There are blaring problems with this Roman Catholic version of the Leipzig debate. Their narrative is false.
First, during the Leipzig debate in 1519, Martin Luther still believed in the reality of purgatory. The debate on purgatory at Leipzig was about the nature of purgatory, not the existence of purgatory. Some of the points Luther wished to defend at Leipzig stated,
6. Perhaps the souls in purgatory do render satisfaction for their sins. it is brazen rashness, however, to assert that God demands more of a dying person than a willingness to die since in no way can this assertion be proven [LW 31:317].
Original text: VI. Forte satisfaciunt animae in purgatorio pro peccatis, Sed quod deus a morituro plus quam voluntariam mortem requirat, vanissima temeritate asseritur, quia nullis modis potest probari (WA 2:161).
9. We are familiar with the assertion of would-be theologians that the souls in purgatory are certain of their salvation and that grace is no longer increased in them; but we marvel at these very learned men that they can offer the uneducated no cogent reason for this their conviction (LW 31:318).
Original text: IX Animas in purgatorio esse certas de salute sua nec gratiam in eis augeri scimus a theologisticis asseri, sed miramur doctissimos viros, quod huius fidei suae rationem nec stulto verisimilem reddere possunt (WA 2:161).
In the 1519 Leipzig debate Luther stated, "I, who believe strongly—indeed, I might even dare to say: I know that there is a purgatory..." (Ego, qui credo fortiter, immo ausim dicere: scio purgatorium esse... WA 2:324). This was a position he also articulated a year earlier in 1518:
On Purgatory. One ought to firmly believe—and I know this to be true—that the poor souls suffer unspeakable torment, and that we are duty-bound to assist them through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and whatever means lie within our power. However, as to the nature of this torment—whether it serves solely as expiation or also as a means of purification—I do not know; indeed, I maintain that no one possesses sufficient knowledge to say. Therefore, one should commend this matter to God rather than prattling and clamoring about it as if one were absolutely certain of the facts. We have been charged with nothing more than to assist them; God alone knows how He deals with them. Furthermore, regarding the notion that one can "rush" souls out of Purgatory by means of indulgences—thereby forcibly intruding into God’s secret judgment—this is something I have never been able to comprehend, nor do I yet know how to accept or substantiate it. Let those believe it who will; I, for my part, will not believe it unless it is substantiated by better proof. Yet in saying this—God willing—I have by no means denied the existence of Purgatory itself.
Original text: Von dem Fegfeur. Sol man fest glauben, und ich weyß das war ist, das die armen seelen unsegliche peyn leyden und man yhn helffen schuldig ist mit Beeten, fasten, almoßen und was man vormag. Was aber die peyn von art sey und ob sie alleyn zur gnugthuung adder auch zur beßerunge diene, weyß ich nit, unnd sag noch, das das niemant gnugsam weyß. Drumb solt man das got befelen und nit claffen und außschreyn, alß were man desselben gewiß. Unß ist nit mehr befolen, dan yhn zu helffen, got wils alleyn wyßen wie er mit yhn handlet. Auch das man mit ablaß unß fegfeur rauschen wil und also mit gewalt in gottes heymlich gericht fallen, hab ich nit wyßen, und noch nit weyß zuerhalten adder zubeweren. glaubs wer do wil, ich wils nit glauben, es werd dan baß beweyßet. dar durch hab ich, ob got wil, das fegfeur nit vorleugnet (WA 2:70).
In 1521 Luther repeated similar sentiment:
The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner. Tauler has much to say about it, and, in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result (LW 32:95).
