossuet remarks, what was once believed in the eternal Church was always believed in it.
It may be observed also that when the Church prays to God to spare "sinners in the day of judg ment," that is, because scarcely the just shall be saved on that day ; because, but for the divine mercy, there would be reason to fear even for one who had led a life worthy of all praise ; and, also, because there shall be persons — such as those who will be alive till then — who shall not have paid, or
IT IS PROVED FROM THE LITURGIES. 45
even commenced to pay, the punishment due to sin in Purgatory.
Another point requiring explanation is this, that the Syriac liturgy* prays that God " may grant rest and good remembrance to the prophets, the Apostles, and especially the most holy Mother of God, Mary." The explanation is this, that it is one thing to make a remembrance of the saints, and another thing to ask rest for the dead. The ancient Church made this distinction. St. Epiphaniusf says : " We make mention of the just and sinners alike : of the sinners indeed, that we may obtain mercy of the Lord for them, but of the just . . .Apostles. . . martyrs, that, rendering a certain singular honour to our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the benefits conferred on them, we may separate them from the order of other men." St. Cyril of Jerusalem says ; J " We offer this sacrifice to Thee, that we may remember also those who have gone to sleep before us, first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their intercession, may receive our prayers ; then for the dead fathers." St. Augustine also says :§ " The ecclesiastical dis cipline obtains that the faithful know well, when the martyrs are recited in that place at the altar of God, that prayer is not offered for them, but for the other commemorated persons prayer is offered." It is clear, then, that the Syriac liturgy, which is the only one that entreats rest and glory for the dead without, distinction between the saints and the souls in Pur gatory, must be understood in an accommodated sense, so as to mean that, while it prays for rest for some, it felicitates the others on having already ob tained glory. This distinction or distribution of sense is found in this liturgy itself. After the commemoration of the Blessed Virgin, it continues : " In whose
* Tom. 6, P,ibliot. Patrum, p. 36. t H;ier. 75, n. 7. t Catech. Mystagogica 5, p. 241. \ Serin. 159, n. i.
46 PURGATORY.
honour and favour this oblation is offered." Then, in reference to the ordinary dead, or the souls in Purgatory, it proceeds : " Receive the souls of thy servants, of whom we make a commemoration, and place them, O Lord .... in the blessed mansions of thy Father with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, thy friends, and with all thy saints." It is not enough for us to admit with Calvin that for "more than thirteen hundred years " before his time " it was the custom to offer prayers for the dead ;" or to assert with Peter the Martyr (so styled) that "the Church had always prayed for the dead," but we must proclaim with tin; whole Church of Christ on earth for ever, that " it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins."
CHAPTER IX,
IT IS PROVED FROM THE CUSTOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE.
THE Jewish Synagogue believed in Purgatory and offered prayers for the dead. As this custom de scended to the Jews of aftertime from the Machabees, so did it come down to these from the ancient Hebrews. Richard Simon, in his book on the Rites of the jews, shows that this custom existed among them. Bartholoccius* confirms the existence of this custom when, speaking of the faith of the Jews in this matter, he says: "In the particular judgment, if the souls of the just be found with the guilt of mortal sin remitted, or if they may have died with lesser faults, they (the Hebrews) believe that they descend into the gehenna of fire, whence they are
* Bibliotheea Rabbinica, Tom. 2, p. 149.
IT IS PROVED FROM THEOLOGICAL REASONS. 47
afterwards to ascend." Speaking on the matter farther on in the same work, he says : " The Hebrews do not consider it so necessary to assign the place of gehenna of purifying souls, since souls may be sometimes cleansed elsewhere, that is, in those places destined by God for this, whether by fire or by other wonderful and different modes, from which they believe that they (the souls) are liberated by the suffrages and prayers of men .... this custom also prevails to-day among the Hebrews of every nation, that within a year of the death of a parent the son should recite the same prayer for the expiation of the faults of his father, and the liberation of his soul from the pains of Purgatory, which prayer is called the prayer of an orphan." What is all this but a proof of the strongest faith in Purgatory, and that the origin of this faith must be sought for among the first fathers of that nation which was so favoured by God, and to which He so often gave His commands and intrusted His counsels ?
CHAPTER X.
IT IS PROVED FROM THEOLOGICAL REASONS.
BY theological reasons we understand those reasons or arguments which human reason draws from those principles and truths of theology which are admitted by all theologians. Suppose that it is a principle admitted by theologians that penance is necessary for salvation, human reason concludes at once that we are bound to receive it under pain of mortal sin. This conclusion may be called a theological reason. Now, the following theological reasons prove or con firm the existence of Purgatory.
48 PURGATORY.
I. After sin is forgiven, there remains very often a temporal punishment to be paid. Sometimes, it is true, the whole temporal punishment may be remitted along with sin. This is the case in baptism and martyrdom, which, if received with proper disposi tions, remit all punishments due to sin. The same happens, but rarely, in the case of vehement contri tion and intense charity. Sorrow and love so seldom forgive all the punishments of sin that King David sighed :* " Deliver me from blood, O God." He referred to the blood of Urias and his fellow com batants, whose death he had procured in battle, and though he had repented of his crime, he still begged to be delivered from its effects, from the punishments due to it.
It is related in the second Book of Kingsf that after David had been guilty of adultery and had repented of it, and the prophet Nathan had assured him, " The Lord also hath taken away thy sin," still the prophet added : " Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born of thee shall surely die." A little further on in the same chapter of the second Book of Kings we are told that the child really did die. Here is temporal punishment, after the sin itself was forgiven.
In the same Book of KingsJ we find that God struck Israel with a plague that took away the life of seventy thousand men, on account of the vanity of David in numbering the people ; and this punish ment was inflicted after the repentance of the king.
It is related in the Book of Numbers§ that while God was pleased to give Moses a glimpse of the promised land, He decreed that he should never enter it, in punishment of a certain diffidence and weakness of faith, to which he had given way when
* Ps. 50, 16. + Chap, xii., v. 13, 8oc. * 2 Kings, 24, 15. $27,13.
IT IS PROVED FROM THEOLOGICAL REASONS. 49
God commanded him to mfraculously supply the people with water, by striking the rock with his rod.
In the Book of Genesis* God condemned our first parents to various penalties on account of their disobedience to Him.
Hence the temporal punishment generally remains still due to God, after the sin is forgiven. But this punishment is not always paid in the present life, partly through negligence, and partly because the penitent is often taken away quickly, after having obtained pardon of sin, before he has time to do penance for it. Therefore this penance for sin, this temporal punishment due to it, must be borne in the other life. "Otherwise," as St. Thomasf observes, " the condition of the negligent would be better than that of the cautious, if they should not have to endure in the future the punishment which they do not pay here for their sins."
II. To establish the doctrine of Purgatory, it is enough to admit the four following points: —
1. That there are some sins that are only venial.
2. That people shall render an account of these on the day of particular judgment.
3. That this account they are to render is in order to their punishment. And
4. That they must fully pay this punishment before they can enter heaven, or enjoy the beatific vision.
Now each of these points is certain, and beyond the region of doubt.
i . It is certain that some sins are venial, or so light, that they can consist in a just person with the state of grace or the friendship of God. This is proved from Scripture and from reason.
It is proved from Scripture. In the Book of ProverbsJ it is said : "A just man shall fall seven times;" and in St. James § it is said: "In many
* Chap. iii. 16. t Lib. 4. Contra gentes, chap. xci. t xxiiii. 16. I iii. t
5
50 PURGATORY.
things we all offend." These sentences are under stood to refer to the just, so that a man may be just and at the same time fall or offend God. Again in St Matthew* some sins are compared to a mote, or very small particle in the eye, and in St. Paul,f as we have already had occasion to see, they are compared to wood, hay, and stubble. From these passages of Scripture we must conclude, that there are some sins, which, of their own nature, are light or venial. On this matter St. Augustine saysrj "There are some sins that spring from infirmity, some from ignorance, some from malice .... everyone .... can estimate what sins may be venial."
It is proved from reason. As in human society there are certain light faults or offences committed by one person against another, which do not dissolve their friendship; so in the society or friendship which man enjoys with God, there are light faults or offences committed, which do not sever him from the friendship of God.
2. People shall render an account of these venial sins on the day of judgment. This is patent, for we read in St. Matthew § that they shall render an account on that day even of every idle word they may have spoken : "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment." It is easy then to see that they shall render an account of venial sins.
3. They shall render this account of venial sins, in order that they may receive punishment for them. They are not called on to render an account of venial sins, that they may receive praise or reward for them. Therefore they are to render this account, in order that they may receive punishment for them.
4. They must pay this punishment before going to heaven. The soul cannot enter heaven till it is free
* Chap. vii. 5. + i Cor. iii. 12. * Lib. 83, quaest. q. 26. 5 xii. 36.
ueu
r?
IT IS PROVED FROM THEOLOGICAL REASONS. 5 I
from sin of every sort, for, as we read in the Apoca lypse,* " There shall not enter into it anything
defiled."-
II. The general belief in Purgatory is a proof of its existence. This belief is the belief of all time. We know from the Book of Machabees, and from their own historian, Josephus,f that the Hebrews believed in Purgatory. We have before had occasion to give the text of Machabees, which clearly establishes the faith of the Jewish Synagogue on the / point. Josephus shows that the Jews were accus-/ tomed to pray for the dead, though not for those who were guilty of suicide.,. The Mohammedans profess ~thrs~ faith in their Kotan. It was not unknown to Gentile philosophers, like Plato, or pagan poets, like Virgil. J Except Protestants, all Christians, includ ing even those sects who separated from the Church in remote centuries, make open profession of it. This faith is so wide-spread and so constant that it seems to spring from the light of reason itself; or perhaps we should rather say, that it is the result of tradition, derived from the sons of Noe, with which the minds of men, dispersed throughout the world, have become so imbued, that it can be no more banished from them than the conviction of reward for the good, or of punishment for the bad.
IV. The various apparitions of souls in Purgator which are described in the writings of the Father asking the prayers and assistance of the living, con firm this doctrine. St. Bernard, § Venerable Bede, St. Peter Barman,!" B. Gregory of Tours,** and St Gregory the Great,ff relate apparitions of this kind. We cannot doubt these, for the Fathers who relate them were men of rare piety, of deep intelligence, and of great discernment.
7. f De Bello Tudaico. ch. xix. * JEneid. 6. ? Vita B. Malachiae.
II Lib. 3 Hist. Angl. ITEpist. ad Desiderium.
De Gloria Confessorum, ch. v. tt Lib. 4 Dialog, ch. xl.
M
52 PURGATORY.
CHAPTER XI.
IT IS FURTHER PROVED FROM THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLY IRISH CHURCH.
IT is abundantly proved that the ancient Church of Ireland believed in the existence of Purgatory. Even Protestant writers, such as Archbishop Usher, have admitted this. Forced by the irresistible testimony of our canons, liturgies, and writers, Usher was obliged to admit that the ancient Irish were accustomed to offer up the Eucharistic sacrifice for the dead, and that Requiem Masses, or those offered for the faithful departed, were celebrated daily.
I. The surest and most indisputable means, to find the faith and practice of any national Church, are the public acts of that Church ; that is, the canons which were passed in its synods, and are still extant. If we refer to the ancient Canons of the Church of Ireland, it will appear to us, as clear as the sun over our head, that she was accustomed to offer the sacrifice of propitiation, and to pray for the dead. In D'Achery's collection* an ancient canon is given, in which the synod expresses its mind thus : " The Church offers for the souls of the deceased in four ways : for the very good the oblations are simply thanksgivings ; for the very bad they become consola tions to the living ; for such as were not very good, the oblations are made in order to obtain full re mission ; and for those who were not very bad, that their punishment may be rendered more tolerable" Here we have in unequivocal terms the doctrine of Purgatory. The holy sacrifice was offered up for the full remission of those deceased souls who were
* Lib. 2, chap. xx.
IT IS PROVED FROM THE EARLY IRISH CHURCH. 53
not very good; and that their punishment may be rendered more tolerable for those who were not very bad. This establishes in the clearest manner, that the Catholic tenet of praying for the dead was universally believed and practised in the ancient Church of Ireland. Usher was well acquainted with the above important canon; and yet he did not produce it, because he knew right well that such a public document, such a solemn attestation of the whole Irish Church, would destroy his cause, and that he could no longer impose on the credulity of his dupes.
II. To the aforesaid canon, we may subjoin a more ancient one, v.hich is entitled "Of the oblation for the dead." It is the twelfth among the canons of the synod of St. Patrick. It is couched in these words : " Hear the Apostle saying, there is a sin unto death, I do not say that for it any one do pray. And the Lord : Do not give the holy to dogs. For he who will not deserve to receive the Sacrifice during his life, how can it help him after his death ? " It follows from the canon, that the Holy Sacrifice was accus tomed to be offered for the purpose of helping persons after their death. What else is this but a profession of faith in Purgatory ? The sin unto death, referred to in the canon, is final impenitence. They, who die with final impenitence in their heart, are cast into hell; and therefore the Sacrifice is of no help to them. " For," the canon says, " he who will not deserve to receive the Sacrifice during his life, how can it help him after his death?" From this it is clear that, according to the canon of the synod, he who deserved to receive the Sacrifice during life could obtain help from it after his death. Hence there is a state in which souls need, and can receive this help ; or in other words there is a Purgatory. Usher also omitted to give this canon, for he lsaw it would not suit his purpose.
54 PURGATORY.
III. The Liturgies of the ancient Irish Church in like manner breathe the doctrine of Purgatory. We shall draw the attention of the reader only to one of them. This is the ancient Irish Missal, the Cursus Scotorum. It was the only Missal in use in this country until about the close of the sixth century, when, probably, the Gallican Liturgy, the Cursus Gallorum, was introduced. The Cursus Scoiorum was brought to Ireland by St. Patrick. Thus it was in universal use in the time of the first class of Irish saints. It is supposed to have been the Liturgy which was originally drawn up by the Evangelist St. Mark, and used by him. St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, and other Greek Fathers adopted it; as did also Cassian, Honoratus of Lerins, St. Caesar of Aries, St. Lupus of Troies, and St, German of Auxerre. It was from the last named that St. Patrick received it, as he was about to start on his mission to Ireland. Mabillon found a copy of it, which he believed to have been then at least a thousand years old, on his visit to the famous monastery of Bobbio, in Italy, which was founded by one of the greatest of our Irish saints, Colombanus.
This Liturgy has two Masses for the Dead ; one is a general Mass, and the other is a Mass of a deceased Priest (Missa Sacerdotis Defuncti). Now, what was the object of these Masses, unless it was the belief of the Irish Church, that the dead could be relieved by such Masses, and consequently that there was such a place as Purgatory ?
In order to enter more in detail into these Masses for the dead, we must turn ourattention to some of the prayers, or, as the Missal itself styles them, coniesta- twnes, that are contained in them. In the Mass for the dead, which is entitled " Pro defunctis," is found the following prayer: — "Grant, O Lord, to him, thy servant deceased, the pardon of all his sins, in that secret abode, where there is no longer room for
IT IS PROVED FROM THE EARLY IRISH CHURCH. §?
penance; do Thou, O Christ, receive the soul of thy servant, which Thou hast given, and forgive him his trespasses more abundantly than he has forgiven those who have trespassed against him." There is the belief of the ancient Irish Church in Purgatory, and in the utility of prayer for the dead, in order to obtain pardon of all their sins.
This ancient Missal has also a Mass for the living and the dead. In this Mass, which is entitled " Pro vivis et defunctis," is found the following prayer; — " Propitiously grant that this sacred oblation may be profitable to the dead in obtaining pardon, and to the living in obtaining salvation; grant to them (the dead as well as the living) the full remission of all their sins, and that indulgence which they have always deserved." This prayer supposes, or perhaps I should rather say, states that the holy sacrifice is profitable to the dead, in the sense of obtaining pardon. Hence there are some just souls who, after departing this life, are liable for some sins or debts, from which they must be freed or discharged before they can enter heaven.
IV. To revert again to the testimony drawn Trom Synods, we may call the reader's attention once more to D'Achery's collection of the Canons of the ancient Irish, in which is found the foil-owing one :* " The Synod says : The Church now offers the sacrifice to God in many ways (for many reasons) ; first, for itself; secondly, for the commemoration of Jesus Christ ; and, thirdly, for the souls of the de parted" In the clearest manner possible it is said, that the Irish Church of old offered up the holy sacrifice for the faithful departed. Here in an express Canon, we have the faith of the whole Church of Ireland. We could have no clearer, and certainly no more authoritative exposition of her
•Lib. u, cap. ix.
56 PURGATORY.
faith. According to that faith, she held that there was a Purgatory ; and she offered up her Masses and her prayers for the souls that were suffering in it. It would be sheer folly then to deny, that the early Irish Church believed in Purgatory.
V. In the ancient life of St. Ita, who lived in the sixth century, and whose name is so closely associated with the diocese of Limerick, where she is venerated as a patroness, and honoured with a special Office since the early years of the rule of the present revered Bishop, it is recorded that " she had con stantly prayed for the soul of her uncle, and that alms had been given by his sons " for the same purpose. It is stated in the life of St. Brendan "That the prayers of the living profit much the dead,'1 In the life of St. Pulcherius* it is related that "he was accustomed to pray for the repose of the soul of Ronan, a chieftain of Ele, and that he had fre quently recommended the soul of the same chieftain to the prayers of the faithful." Were it necessary, similar authorities, without number, could be pro duced to show the faith of the early Irish Church in the existence of Purgatory, as well as in the utility of our suffrages for those who are detained there.
CHAPTER XII.
OBJECTIONS TO PURGATORY ANSWERED.
THEY who are opposed to this doctrine raise many objections to it. To give all these would require much space, and may only weary the reader. We shall give but one or two.
* Chap, xviii.
OBJECTIONS TO PURGATORY ANSWERED. 57
I. In Ecclesiastes* it is written: "Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly : for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening." According to this text, they say, there is no remedy for us in the other life, no way to expiate sin, such as we should have if we admitted Purgatory.
In answer to this objection, some interpreters say that Solomon, in this place, speaks in the person of those faithless people who not only do not admit Purgatory, but even deny the existence of hell, and pretend that there is no life after this present one. According to the mind of such people, all ends with this life, and they should act here as if they expected nothing hereafter. Others say that he speaks ironi cally, and sarcastically exhorts the wicked to gratify their passions during the short time of this life, since their industry and talent, which they abuse, shall be of no advantage to them in hell, whither they are going. A third opinion understands him to speak of the just in this sense : Do what you can now, because after death neither your labour, nor sorrow, shall profit you in the way of merit or satisfaction inas much as they are your works, or performed by you ; nor can the works of the living assist you, unless when alive you may have merited, by your good works, to be assisted by them.
II. Another objection raised against Purgatory is taken likewise from Ecclesiastes :f " If the tree fall to the south or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it lie." This sentence would seem to show that there are but two places in the other world, the south and the north. If we accept the teaching of the Catholic Church on Purgatory, we must admit a middle state, which would seem to be opposed to the sentence just quoted.
* ix. 10. t xi. 3.
58 PURGATORY.
There are three answers to this objection. The first is that if the Wise Man speaks literally of the death of the body, he merely means that as a tree sometimes falls and remains to rot where it has fallen, so men must die and shall never, of them selves, rise from the grave. The second answer is, that, if the sentence is to be understood to refer to the soul, the sense of it is, that after this life we can no longer lose or recover the divine friendship. Hence we shall for ever stand either to the south, where we will be unceasingly loved by God, or to the north, where we shall be undying objects of His hatred. In this sense the souls in Purgatory who have fallen to the south, or the side of salvation, are to remain here for ever. Thirdly, the text, in ques tion, raises no more objection to Purgatory than to Limbo. If it were opposed to the existence of Purgatory, so should it be to that of Limbo. The souls of the just of old did not descend into hell, as is manifest ; nor did they enter heaven, which was shut against them till the Ascension of Jesus Christ. They descended into Limbo. Now, '•' If the tree fall to the south or to the north, in what place so ever it shall fall, there shall it lie," is no more a contradiction of Purgatory, than it was of Limbo.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS.
HAVING established, as we hope, to the satisfaction of the reader its existence against the incredulous and the heretic, there are many interesting and useful questions in connection with Purgatory, to which we may now turn attention. Of this descrip-
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 59
tion are those questions which regard, i, the place where Purgatory is ; 2, those who go there ; 3, the capacity of the soul to merit or demerit ; 4, the certainty of the soul as to salvation ; 5, the nature of the pains of Purgatory ; 6, their gravity ; and, 7, their duration. We shall investigate these various points, assigning to each a separate chapter. Then we shall turn attention to other important questions in connection with our subject. We will begin with the place where Purgatory is.