Original text: Das eyn fegfewr ſey, kan man nit auſz der ſchrifft beweyſen, die do ſey beweret und glawbwirdig. Ich hab das fegfewr noch nie geleucknet, halt es auch noch, wie ich viel mal geſchrieben und bekant, wie wol ichs ynn keynen weg widder auſz der ſchrifft noch vornunfft unwidderſprechlich beweiſzen kan. Ich ſind wol ynn der ſchrifft, das Chriſtus, Abraham, Jacob, Moſes, Job, David, Ezechias und etlich mehr ym leben die helle verſucht haben, wilchs ich acht ſey das ſegfewr, unnd iſt nit ungleublich, das etliche todten des gleichen leiden. Taulerus ſagt auch viel davon, und kurtzlich, mich hab ich beſchloſſen, es ſey ein fegfewr, kann aber keynen andernn alſzo beſchlieſſen (WA 7:451).
Thus, for the present—serving as a storehouse or a foundation for these histories—I have set forth this much to strengthen our own people and to serve as a warning to our descendants, so that they may be informed of what the Papacy has taught regarding Purgatory, and what manner of "virtues" they have practiced in connection with it. Furthermore, I have done this so that they may know how to guard themselves against it—lest they in any way consent to its blasphemous abominations and thereby make themselves complicit in all the blood that has been shed by the Papists. For whoever consents to the works of the Papacy must also take upon himself, and share in, all the abominations, blasphemies, lies, murders, and deceptions contained therein—indeed, even all the innocent blood (as Christ says) that has been shed upon the earth, from the time of Abel down to the present day. For it is a single household, a single body, a single spirit, a single will, and a single archetype of all murderers of the saints. I wish to be held blameless, having faithfully issued this warning.
However, what I have said too briefly here, I intend to discuss further in the article concerning the Mass and other matters—God willing. For since they dare to twist the aforementioned Psalms and scriptural passages to support their Purgatory, why would they not just as readily twist even more passages to serve that same end? After all, one could easily twist the entirety of Holy Scripture—if one were so inclined—to support a lie. Mammon is the most powerful God of all gods, as Paul and Daniel attest; therefore, it is no wonder that he exalts himself even above our God and makes of Holy Scripture whatever he pleases. For consider this: If Mammon were my God—and if I could but offer him a sufficient sum of twelve thousand drachmas—I could convert every sophist and heretic in a single day; indeed, I could abolish not only Purgatory but the entire Papacy before a single moon had run its course. Thus, my teaching lacks nothing save the divine power of the great God Mammon. Were I possessed of that, my teaching would be neither heresy nor error, but rather the pure and unadulterated truth. As it stands, however, it is deemed erroneous and heretical. Why? Simply because it is poor; poverty is my error and my heresy. Let that suffice on this matter. I shall remain faithful to my poor God—to Him be praise and thanksgiving forevermore. Amen.
Original text:Also viel wil ich dis mal zum vorrat odder anfang der Historien, zu stercken die unsern und zur warnung unsern nachkomen haben angezeigt, damit sie ein wissen haben, wie das Bapstum vom fegfeur geleret, und was fur tugent sie daruber begangen haben. Und auff das sie sich zu hüten wissen [Bl. Biij] fur jhm, damit sie nicht jnn jhr lesterliche grewel etwa bewilligen und sich teilhafftig machen alle des bluts, das durch die Papisten vergossen ist, Denn wer jnn des Bapstumbs werck verwilligt, der mus auch auff sich laden und teilhafftig sein aller grewel, lesterung, lügen, mord und verfurung, die drinnen sind, ja auch wol alle des unschuldigen bluts (wie Christus sagt), das vergossen ist auff erden, von Abel an bis hieher. Denn es ist ein hausse, ein leib, ein geist, ein wille, ein Exempel aller heiligen mörder. Ich wil entschuldigt sein und trewlich gewarnet haben.