I. There have been various opinions held as to where Purgatory is. There should be nothing to cause admiration in this, since the Church has not defined where it is. The situation of it is a question more of a speculative nature, than of any practical consequence. It does not much matter in what place Purgatory is, when we are certain that it exists. Still, though it is a speculative question, it is an in teresting one, and therefore do we purpose to give it a place in this treatise.
i. Some have thought that Purgatory, as well as hell, is nothing else than the conscience reproving and punishing sin. St. Jerome, in his Epistle to Avitus, says that Origen held this opinion. It is shown to' be false from this alone, that it would prove Purgatory and hell to be in this life, as well as in the next, since the conscience reproaches people and inflicts its remorse on them even here. This opinion would prove too much. It would prove that Purgatory exists even in this life ; and it is a maxim of philosophers that what proves too much, proves nothing.
2. St. Augustine* at one time thought that the places where souls are purified, are not corporeal or material. However, he afterwardsf retracted this opinion.
* Lib. 12, de Genesi ad lit. + Lib. 2, Retract., chap. 24.
60 PURGATORY.
3. Some, like Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, were of opinion that the place in which souls are punished is some dark and cloudy atmosphere, wherein the demons dwell. But this place they believed to be neither on, nor in the earth.
4» The opinion of others is, that souls are punished in the very places on earth where they had offended God. This opinion does not appear to have any solid foundation. Many persons commit sin in many places — places which aresometimes far removed from each other. It is not likely that they shall be punished in all these places. Some who have travelled abroad may have committed sin, let me say, in Ireland, in America, and in the Antipodes. Is it reasonable to believe that they shall suffer punishment in all these countries, which are so remote from each other ? Moreover, St. Peter Damian, in his Epistle on the miracles of his time, relates that Severinus suffered his Purgatory in a certain river for a sin which he had committed in the palace of the emperor. This fact, which St. Peter Damian has left us with his pen, would go to disprove the opinion of those who think that the soul is punished in the place where it committed sin.
5. We learn from St. Chrysostom that others placed Purgatory in the valley of Josaphat, because he tells us they placed hell there, and Purgatory was believed to be near hell. Probably the reason for this opinion was, that hell is called Gehenna by our divine Lord. Gehenna was a place held in abomi nation by the Jews, who regarded it as the equivalent of hell. It was the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, and on this account, near the valley of Josaphat. It was so near Josaphat that it may be looked upon as forming a portion of, or one valley with it.
6. The opinion comni9nly held in the schools is, that Purgatory is in the bowels or interior of the
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 6 I
earth, and near hell. The great bulk of scholastic theologians recognise four bosoms or inclosures, or whatever other name you choose to call them, within the earth, or at least one bosom or inclosure which is divided into four parts. They furthermore say that all pains in the other life are reduced to two, the pain of loss, or the pain of having lost God, or of being separated from Him ; and the pain of sense, or the pain by which each of the senses is afflicted. Again, these pains are either eternal or temporal.
One part, bosom, or inclosure, no longer occupied, was set apart for the souls of the just who died be fore the Passion of Jesus Christ. This is known in scholastic theology as the limbus of the fathers.* In this limbo they felt the pain of loss, but this was only temporal, or lasting till the Ascension of our Lord into heaven.
A second bosom or part is set apart for infants who die without baptism. This is called the limbus of infants. f In it infants suffer the pain of loss ; and this is eternal. But whether they suffer the pain of sense, or not, is a matter about which there exists a sharp controversy among theologians. Many scho lastics, with St. Thomas, hold that infants dying in original sin do not endure the pain of sense, which they consider to be due only to personal sin ; whilst others, following the guidance of St. Augustine, hold the opposite opinion. The adherents of this latter opinion cite Scripture in proof of it. In St. Matthew J we read that Christ shall say at the last judgment to those on his left: " Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire." In the passage where this text is found there are only two orders or classes to be judged, one on the right, the other on the left. But it is certain these infants shall not be on the right. Therefore they shall be on the left,
* Limbus patrum. t Limbus infantum. t xxv., 41.
62 PURGATORY.
and consequently condemned to eternal fire. Again, they cite in favour of this opinion the Apocalypse,* where it is said that " whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the pool of fire." They would argue that as infants are surely not written in the book of life, they must be cast into the pool of fire.
A third bosom or part in, or under the earth, is that place in which souls are purified, known to us by the term Purgatory. There the souls that need purification before reaching heaven suffer the double pain of loss and of sense ; but each is temporal, or lasting only for a time.
The last and deepest gulf, or part, is reserved for the reprobate, for all those who die in mortal sin. In this horrid gulf the reprobate suffer at the same time the pain of loss and the pain of sense; and both are eternal.
In this opinion Purgatory is situated between limbus, or limbo, and hell. Limbus is higher up than hell, having a great interval between it and the latter place. For in the Gospel of St. Lukef it is written that the rich man, " lifting up his eyes," had seen Abraham : " Lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off." Three verses later it is also written, that a "great chaos " intervened between them : " Between us and you there is fixed a great chaos." To place Purgatory between limbus and hell, is conformable to the mind of St. Thomas.
Before the Ascension of Christ there were three places into which souls went — limbo, Purgatory, and hell. There are also three now — heaven, Purgatory, and hell. The term hell embraces the limbus of infants. There shall be only two receptacles for souls after the last judgment — heaven and hell.
* xx., 15. t xvi., 23.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 63
Heaven shall be the inheritance of the elect, and hell the lot of the reprobate.
St. Thomas, who holds that infants who die in original sin do not suffer the pain of sense, has a distinct and special limbus for them. This he be lieved to be under the limbus of the fathers, but still a part of hell.
But as Protestants, and those who hear not the voice of the Church, laugh at this opinion, it is well to supply the reader with the arguments which scholastics advance to sustain it. We will take each of the subjects, which the opinion covers, separately, beginning with the limbus of the fathers.
II. The hmbus of the fathers is proved to be under the earth.
Lessius, a theologian of great erudition, says that it is of faith that the limbus of the fathers is under the earth. It is unnecessary to observe that when he speaks thus, he is to be understood as speaking of divine faith, or of a matter that is contained in the Scripture or tradition, as distinguished from Catholic divine faith, or a matter not alone contained in the Scripture or tradition, but also defined by the Church. But the Church has never defined the situation of limbus, though this may be contained in the Scripture or tradition.
I. The subterranean location of the limbus of the fathers is proved from the Book of Genesis :* " I will go doivn to my son into hell" These are the words of Jacob, a just and holy man, in reference to his son Joseph, who was likewise just and holy. Both after death descended into hell. They did not enter heaven, for it is evident that heaven is not understood by the word hell. Nor by hell are we to
*xxxvii., 35.
64 PURGATORY.
understand the grave. Though hell is sometimes used for the grave, it cannot be understood in this sense here. Jacob did not believe his son was in the grave. He supposed that a wild beast had devoured him, and being under this impression he could not hope to go down to, or to join him in the grave. One who is devoured by a wild beast finds not a grave, in which the ashes of his relatives can commingle with his.
II. Another proof of the subterranean situation of the limbus of the fathers is taken from the first Book of Kings.* Saul sought a woman with a divining spirit to bring up to him Samuel, who was dead and buried. She replied : " I saw gods (the soul of Samuel) ascending out of the earth." Thus the soul of the prophet, which was in limbo, was seen to ascend out of the earth. This is a strong evidence to sustain the opinion that limbus is under the earth. But as some do not admit that Samuel did in truth appear, it will be necessary to dwell a while on this subject, and to lay before the reader the arguments which demonstrate his real apparition.
What follows is the full text in which this remark able apparition is recorded. Saul, having consulted God, and having been found unworthy to receive an answer, changed his dress, and went in disguise to consult a pythonessf at Endor. " He (Saul) said to her : ' Divine to me by thy divining spirit, and bring me up him whom I shall tell thee.' . . . And the woman said to him : ' Whom shall I bring up
* XXV111.
t A diviner, or one who fortells future events, or discovers secret things by preternatural means, is sometimes called a python. He is so called because he was accustomed to deliver his answers after the manner in which the oracles of idols were delivered, and as the oracles of Apollo were the most famous, he is hence called a python. A diviner is also called a ventriloquist, because he used to endeavour to speak after the manner of ventriloquists. Some attain great perfection, without magic, in the art of ventriloquism. But the diviner or magician practises it with diabolic invocation, and under diabolic influence.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 65
to thee?' And he said: 'Bring me up Samuel.' And when the woman saw Samuel she cried out with a loud voice, and said to Saul : ' Why hast thou deceived me ? for thou art Saul.' And the king said to her : ' Fear not : what hast thou seen ? ' And the woman said to Saul : ' I saw gods ascend ing out of the earth.' And he said to her : ' What form is he of ? ' And she said : ' An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle.' And Saul understood that it was Samuel, and he bowed himself with his face to the ground, and adored. And Samuel said to Saul: 'Why hast thou disturbed my rest, that I should be brought up ? ' And Saul said : * I am in great distress : for the Philistines fight against me, and God is departed from me, and would not hear me, neither by the hand of prophets, nor by dreams : therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest show me what I shall do.' And Samuel said: ' Why askest thou me, seeing the Lord has de parted from thee, and is gone over to thy rival : for the Lord will do to thee as he spoke by me, and he will rend thy kingdom out of thy hand, and will give it to thy neighbour, David ; because thou didst not obey the voice of the Lord, neither didst thou execute the wrath of his indignation upon Amalec. Therefore hath the Lord done to thee what thou sufferest this day. And the Lord also will deliver Israel with thee into the hands of the Philistines, and to-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me, and the Lord will also deliver the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.' And forthwith Saul fell all along on the ground, for he was frightened with the words of Samuel."
Now, in what sense are we to understand this whole passage ? In what light are we to view it ? Does it indicate merely a phasm, a fancied appari tion, in order that Saul, with the permission of God, may be deceived, or rather the true and real appari-
6
66 PURGATORY.
tion of Samuel ? There have been four different opinions held on this subject.
1. The more common opinion of the fathers, in terpreters, and theologians is that Samuel in reality appeared to Saul, and addressed him. They who hold this opinion, however, differ as to the power that called up Samuel. Some maintain that the apparition was directly caused by the power of God, and not by the art of the magician. Others attribute it to the magic evocation of the pythoness. But while they differ as to the manner of the apparition, they agree as to the truth of it.
2. Some thought it was a phasm or fancied appari tion of Samuel, but not Samuel himself, nor the demon simulating him. They said that this phantom was either immediately produced by God, or by angels, at His command.
3. Others, like Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and many more, whose opinion appears probable to Natalis Alexander, say that it was not Samuel himself, but the demon representing or assuming his form, that appeared. These writers think that the demon deceived at the same time Saul and the pythoness.
4. Finally, there is another opinion which says that the whole thing was a fraud by which Saul was deceived. The diviner, while in fact she saw nothing, feigned to see Samuel. But Calmet, writing on the passage, says that this opinion is rash, dangerous, and contrary to the sacred text.
Whilst the opinion which says that Samuel himself appeared is far more probable, it must be allowed that the opinion which would have us believe it was the demon that appeared under his phantom should not be condemned. This latter should not be condemned, because it is not condemned by the Church, and it is supported by respectable authorities. We need
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 67
only glance at the authorities, which we have cited above as in favour of this opinion, to be convinced that they are respectable. The opinion certainly borrows no little weight from their patronage. Tertullian* says : " It was then possible for the pythonic spirit to represent the soul of Samuel." 1 hen he goes on to speak thus : " Otherwise be it far from us to believe that the soul of any saint, not to say a prophet, was brought forth by the demon." Simeon Metaphrastes relates that St. Pionius held the same opinion. In his life of this priest and martyr he gives his very words, which are these : " Therefore that ventriloquous woman did not bring back Samuel into this life, but tartarean demons, putting on the person and likeness of Samuel, may have made themselves visible to the ventriloquous woman and to Saul, who had forsaken God." Si. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and many others, un derstand the apparition in the same sense. Though St. Thomas seems to adhere to the side of those who hold that it was truly the apparition of Samuel, still he admits that the opinion which attributes it to the evil spirit is tenable when he says : " Although also it can be said that it may not have been the soul of Samuel, but the demon speaking in his person," &c. Furthermore, as we have said, this opinion is not condemned by the Church. There is no evidence that she ever raised her voice in condemnation of it. No sentence or decree of hers to that effect exists. Then we should not reprobate it, since the Church has not condemned it, and it is sustained by respect able authorities.
On the other hand, however, we may say that the opinion which maintains that Samuel appeared in person, is far and away more probable.
I. This is proved, from the natural and obvious
* Lib. do Anima, chap. 57.
68 PURGATORY,
sense of the text, which would indicate the real apparition of Samuel. The Scripture should be received in the natural and obvious sense, when this would involve nothing contrary to faith, or good morals, or otherwise absurd. But nothing of this kind is to be feared, neither of these evils will occur, if we read the present passage in the literal and obvious sense.
Anyone who takes the trouble of closely examin ing the passage, must come to the conclusion that it indicates the real apparition of the prophet. Let us repeat a few verses of it : " And Saul understood that it was Samuel, and he bowed himself with his face to the ground, and adored. And Samuel said to Saul : Why hast thou disturbed my rest, that I should be brought up ? . . . And Samuel said : Why askest thou me, seeing the Lord has departed from thee ? . . . . And forthwith Saul fel) all along on the ground, for he was frightened with the words of Samuel." Observe that it is not said Saul imagined or thought, but he understood that it was Samuel. Though the name of Samuel is repeated six times, there is not one word in the context to insinuate that itwas usurped in deception or delusion. The very tenor of his language leads us to believe that it was Samuel himself who appeared in his own person. His discourse with the wicked Saul was in every way worthy of the prophet. He foretold to the unhappy king all that afterward befell him. His prediction with regard to the king's family and people was in like manner verified. He reproaches the faithless monarch with his impiety. He repeats the name of the Lord with gravity and respect ; what the evil spirit should not be suspected to have done. In fact, whoever, free from passion and prejudice, would read the whole discourse between the prophet and the king, should come to the con clusion that it indicates the real presence of Samuel
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 69
himself, and not his shadow, or, much less, a demon under his appearance.
If there were any doubt in the matter, it is removed by what we read in Ecclesiasticus* in regard to this apparition. Here is what the sacred writer in this book says: ''After this he (Samuel) slept, and he made known to the king, and showed him the end of his life, and he lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy to blot out the wickedness of the nation." In the Greek it is rendered : " After he had slept, he prophesied." The Syriac version has it thus : "After death he was interrogated, and he showed the king his way, and he lifted up from the earth his voice in prophecy to put an end to sins." It is a special theme of praise, bestowed on Samuel, that he alone, of all the prophets of the Lord, raised his voice in prophecy after death. But it would be no subject of praise or glory for Samuel, if an infernal spirit assumed his form, and, under it, rendered himself obsequious to the phythoness. Hence we must understand that it was Samuel in person, who raised his voice from the earth in prophecy. Had the authenticity of the Book of Ecclesiasticus been sufficiently laid before the Fathers, who have betaken themselves to the contrary side, there is no doubt, as Cornelius a Lapide remarks, that they would agree with the general opinion. On this account St. Thomas observes: "It can be said of Samuel that he appeared by divine revelation, according to what is said in Eccl. xlvi. &c. ; or that apparition was pro cured by demons : if however the authority of Eccle siasticus be not received" As all doubt as to the authenticity of this book has been long since set at rest, and it is received with equal authority to the rest of the Scriptures, we are obliged from it to look
'xlvi. 23,
7 (3 PURGATORY.
upon the apparition of Samuel as genuine, and in no sense produced by the evil spirit.
There will arise no difficulty against faith or morals, when we take the apparition as that of the true Samuel. There is nothing against faith or morals in the text when it tells us: " Saul understood that it was Samuel, and he bowed himself with his face to the ground, and adored" It has been said by way of objection to the apparition, that the true soul of Samuel, if present, would have never allowed itself to be adored. But this objection disappears, when we reflect that there is here implied, not supreme adora tion, called latria, such as is rendered to God, but suppliant, humble respect or honor, which the Jews were accustomed to pay to persons of pre-eminent dignity or holiness. Thus Saul adored Samuel, rendering to him, as the friend of God, an inferior honour. We find adoration used in the same sense in other parts of Scripture. For example, in the First Book of Kings*, it is written that " David, bow ing himself down to the ground, worshipped" Saul. In the Vulgate edition of the Bible, the Latin word employed for worshipped is adoravit, the very same as is employed in the above verse. We have also another instance in the First Book of Kingsf, where adoration is used to signify humble respect for a person. It is stated that Abigail " fell before David, on her face, and adored upon the ground." This expression is so often used in Scripture to signify respect and veneration, but nothing more, for persons entitled thereto by their exalted position, or great sanctity, that it is unnecessary to dwell any longer on it.
There is nothing either contrary to faith or morals in his words, when the prophet said to Saul: "To- norrow thou and thy sons shall be with me." There
*xxiv, 9. txxv. 23.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS, 7*
is no false prediction here, nor untruthfulness of any kind. Even though Saul, his sons, and his army were not slain on the day that proximately followed, there would be no want of truth in the prediction still ; for to-morrow, as Theodoret and St. Jerome observe, does not always mean the day that proxi mately follows ; but it more frequently refers to a thing that is approaching, although sometimes it may not come or happen for a while. St. Jerome* speaks as follows: "To-morrow in the Scriptures is understood to be the future time, according to what Jacob says : * My justice shall hear me to-morrow.' And when the altar was erected by the two tribes of Ruben and Gad .... Phinees answered that he had made the altar for this reason, lest to-morrow the possession of the worship of God maybe denied to his children. And thou shalt find many examples of this kind in the Old Testament." Phinees raised the altar to God, lest to-morrow, that is, at some future day, his children may cease to practise divine worship. Thus, in the place to which allusion is here made, to-morrow means merely some future time.
Some, like Usher, thought the prediction was ful filled after some days. But in reality there is nothing to prevent us from holding that it was fulfilled on the following day. Saul and his sons may have been, and, in all probability, were slain on the very next day to that in which the prophecy of Samuel was uttered. All that intervenes in the Book of Kings between the apparition and the death of unhappy Saul, and that requires a longer interval than one day, or at least thirty-six hours, or thereabout, is introduced by anticipation, and belongs to an after date.
I have said " at least thirty-six hours ; " because if we suppose, as in justice we can, that the prediction
* In chap. vi. Matt
was spoken after midnight, the ruin of Saul may be deferred for thirty-six, or even more, hours, and still fall on the day next after that of the prediction. If we compute the day from midnight to midnight, and suppose the apparition to have taken place an hour after midnight, or one o'clock in the morning, the ruin of Saul could have happened on the next day, say about one o'clock or later, in the afternoon, and be still thirty-six, or more, hours after the predic tion.
When Samuel says, " To-morrow thou shalt be with me ; " it is scarcely necessary to observe, that he does not mean, that the impious Saul was to join him next day in the enjoyment of felicity. Saul committed suicide, and so could have no share in the happiness of Samuel. " Thou shalt be with me," includes nothing more than that Saul was to be next day numbered among the dead, and in the other world, like Samuel, though not in the same place with him.
Nor, by admitting the apparition of thetrue Samuel, will it follow, that we give the demon the power of calling forth the souls of those who are in glory. It was not the demon, but God himself, who, by His supreme authority, called up Samuel for the terror and punishment of a wicked prince. It was vain to expect the ventriloquist to bring him forth. Tt pleased God that, for the greater punishment of Saul, Samuel in person should denounce to him the evils that were about to befall him. The prophet was brought up, not by the power of the devil, but by the just judgment of God, to foretell the destruc tion of Saul, and to denounce his wickedness before his face. That this was so, is patent from the passage itself, in the twenty-eighth chapter of the First Book of Kings. Immediately that Saul asked the woman to raise up to him Samuel, she cried aloud without delay or hesitation : " Why hast thou
THE PLACE WHERE FURGATORY IS. f$
deceived me ? for thou art Saul." If the apparition were the effect of magic, it should take some time to produce it, because the magical incantation would be long and tedious- Again, when the woman beheld Samuel she was so frightened that she " cried out with a loud voice; " whilst Saul, to inspire her with courage, said : " Fear not." What was it that struck her with terror ? Simply this, that Samuel appeared before she would employ her magic art to call him fprth. I am aware that the Rabbins suppose the woman was startled because Samuel did not appear in the manner in which spirits were accustomed to appear to persons of her character. They say the dead were wont to appear to magicians, either with their feet upward, or on their back, as in the grave ; and that Samuel, departing from this custom, appeared in a standing posture. But the most probable cause of her terror and exclamation was, that he had appeared before she performed, or even began, her in cantations ; and that, as Josephus tells us, he was arrayed like a priest*, and in great majesty. The suddenness with which he anticipated her incanta tions, and the majesty and splendour of his appear ance, struck her wicked heart with terror.