Was ich aber hie zu wenig gesagt habe, wil ich jnn dem Artikel von der Messen und andern (wils Gott) weiter sagen. Denn weil sie obgenante Psalmen und sprüche thüren auff jhr fegfeur ziehen, wie solten sie nicht auch wol mehr sprüche daselbst hin zihen? kan man doch wol die gantze schrifft (wers thun wil) auff eine lügen zihen. Es ist Mammon der aller mechtigste Gott uber alle Götter, sagt Paulus und Daniel, drumb ists nicht wunder, das er sich auch erhebt uber unsern Gott und macht aus der heiligen schrifft, was er wil. Denn das soltestu sehen, Wenn Mammon mein Got were, das ich der xij tausent Drachmas gnug geben künde, ich wolt alle Sophisten und ketzer auff einen tag bekeren und nicht allein das fegfeur, sondern das gantz Bapstum auffheben, ehe ein mond vergienge. Darumb mangelt meiner lere nichts denn die Gottheit des grossen Gottes Mammon. Wenn ich die hette, so were es keine ketzerey noch jrthum, sondern die liebe reine warheit. Nu aber ist sie jrrig und ketzerisch. Warumb? Darumb, das sie arm ist, Armut ist mein jrthum und ketzerey. Das sey davon gnug. Ich wil bey meinem armen Got bleiben, dem sey lob und danck jnn ewigkeit Amen (WA 10.3:390).
When in 1518 [Luther] further explained his fifteenth thesis, he remarked: ‘I am very certain that there is a purgatory,’… In the Leipzig debate of the following year purgatory was discussed at length…Luther there said he knew that there is a purgatory. The dispute was about the nature of the institution rather than its existence. The ‘orthodox’ Romanists contended for the meritorious character of the purging. But increasingly Luther could find no room for this figment in Scripture theology. By November 7, 1519, he had progressed far enough to write to Spalatin: ‘It is certain that no one is a heretic who does not believe that there is a purgatory,’ although he had still professed to believe in its existence in February of that year. In fact, also in the following year in 1520, he still holds to it. But thereafter his language becomes different until…he calls it a fabrication of the devil” (Plass, What Luther Says vol. 1, p. 387-388 fn.25).
On Canonical and Non-canonical Books
Since most people, because they do not pay much attention to the Holy Scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible are to be reverenced and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish between canonical and non-canonical books, which the Hebrews separate from the canon, and the Greeks count among the apocrypha; whence they often appear ridiculous before learned men, and are disturbed and scandalized when they hear someone not treating something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the others: therefore we have distinguished here, and have distinctly enumerated first the canonical books, and afterwards the non-canonical books, between which there is only as much difference as between certainty and doubt. For the canonical are those written by the Holy Spirit, but the apocryphal or apocryphal books are not known at what time or by what authors they were published; because nevertheless they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them that contradicts the canonical, therefore the Church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and for the instruction of morals. However, their authority for proving those things which come into doubt or into contention, for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas, is not considered adequate, as blessed Jerome says in his prologues on Judith and on the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein holds true firmly and unquestionably: and consequently that which is concluded from it is manifest; for just as in philosophy truth is known by reduction to first principles known by themselves: so also in the Scriptures handed down by the holy doctors truth is known, as regards those things which are to be held by faith, by reduction to the canonical Scriptures, which are considered divine revelation, to which in no way can there be any falsehood.
Original text: de canonicis et non canonicis libris. Quoniam plerique eo quod non multam operam dant sacrae Scripturae, existimant omnes libros qui in Bibliis continentur, pari veneratione esse reverendos atque adorandos, nescientes distinguere inter libros canonicos, et non canonicos, quos Hebraei a canone separant, et Graeci inter apocrypha computant; unde saepe coram doctis ridiculi videntur, et perturbantur, scandalizanturque cum audiant aliquem non pari cum caeteris omnibus veneratione prosequi aliquid quod in Bibliis legatur: idcirco hic distinximus, et distincte numeravimus primo libros canonicos, et postea non canonicos, inter quos tantum distat quantum inter certum et dubium. Nam canonici sunt confecti Spiritu sancto dictante non anonici autem sive apocryphi, nescitur quo tempore quibusve auctoribus sint editi; quia tamen valde boni et utiles sunt, nihilque in eis quod canonicis obviet, invenitur, ideo Ecclesia eos legit, et permittit, ut ad devotionem, et ad morum informationem a fidelibus legantur. Eorum tamen auctoritas ad probandum ea quae veniunt in dubium, aut in contentionem, ad confirmandam ecclesiasticorum dogmatum auctoritatem, non reputatur idonea, ut ait beatus Hieronymus in prologis super Judith et super libris Salomonis. At libri canonici tantae sunt auctoritatis, ut quidquid ibi continetur, verum teneat firmiter et indiscussé: et per consequens illud quod ex hoc concluditur manifeste; nam sicut in philosophia veritas cognoscitur per reductionem ad prima principia per se nota: ita et in Scripturis a sanctis doctoribus traditis veritas cognoscitur, quantum ad ea quae sunt fide tenenda, per reductionem ad Scripturas canonicas, quae sunt habita divina revelatione, cui nullo modo potest falsum subesse (Migne 113:19-21).