There are other places in the sacred books, in which God anticipated the soothsayer, as he did in
* When the woman said that she " saw gods ascending out of the earth," she introduces a Ilcbrcivism, which, to denote the greater dignity of a thing, adopts the plural for the singular number. In the Book of Exodust, where there was only one molten calt, it was said of it : " These are thy gods." The same Hebrew word, Elohim, is used in each place, and signifies, what it does.everywhere in Scripture, one God. When she says she saw gods, we should read her words as implying, that the splendour of Samuel was such, that he seemed to be God, and not a human creature. Saul very well understood what she meant, and that her words had reference only to one person ; for he interrogated her in the singular number: "What form is he of." To this she, having relinquished the plural, replies in the singular number : "An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle." Then, it is gratuitous and futile for the Rabbins to say that, because the plural form is adopted in the first instance, Moses appeared along with Samuel.
txxxii.4.
74 PURGATORY.
causing Samuel to appear before the woman exer cised her dark craft. In the Fourth Book of Kings*, there is a description of how, when Ochozias, king of Israel, had sent messengers to consult Beelzebub, the god of Accaron, as to whether he should recover from his illness, God anticipated the Accaronite idol, by sending an angel to command the prophet Elias to go and tell the sick ruler that he should not rise out of the bed on which he lay, but that he should surely die. It is also related in the Book of Numbers, t that when Balaam, the sooth sayer, would consult the devil on behalf of Balac, king of Moab, he was prevented by an angel of the Lord to do so ; and, instead thereof, he uttered a sublime prophecy about Israel and her long-expected Messias, whom she was to slay.
But, Samuel complained to Saul : " Why hast thou disturbed my rest, that I should be brought up?" It does not follow from this mode of speech that he was brought up by the witch of Endor. The rest of the prophet may be said to be disturbed, because, as Cornelius a Lapside and Menochius observe, he was moved to anger, according to our way of thinking, at the unworthy manner in which Saul endeavoured to raise him up, and to learn his fate from him. Or we can hold again with the same two interpreters, that he may be said to be disturbed, because he was called forth from the state of rest and peace which he enjoyed, and asked to implicate himself in the troublesome affairs of this world. But that Saul may be said to have disturbed the rest of Samuel, and brought him up, it is enough that his profane curi osity was the occasion of his coming up. Nothing more than this is required. It is not required that the witch should be the efficient cause of it.
However, there would be nothing indiscreet or
* Ch. i. 16, t Ch. xxii. 38.
THE PLACE WHERE PtTRGATORV IS. 75
absurd in our concession, were we to allow that the demon resuscitated Samuel. There is nothing more remarkable or impossible in his doing this, than in his bearing Jesus Christ, the Lord of Samuel and all the prophets, to the pinnacle of the temple, or to the top of the mountain. Hence, St. Augustine*, speak ing on the matter, says : " If this causes alarm, that it may have been allowed to the malicious spirit to raise the soul of a just person, and as if to call forth from the hidden receptacles of the dead, is it not more wonderful that Satan took our Lord Him self, and placed Him upon the battlement of the temple ? The manner in which he may have done this is hidden to us ; just as is also the manner in which it happened that Samuel was raised up. Unless by chance some one may say, that the liberty to take the living Lord whence he wished, and to place him where he wished, came easier to the devil, than to raise up from his abode the spirit of the dead Samuel."
2. The opinion which maintains that the true Samuel appeared is strengthened by the authority of many Fathers, who hold it, although it must be admitted that other Fathers take an opposite view.
The first we shall name as in favour of the real apparition of Samuel, is Origen. He accepts it in this sense, and proves it to be so, by many arguments, when treating on the twenty-eighth chapter of the First Book of Kings.
Justin the Martyr, in his dialogue with Tryphon, proving the immortality of the soul, speaks thus : " That souls survive (the body) could prove even from this, that the ventriloquous Pythoness called up the soul of Samuel, such as Saul had requested." In the opinion of St. Justin, the true Samuel was
• Lib. 2 de diversis quaestionibus a Simpliciane propositis, q. 4.
76 PURGATORY.
called up. If it was a demon, under his spectre, that came forth, Justin could not adduce this fact as a proof of the immortality of the soul. In addi tion, it will strike the reader, that Justin states the soul of Samuel rose, " such as Saul had requested." * But Saul requested to have brought before him the soul of Samuel, and not a demon representing him or assuming his appearance. Then Justin the Martyr was under the conviction that the true soul of Samuel appeared.
St. Augustine was of the same opinion. This is evident from the following quotation, which is taken from one of his works. f "The divine Scripture testifies that some of the dead have been also sent to the living, as on the contrary Paul from among the living was taken up into paradise. For Samuel, the dead prophet, even foretold the things that were about to happen to the living king Saul (although some may think it was not he who could have been called up by magic arts, but that some spirit, fit for such evil works, had formed his like ness) since the book of Ecclesiasticus, which Jesus the son of Sirach, is handed down to have written . . . contains, in praise of the Fathers, that Samuel even after death, prophesied," &c.
St. Ambrose too, holds, that it was Samuel in person who appeared, and foretold his unhappy, but merited, fate to Saul. This holy Father \ says : "Samuel after death according to the testimony of Scripture, was not silent as to future events."
Other Fathers may be quoted in defence of the true apparition of Samuel. But it would be super fluous to do so ; because when the Fathers disagree on any subject, we should attend not to their autho rity, but to the arguments by which the subject is sustained.
* " Ita ut Saul petierat." + De Cura pro mortuis gerenda, Ch. 15. *InC. i. S.Luc.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 77
3. The true apparition is also proved from theo logical reasoning : that is, a species of argumenta tion, which human reason deduces from admitted principles of theology. The arguments, under this heading, in favour of the apparition, are strong and insurmountable, while the arguments against it, as we have before seen, are weak and trifling. It is sustained by grave arguments. You will observe that the apparition foretold to the letter the slaughter, with the circumstances attending it, of the Israelites, on the following day. This fore knowledge, comprising a future contingent event, and the circumstances of it, was such as God alone could impart. It will not sufficiently explain the prediction to say, that the straitened circum stances of Saul were such, as that in all probability he should be killed the next day. This explanation will not convince, for Saul himself could have es caped. Though his army may perish by the sword of the enemy, he, like many a leader, could have saved his life by flight. There was nothing to pre vent his sons from doing the same. They were under no necessity of courting the fortune, or rather the misfortune, of the army. They could have retired to some place were they would be safe from hostile attack. Unless Providence had dis posed affairs for his destruction, Saul could, and should, after such serious and terrific admonition, have consulted, by flight, for the safety of himself and his sons. This prediction, therefore, was sug gested or inspired by God.
But if we deny the credit of it to God, and attri bute it to Satan, then we should have to multiply miracles, in order to avoid admitting one. It would be a miracle that Satan, on behalf of God, would reproach Saul with the crimes which he instigated him to commit. It would be a miracle that God would give the evil one a prescience, such as was
78 PURGATORY,
displayed, of future things. It would be a miracle that God would publish his praise by the pen of the writer of Ecclesiasticus. It would be wonder ful that Satan should, six times, pronounce with reverence the name of the Lord. Moreover, this interpretation would offer violence to the words of the Scripture, which, through the passage, speaks of Samuel by name, without uttering one word which would lead us to think that another person should be understood under his appellation. Any one of these objections should be fatal to the opinion which would attribute the apparition to an evil spirit. How can that opinion, then, stand when all these objections, banded together, militate against it ?
The very wording of the passage itself would show that it was Samuel who appeared. Any one who, free from partiality or preconception, would cast his eye over the sacred page and reflect on it, should admit that ; he could no more doubt that Samuel appeared, than he could doubt that Saul changed his garments, or betook himself to Endor, or asked the witch to raise up to him the spirit of Samuel. The sacred text is as explicit on the first, as it is on the other points.
Thus far we have seen the arguments that prove the genuineness of the apparition of Samuel. We have as if it were digressed, to prove that it was genuine and not counterfeit. But this was necessary ; for if it be once proved that it was genuine, we must con sequently admit that Samuel, to quote the words of the text, " ascended out of the earth ; " and this is an indisputable proof that the Limbo of the Fathers was under the earth. We shall now return to the direct arguments which prove the Limbo of the Fathers to be under the earth.
III. A third argument to prove that Limbo was
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 79
under the earth, is taken from the Apocalypse,* where the angel proclaimed with a loud voice : " Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof ?" It is at once answered: "No man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book." St. John de clares there was no man under the earth worthy to open the book. By worthy he means the just : no other person could be at all thought worthy to open the book. Some of these just persons were in heaven, some on earth, and some under the earth. Unless there were just persons under the earth, there would be no sense in saying, that there was no one found worthy under the earth. There would be nothing remarkable in this, that there should be no one found worthy to open the book under the earth, if there were no just there. Now these just were, either in the Limbo of the Fathers, or in Purgatory. Although the souls, that had been in Limbo, were then, when St. John wrote the Apocalypse, with God, it may be that he alludes to their condition before the Anointed of the Lord opened to them the gates of heaven, or ascended there. Whether the apostle alludes to the souls in Limbo, or to those in Purgatory, his words contain a confirma tion of the opinion as to the subterrene abode of the dead.
Nor can it be said that we are to understand the phrase, " under the earth? in a metaphorical sense ; so that strictly speaking, there was no book to be opened, and no rational creature under the earth expected to open it ; just as in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, it is written by way of metaphor: "And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them : I heard all
* V. 2, 3.
80 PURGATORY.
saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction and honour and glory and power for ever and ever." There is no com parison between the two verses. The first cannot be read metaphorically, like the second. In regard to the second, we should keep in mind, that it is usual with the Scripture to represent all creatures, even inanimate things, as proclaiming praise and benediction to God. This is true, because they all show forth the glory of God, and give praise to his name, inasmuch as they faithfully serve the end for which He created them. But, on the other hand, it is quite as unusual in Scripture, as it would be ridiculous, to require or expect creatures without reason or sense, to be worthy to open the book, or unlock or disclose the mysteries it contained. It may be added that, if the second verse be re ceived in the literal sense, as it can, the phrase, " such as are in the sea," may be understood, as Collet remarks, to refer to those, who may be travelling on sea, or who may be within the grasp of shipwreck. Taken in the literal sense, the latter verse too, as well as the former one, may be under stood to refer only to rational creatures, as bless ing God, and proclaiming His praise.
St. Gregory* understands the words, "under the earth" to have reference to the reprobate. This rendering of them is against the common opinion of other Doctors and Fathers. It does not seem, also, to agree with the text. It would sound strange, to require, or to expect to find, among the repro bate one " worthy to open the book." But even in the light of this exposition, the phrase would de monstrate another proposition — that regarding the subterranean situation of hell — to which we shall by-and-by turn our attention.
*Lib. 4. Dialog., c. 42.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 8 1
IV. In the Symbol or Creed, composed by the Apostles, it is said 'that Christ "descended into hell." * i. By this descent into hell, we cannot, it is evident, understand the ascent, or as it is generally termed the. Ascension of Christ into heaven. The word descent is never used to express ascent, or approach to any place that is above. It is never said of a man, when describing his going up on a mountain, or any elevated place, that he descended on it. Neither by Christ descending into hell, is meant his descent into the sepulchre. In the im mediately preceding article of the Creed, it is recorded that Christ was " dead and 'buried''' There fore, his descent into hell was something different from his descent into the grave. The latter article cannot be an exposition or repetition of the former one. The first article is clearer than the second; to explain it by the latter, would be to explain what is known by what is unknown. Add to this, that the Creed is a compendium — a very short and concise one — of faith. Hence, to repeat any portion of it, or anything in it, even in different words, would.be a great defect.
2. It would be a bad way of expressing it, to say that Christ "descended into hell," or to the inferior, or lower parts of the earth, if by such language was intended his sepulture. You do not hear such lan guage, nor the like of it, adopted to express the burial, or descent into the grave, of any one. The argument becomes more forcible, when it is ob served, that the sepulchre or grave, in which the sacred body of Christ was placed, was not in the inferior, or lower parts of the earth, but in a cave in the upper surface or superficies of the ground. Therefore the article has no relation to his burial.
3. The Fathers, with unanimous consent, receive
* " Dcsccndit ad infcros "
82 PURGATORY.
the article as expressing the descent of Christ into Limbo. They all coincide with this sentence of St. Ignatius the Martyr:* "He descended into hell alone, he returned with a multitude." St. Jerome f thus expresses his sentiment: "He de scended into the lower parts of the earth, that as a victor he would lead a\yay with him to heaven the souls of the saints which were kept inclosed there."
4. The councils of the Church also believe that the article comprehends the descent of Christ into the Limbo of the Fathers, and nothing else. The fourth Council of Lateran,| convoked and presided over, by Innocent III., thus expresses its mind : " He descended into hell; he arose from the dead, He ascended into heaven ; but he descended in soul, He arose in flesh, He ascended alike in both." Observe how, when the council states, that He descended into hell, it explains the clause by saying, that He descended in soul. Then it is as clear as the noon-day sun over its head, and clearer, that the Council of Lateran held the article to describe the descent of Christ into Limbo, and not the burial of His body in the grave. The fourth Council of Toledo, celebrated in 531, viewed it in the same light. In the very first chapter of its acts, it says : " He de scended into hell, that He would In 'ng forth the souls which were held there." Souls are not held in the grave. This council then took the u descent of Christ into hell," as a phrase identical with his de scent into the Limbo of the Fathers.
V. Theologians also advance another argument, in support of the subterranean situation of Limbo, which is taken from that well-known place where St. Peter § says : " Coming He (Christ) preached to those spirits that were in prison." This verse, be cause somewhat obscure, requires some elucidation.
* Epist, ad Trail. t In cap. 4 Ephes. -t Ch. i.
8 i St. Peter, iii. 19.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 83
The following is the whole passage on which the argument is founded : " Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust : that He might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit. In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison : which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building, wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." Now the ques tion is this : What was this preaching, and who were those spirits in prison to whom He preached ? With regard to this question, there have been many mistaken notions entertained,
i. St. Augustine,* and after him the Venerable Bede, Hugo, and St. Thomas, f understand by the prison, the body, and by the spirits, the souls that were inclosed in their bodies in the time of Noe ; in other words, the souls of those who were then alive. The body is as it were the prison of the soul. To the souls that were inclosed, or imprisoned, in their body at the time of the deluge, Christ may be said to have preached through Noe, who, whilst he built the ark, exhorted the people to repentance.
But they who do not accept this explanation say : i. that St. Augustine admits it is not easy to under stand the passage, and that his own rendering of it did not please himself. He acknowledges that this text is full of difficulties ; and he expressed a wish that some reason may be found for applying it to hell. This, however, he declares is clearly placed beyond all doubt, that the soul of Jesus Christ descended into the regions below, or hell. He concludes his observations on the text with this interrogation : " WTho therefore unless an infidel shall deny that Christ.had been in hell ?" 2. If the prison be ex-
* Epist. 90. 1 3 p. q. 52, Art. 2.
84 PURGATORY.
plained of the body, this would be taking the words in a symbolical or metaphorical, instead of the literal and genuine sense. But to forsake the literal and genuine for the symbolical or metaphorical sense would, in the present case, be opposed to one of the cardinal rules of hermeneutics.* 3. Such an explanation would be contrary to the scope of the apostle. The motive he had in view was this, to praise the efficacy and the fruitful effects of the death of Christ. But the efficacy and virtue of His death would be in no way praised, in no way glori fied by this, that Christ had at one time, through the mouth of Noe, preached to wicked men, who died in their sins. If the apostle sought in the past an example, or type, of the virtue and efficacy of the death of Christ, he would have gone back rather to the preaching of Jonas to the Ninivites, than to that of Noe to the people of his day.
2. Some few, admitting that Christ descended into hell, imagined that He preached there to the damned, and converted those among them, who were the less guilty, or had commited the less evil. It is said that Clement of Alexandria seems to have held this opinion.
How vain and false was such a notion, is seen from this alone, that " out of hell there is no re demption." Opposed to such a fable, is the con stant opinion of the, Fathers, and, in a special manner, of St. Augustine.f Hence, St. Gregory the Great tells us that Christ delivered from hell, or Limbo, those just souls alone that were detained there. These are his words : " Christ descending into hell, delivered by his grace those alone who both believed Him to come, and, whilst alive, kept His precepts,"
* Hermeneutios is the science of interpretation ; particularly as applied to the sacred Scriptures, t Lib. de Haeresib,, cap. 79.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 85
3. Calvin imagined that the spirits, of whom St. Peter makes mention, were the souls of the saints ; but that they were not, as the Vulgate has it, in prison. He says that the word used in the Greek version,* signifies not alone a prison, but also a watch-tower. He takes it in the latter sense; and by the term watch-tower, he means heaven, where, according to his notion, the souls of the just awaited the advent and death of Christ. He imagined that Jesus Christ preached to these, not in person, but in cause; that is, as the cause of their liberation from the watch-tower, and of their translation to beatitude.
It is enough to upset the notions of Calvin, to observe that it is quite certain, and, as we have seen, quite capable of proof, that Christ really descended into hell. The Syrian version thus renders it : " He preached to those souls which were detained in hell." Furthermore, though the Greek word adopted by St. Peter, may, at times in the Scripture, signify a watch-tower, it has this meaning only in the case where there was an enemy to be watched. When there was no danger to be apprehended from an enemy, the word is never used in Scripture to signify a watch-tower. Now, in whatsoever place were the souls of the saints who died before Christ, they had no enemy to fear, and were safe from hostile attack. Then the word must be read, not in the sense of a watch-tower, but of a true prison.
Beza, a worthy coadjutor of Calvin in the work of "reformation," contended that when it is said in the text Jesus Christ was " enlivened in the spirit" we are to understand by the spirit his divinity. Then the sense would be that, by the power of his divi nity, He had preached through Noe, to those who
86 PURGATORY.
on account of their incredulity at the time of the deluge, are now detained in a prison, that is, hell.
This notion of Beza is dispelled: i. because although by the spirit some understand the divinity of Christ, others by it understand his soul. That it should be read in the latter sense would seem to have been the intention of St. Peter, for he estab lishes an antithesis between the soul and body, con trasting one with the other. 2. The soul alone of Christ arrived in the prison. The phrase found in the Greek is : " He went into the prison." It could not be properly said of his divinity, which was always present everywhere, that it went into the prison, or arrived therein. Then the allusion must be to his soul alone. 3. All the ancient versions, as we have seen to be the case in the Syrian, read : " who were in prison," and not " who are in prison." They employ the past, and not the present tense. But if the notion of Beza were true, if St. Peter alluded to those souls who were in prison, or damned, on account of their incredulity in the time of Noe, he would have used the present instead of the past tense, for when the apostle wrote, these incre dulous were still in prison, as they shall for ever be.
Having rejected the foregoing notions, let us now turn our attention to the true and common interpre tation of the passage. It is this : that Christ de scended into hell, and there announced the happy news of their redemption and near deliverance to those souls, "which had been sometime incredulous . ... in the days of Noe," but not always ; and hence when they saw the waters rushing upon them from every side, they repented of their sins.
This is the only interpretation of the passage that Can be accepted. It should be preferred to any other, because it gives the literal sense which con tains nothing absurd, either in itself or in its circum-
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 87
stances ; and remarkably coincides with the scope of the writer, St. Peter. First, the literal sense contains nothing absurd in itself. There is nothing- more absurd in saying that Christ communicated the de lightful news of their redemption and speedydeliver- ance to the souls in Limbo, than there is in saying that He descended into that prison. One is as reasonable as the other. In fact, if we admit his descent into Limbo at all, it is only natural to infer that He conveyed such glad intelligence to the souls that were there detained. Secondly, the literal sense has nothing absurd in its circumstances. The chief circumstance of it is this, that Christ preached to those spirits who had been some time in credulous in the days of Noe. Now, what is there absurd in this? Is it that unhappy people, seeing nature herself completely changed ; themselves threatened with destruction from every side ; the de luge pouring in upon them from heaven, earth, and sea ; no earthly refuge left to them, should turn to God and detest their sins ? So far is this from being absurd that we can conceive nothing more reasonable. We can scarcely imagine how it could be otherwise, than that some of these unhappy people, seeing death certain, would have repented of their sins. This was only what should be expected, especially as it is in adversity, and most of all when destruc tion is inevitable, that man sees the evil of his ways, and flies to God for help. On this account the Psalmist* says : " When he slew them, then they sought him." Then among those spirits to whom Christ preached in hell, were many who formerly in the time of Noe were at first incredulous. These would not take warning from the building of the ark. But when they found themselves in danger, and be fore they perished in the deluge, it is reasonable to
*Ps. Ixxvii. 34.
88 PURGATORY.
suppose that many of them were touched with re pentance for their sins, so that they died without the guilt of eternal damnation. This supposition is the more reasonable when we remember that, though they were sinners, they adored the true and living God; for there is no trace of idolatry before the deluge. Thirdly, the literal and obvious sense accords wonderfully well with the scope of St. Peter. His purpose was, to praise and recommend the efficacy of the passion and death of Christ, Who, he says, " Died once for our sins, the just for the un just." He triumphantly proves the virtue and efficacy of His passion. He proves it, first, from the glory of His resurrection, when he says that Christ was "put to death indeed in the flesh, but brought to life in the spirit" He proves it, secondly, from its effects. The efficacy of the death of Christ extended so far as to reach even those who were erstwhile incre dulous, while Noe preached repentance to them for such a number of years, but who in the end, when they found themselves about to perish at the hand of an outraged God, repented.
St. Augustine thinks that there could be no motive for saying Christ preached to those who had been sometime incredulous in the days of JVoe, since He preached alike to all those who were detained in Limbo.
What they who follow the common interpretation say on their side is this : that Christ preached to all the just souls that were in hell ; but that there is express mention made of those who had been at one time incredulous in the days of Noe. The reasons why the latter are expressly mentioned are as follow:— First, because the greatest praise ac crues to the divine mercy, in having brought to eternal salvation, by the brief immersion of the deluge, men who were so steeped in iniquity that the Scripture says of them : " All flesh had corrupted
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 89
its way." The mercy of God must be very great indeed, it must be wonderful and worthy of all praise, since it has extended to, and led to repent ance, those wicked and corrupt men who lived at the time of Noe. Secondly, the souls in Limbo, who had lived in the time of Noe, arc singled out for special mention, because there was strong reason to doubt, that any of that wicked and profligate race, who had so much despised the grace of God and outraged Him, had embraced the call to repentance and were saved. They had persisted so much and so long in their evil course, that the Greek version has it that "The patience of God waited for " them. In truth, there must have been great reason to doubt the salvation of such men, or any of them. Thirdly, St. Peter mentions those of the time of Noe in preference to others, because in the next verse he passes on to speak of baptism : " Where- unto baptism being of the like form now saveth you also." It was easy to pass from one subject to the other, to descend from the deluge to baptism, and to connect the latter with the former. He terms baptism, to be " of the like form " with the " water," by which Noe and his family were saved ; because this " water " was a figure of baptism. The ark, too, was a type of baptism. As no one escaped the waters of the deluge but eight persons who were in the ark, so no one can escape eternal death or enter into heaven, unless he receive baptism ; or have the desire of receiving it, with the proper dispositions. Then, as Noe and his sons were saved by the ark which rode upon the waters of the deluge, so are we saved by baptism. Another point of similitude between the deluge and baptism would also seem to be employed. As the bodies were im mersed in the waters of the deluge, that the souls may seek salvation through repentance ; so are our bodies washed with water in baptism, that our souls
go PURGATORY.
may be saved. Then, since the safety of Noe in the ark, and the salvation of others at that time through repentance, were types of baptism, of which he was going to speak, St. Peter would connect his subject — the preaching of Christ in hell with baptism — by referring to those souls who had repented at the deluge.
In the second place, his argument can be used against St. Augustine's own opin-ion. His opinion was that the verse refers to those souls that existed in their body at the time of the deluge, to whom Christ preached through Noe, who exhorted them to repentance, whilst he was building the ark. But it may be objected, that there is no reason why it should be said, that Christ preached to those souls which were in the body — to those people who were alive — in the days of Noe, any more than to those who were alive in the days of Abraham, Moses, King David, or any other person.
VI. Other parts of the Scripture are in conso nance with the article in the Apostles' Creed and the other passages heretofore quoted. For example, such is that verse of St. Paul to the Ephesians,* where the Apostle says : " Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth." Such also is the passage in Ecclesiasticusf which reads thus : " I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth, and I will behold all that sleep, and will enlighten all that hope in the Lord." Many Fathers explain this passage of the descent of Christ into hell. Though it is not found in the Greek text, it acquires great value, because it may be taken as the tradition of the early Christians, who handed down this version, which they may have received from those who went before them ; and also because it is found in the
* iv. 9. t xxiv. 45.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 9 1
Vulgate edition. These passages are explained of the descent of Christ into hell ; the first has evident reference to it.
They who refuse to admit that Limbo existed under the earth, shall not be able to evade the force of those arguments by saying that the soul of Christ descended Into hell, or the lower parts of the earth, by Its operation or Its effect, but not in Its sub stance. Nor do they improve their position, when they continue the objection, and pretend that the soul separated from the body, cannot exist in a place, unless by operation.
Bellarmine and Collet very deservedly condemn as erroneous, the notion of those who dream that the soul of Christ descended into hell or Limbo only by operation. I have said that this notion _is de servedly condemned ; first, because if it be said that the soul of Christ descended into hell in effect, or by reason of Its having operated there, it should be likewise said that He was at the same time on earth, in the earthly paradise, in Limbo, and in heaven ; for in each of these places He produced some effect. He gave grace to men on earth, con solation to the prophets Henoch and Elias in the earthly paradise, glad tidings of their redemption to the souls of the ancient fathers in Limbo, and joy to the angels in heaven. Secondly, the soul of Christ descended in the same manner, that is, as substantially into hell, as did his body into the grave. For the Fathers and Councils speak in the same way, and employ the same language of His abode in hell, as they do of His abode in the grave. But His body did not descend into the grave by mere effect or metaphorically : it descended into it and dwelt there for three days, truly, properly, and substantially. So also did His soul, truly, properly, and substantially, descend into hell or Limbo, and dwell there for the like number of days.
92 PURGATORY.
But, even though it were granted that the soul of the Redeemer did not descend there in reality, and in substance — which would be false — but only by operation, this concession would not affect the ex istence of Limbo. If His soul descended there by operation, therefore Limbo existed. We cannot conceive a place, in fact it would be impossible for us to conceive it, in which the soul of Christ could operate, unless such a place existed. Therefore, those opponents of the existence of Limbo, who granted the descent there of the soul of Christ by operation, have by this fact admitted, though unin tentionally, the existence of it.
As to the rider which they attach to their objec tion, that the soul after separation from the body can exist in a place only by operation ; we can retort that this would prove too much. It would p.rove that the souls of the blessed are not at present in heaven, and that the souls of the damned are not in hell. Many of those who deny the descent of Christ to Limbo would shrink from this conclusion ; or, at least, they would not like to go so far as to say that there are no souls at present in enjoyment, or suffering.
It would be gratuitous to assert, as has been done in the past, that a soul cannot be in a corporeal place, unless by some operation which it would per form there. There is no reason why a soul should not be in a place in its essence or substance. This is a finite thing; and as such is necessarily present in one place, and in no other, unless it may be consti tuted there by God. Moreover, the soul, while in the body, is in a place. And although it cannot while in this life be present in a place, otherwise than by an operation or movement dependent on the body, it can, however, after separation from the body, by the ordination of God and supernaturally, be present in a place, even on this earth, appear to,
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 93
and address us ; as Samuel was present at Endor, and appeared to, and addressed Saul.
Some, following St. Augustine, find another diffi culty in the sixteenth chapter of St. Luke, where it is said, that there was a great chaos between the rich man, who was buried in hell, and Lazarus, who was reclining in the bosom of Abraham. The just of old after death were said to recline in the bosom of Abraham. But the bosom of Abraham, or the place where the just rested in the other life before the Ascension of Christ, was far removed from hell. A great chaos existed between the two places.
To clear away this difficulty, it should be held in mind, that the hell of the damned is far lower than Limbo. There is a great chaos between them, so that it is not allowed to pass from one to the other place. But this great chaos — this great gulf that exists between them, does not prevent both from being under the earth. The interior of the earth is quite large enough to admit a great chaos between two places in it.
III. The Limbus of infants who die without bap tism is subterranean, or under the earth.
This is shown, in the first place, from St. Augus tine.* This holy Doctor teaches that there are only two places in which souls shall for ever be. One is heaven ; the other is hell. He recognises no other perpetual receptacle or abode for souls in the other life, but these two. As infants who die in original sin cannot go to heaven, they must, in the opinion of St. Augustine, go to hell. Hence their Limbus, if not the Limbus of the damned, is so near this, that St. Augustine considers it one place with, or a portion of it. But the Limbus of the damned, as we shall soon see, is under the earth. Therefore the Limbus of
* Lib. 4, de Baptisrao, cap. 2.
9 + PURGATORY.
infants which is near to, or a portion of that of the damned, is likewise under the earth.
In the second place, the Limbus of infants is shown to be under the earth from the Council of Florence. In the last session of this Council, it is denned " that the souls of those who depart in deadly sin, actual or original, presently descend info hell to be punished however with unequal pains." Then the Council defines that those who die in original sin descend into hell. This hell, we shall see, is under the earth. So, as a conclusion from the definition of the Council of Florence, we should hold that the Limbus of infants who die in original sin is also under the earth.
However, the more common opinion in the schools would tell us that the Limbus, in which unbaptised infants are imprisoned, is higher up than Purgatory. It is so high above the latter place, that the fire does not reach it. Thus, if we are to believe those who hold this opinion, the infants who die without bap tism have not to endure the fire of hell nor suffer the pain of sense at all. Then their only pain would be that of loss.
IV. The place or hell of the damned is under the earth.
i. The first proof to show that hell is under the earth is found in those phrases or terms, which the Scripture uses when speaking of it. The inspired Word everywhere calls the seat of the reprobate a " stove of fire," a "pool of fire and sulphur," an "abyss," a "well," a " pit," the "depth of the pit," or a " gulf." We cannot understand the grave by such terms as these, which have been never used to designate the place where the body is deposited after death. They indicate a hidden place in the depth of the earth, far removed from the reach and power of man in his present state, or while he is in
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 95
this life. We read in the Gospel of St. Luke,* that when Jesus Christ expelled the demons from the possessed man, they entreated Him not to cast them into the abyss: "And they besought Him that He would not command them to go into the abyss." This " abyss " cannot mean the grave. The demons did not entreat, not to be cast into the grave. To be transferred there would be no punishment to them. They had no more to suffer in the grave than in the body of the demoniac. Graves, moreover, are not made for demons, but for human bodies. Thus, there is no reason why the expelled demons should ask not to be commanded to go into the grave. Then the place they feared was some place into which they naturally expected to be cast — some place that had been prepared for them.
2. The very name of hell, which is found in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts of the Scripture, proves it to be under the earth. It signifies not the grave, but a place far below us. It denotes the lowest place, in opposition to heaven, which is the highest. This opposition the Psalmist f sang thus: " If I ascend into heaven, thou art there : if I descend into hell, thou art present." In like manner we read in Job:| "He is higher than heaven, and what wilt thou do ? He is deeper than hell, and how wilt thou know?" In Isaias § also it is written: "I will ascend above the height of the clouds. Thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depths of the pit" And our Divine Lord says, in the Gospel of St. Matthew: || " Thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven P^thou shalt go down even unto hell." In each and all these passages, there is an anti thesis, or contrast, set up between heaven and hell. While heaven is in the highest place over us, hell is
t cxxxviii. 8. * xi. 8.
xiv. 14-15 II xi. 23.
f)6 PURGATORY.
in the lowest place under us, in the universe. The contrast which is put forth between heaven, which is at such a distance above us, and hell, shows that the latter word cannot mean the grave, which is only a few feet below us, and is oftentimes even over the earth, as in the case of vaults, or raised sepulchres. This was especially the case in the time of Jesus Christ, when it was the custom to bury the bodies, not in the ground itself, but in caves which were raised over, or upon it. What would be the reason, then, of the contrast between heaven, which is the highest place above us, and the grave, which is on a level with, or at most, a few feet under us. There fore hell, in the above passages, must refer not to the grave, but to a place which is far lower in the earth, and where the damned dwell.
3. In the Gospel of St. Luke,* it is said of the rich man, that "he was buried in hell;" and, it is added, that " he was in torments." Now, " hell," in this place, cannot by any process of reasoning, nor even by cavilling, be construed so as to mean, or be equivalent to, the grave. That rich and wicked man was not tormented in the grave, where no one suffers torment, unless we be so simple as to say that the soul and body are buried together. This rich man who " was buried in hell," according to the words of our Lord in the Gospel, cried out : " I am tormented in this flame." Surely this "flame," in which he was so tormented, was not in the grave, but in a place far lower down in the earth, in the hell of the damned.
4. The writings of the Fathers bear testimony to the subterranean situation of hell. Arriobius, f speaking of the reprobate, says; "One does not improperly suspect that those souls lie amidst rapid rivers, which are hideous with balls of flames
* xvi. 22. t Lib. 2, contra gentcs, dc Platone.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. 97
and filthy whirlpools." His words are undeniable evidence that Arnobius did not confound the locality of hell with the grave. Tertullian* openly calls hell " the subterranean treasure of hidden fire." This cannot apply to the grave, where there is no fire, open or secret. This treasure of fire, then, must be buried deep in the interior of the earth, a place to which we, while in this life, have no access. St. Jerome f describes the situation of hell as distinctly as words could describe it at the present day. He writes with terseness and succinctness: " We say that hell is under the earth." Such is the conviction of St. Jerome, the prince of biblical scholars and interpreters, regarding the situation of hell. St. Augustine, J St. Gregory, § Ven. Bede, and other Fathers, agree with those just quoted.
5. Reason itself would insinuate that hell is under the earth. If heaven is in the highest, hell should be in the lowest place. As the seat of those who subdued their passions and overcame the love of the world, is the highest, so the seat of those who gave a loose rein to their passions and cherished the love of the world should be the lowest. This is in conformity with those words which we read in the Book of Proverbs :|| "The path of life is above for the wise, that he may decline from the lowest hell." Thus, while the wise or the just have their eternal abode above, they have escaped the lowest hell, or that hell which is in the lowest place.
V. Purgatory is also under the earth.
i. The first proof we shall bring forward to show that Purgatory is under the earth, is found in the all but unanimous vote of theologians, who, maintain ing that it is situated there, freely subscribe to the doctrine of St. Thomas, 1" which he thus lays down :
* Apolog. 47. f In cap 14 Isaiae. \ Lib. Retractat., cap. 24. } Lib. 4 Dialog1., cap. 42. II xv. 24.
V In 4, dist. 21, Q. i, art. Questione 2, Ad. 2 Q.
9 8 PURGATORY.
" It must be said that there is found nothing ex pressly determined in the Scripture on the place of Purgatory. However, probably, and according to what agrees more with the expression of the Saints, and the revelation made to many, the place of Purgatory is twofold ; one, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is a lower place adjoining hell ; so that it is the same fire that torments the damned in hell and that purges the just in Purgatory ; although the damned, according as they are lower in merit, are also to be ranged lower in place. There is another place of Purgatory according to dispensation ; and thus sometimes it is read that some are punished in different places, either for the instruction of the living or for the relief of the dead ; that their pain becoming known to the living, may be mitigated by the suffrages of the Church." The great body of theologians admit this opinion of St. Thomas and follow it.
2. The second proof is derived from the sense or sentiment, and the acceptation of the Church, as these are made manifest in her prayers for the dead. These prayers are calculated to lead us to believe that she accepts the teaching of theologians, and that her own feelings are in harmony with it. Her anxious and earnest prayer is, that God may deliver " the souls of all the dead from the pains of hell, and from the deep pit." Thus she seems to suppose that the souls in Purgatory suffer torments in the lower parts of the earth or somewhere near hell.
3. The souls in Purgatory, as we shall see in a later page, suffer the pain of loss and the pain of sense. According to a common opinion, the sole difference between their pains and those of the damned, is that the pains of the damned are eternal, whilst those of the souls in Purgatory are temporal. If this be so, their punishments being alike, it is the most convenient and the most reasonable thing to
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS, 99
suppose that they should be tormented in the same place and with the same fire.
4. Bellarmine and others look upon that verse in the Acts of the Apostles, * in which St. Peter, speaking of Christ, says : " Whom God hath raised, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was im possible that he should be holden by it," as affording a proof that Purgatory is under the earth. Following St. Augustine and Epiphanius, some say that Christ, at his descent into Limbo, " loosed the sorrows " or pains of the souls in Purgatory and de livered them from further punishment. It could not be the sorrows of the reprobate, nor of those who were entirely just, that He would have loosed. It would have been impossible to loose the sorrows of the reprobate, for they shall last for ever. And those who were fully justified would have no sorrows from which they could be loosed. Hence the sorrows from which He loosed were those of the souls in Purgatory. Now the sacred text calls their sorrows "the sorrows of hell," that is, sorrows endured in hell. Therefore, the souls that bore these sorrows were in hell; and though they were not in the hell of the damned, they were bordering on it.
However, this text is rather obscure and not clearly in favour of the subterranean situation of Purgatory. Objections are raised against applying it to this purpose. Hence, Collect admitting the force of these objections, observes : " It is not in one title that this exposition is difficult." i. This expo sition would read the words, " having loosed the sorrows of hell," as referring to Christ, thus making Him the cause of loosing the sorrows of hell ; whereas, from the passage itself, and especially from the Greek text, it is evident that it was God who loosed Jesus Christ, at His resurrection, from the
* ii. 24. t Cap. 3, De circumstantiis Purg-.. 106.
100 PURGATORY,
sorrows of hell. 2. The words that are added, "as it was impossible that He should be holden by it," would seem to show that it was Jesus Christ, and no other person, that was loosed from the sorrows of hell. 3. Authors do not agree as to whether the souls in Purgatory were delivered from it at the descent of Christ into hell. Bellarmine,* after St. Thomas, holds that all the souls in Purgatory were not released from punishment at the descent of Christ, but only those who were then sufficiently purified and had satisfied the Divine Justice, or who, while on this earth, by their faith and their devotion to the death of Christ, merited to be delivered at His descent from the pains of Purgatory. Estius, however, is of opinion that all the souls in Pur gatory were freed from further punishment and liberated by Christ at His descent into hell. Thus, He would himself first make use of the power of granting indulgences, which He was about to give to His Church.
But, if "having loosed the sorrows of hell," be taken as implying that Christ was loosed from the sorrows of hell, a doubt will naturally arise as to how this could happen. How could He be loosed from the sorrows or pains of hell, to which He was not subject ? It will help to clear away this doubt or difficulty to know that the Greek text has " loos ing," or " when he would loose from the sorrows of death ;" and that the Syriac has "from the cords of death" He was delivered by the power of God from the sorrows or cords of death. Others, once they are caught by them, are bound by the cords of death till the day of judgment, when their bodies shall rise out of the grave. Jesus Christ, however, when He arose the third day, was, by the Divine power, loosed or freed from the cords of death.
* Lib. 4, de Christo, cap. 16.
THE PLACE WHERE PURGATORY IS. lOl
This was foretold for Him by the prophets, and especially by the Psalmist, David,* who, speaking in His person a thousand years before He came, said : "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption."
An interesting question is raised as to whether souls can leave the place in the other life in which they are.
1. Theologians answer this question in the first place by saying that souls can, with the permission of God, leave for awhile, not only heaven, but even the subterranean receptacles or limbi. So souls can leave heaven, Purgatory, the limbus of infants, and hell, either to supplicate the suffrages of the living, or to render them assistance, or to inspire them with salutary fear. Ecclesiastical history, as well as St. Augustine, supply us with grave examples, which indicate that souls have left all these places, if we except the limbus of infants.
2. It is quite certain that many souls have been restored to this life, either from the limbus of the fathers or from Purgatory. The Gospel makes men tion of three persons who were raised by our Divine Lord from death to life. The prophets Elias and Elisaeus in the Old, and the apostles Peter and Paul in the New Law, raised the dead to life. There are also instances in ecclesiastical history of persons having been recalled to life at the prayer of some of the saints. There is no doubt that many at least of