These are the books that are in the canon, as Blessed Jerome writes more broadly in the prologo galeato to the Books of Kings: And first, the five books of Moses, which are called the law, of which the first is Genesis, the second Exodus, the third Leviticus, the fourth Numbers, the fifth Deuteronomy. Secondly, eight prophetic books follow, of which the first is Joshua, the second the book of Judges with Ruth, the third Samuel, that is, the first and second Kings, the fourth Malachi, that is, the third and fourth Kings; the fifth Isaiah, the sixth Jeremiah with Lamentations, the seventh Ezekiel, the eighth book of the twelve prophets: of which the first is Uzziah, the second Joel, the third Amos, the fourth Obadiah, the fifth Jonah, the sixth Micah, the seventh Nahum, the eighth Habakkuk, the ninth Zephaniah, the tenth Haggai, the eleventh Zechariah, the twelfth Malachi. Thirdly, the nine Hagiographa follow, the first of which is Job, the second the Psalter, the third the Proverbs of Solomon, the fourth the same Ecclesiastes, the fifth the same Song of Songs, the sixth Daniel, the seventh Chronicles, which among the Hebrews is one book, not two; the eighth Esdras with Nehemiah (for it is all one book), the ninth Esther. But whatever is outside these (I speak of the Old Testament), as Jerome says, must be placed among the apocrypha.
Original text: Isti sunt libri qui sunt in canone, ut latius scribit beatus Hieronymus in prologo galeato qui est super libros Regum Et primo quinque libri Moysi, qui appellantur lex, quorum primus est Genesis, secundus Exodus, tertius Leviticus, quartus Numeri, quintus Deuteronomium. Secundo sequuntur octo libri prophetales, quorum primus est Josue, secundus liber Judicum cum Ruth, tertius Samuel, id est, primus et secundus Regum, quartus Malachim, id est, tertius et quartus Regum; quintus Isaias, sextus Jeremias cum Lamentationibus, septimus Ezechiel, octavus liber duodecim prophetarum: quorum primus est Usee, secundus Joel, tertius Amos, quartus Abdias, quintus Jonas, sextus Michæas, septimus Nahum, octavus Habacuc, nonus Sophonias, decimus Aggæus, undecimus Zacharias, duodecimus Malachias. Tertio sequuntur Hagiographa novem, quorum primus est Job, secundus Psalterium, tertius Salomonis Proverbia, quartus ejusdem Ecclesiastes, quintus ejusdem Canticorum, sextus Daniel, septimus Paralipomenon, qui apud Hebræos est unus liber, non duo; octavus Esdras cum Nehemia (est enim totus unus liber), nonus Esther. Quidquid autem extra hos est (de Veteri Testamento loquor) ut dicit Hieronymus, inter apocrypha est ponendum. (Migne 113:21).
Third, John Eck was not the person who first brought up 2 Maccabees in the Leipzig debate, Martin Luther was. This destroys the Roman Catholic narrative: Eck did not confront Martin Luther with a 2 Maccabees "gotcha!" question. Luther first brought up 2 Maccabees, explaining that this book does not suffice as Biblical evidence for purgatory. Here is Eck's initial comment followed by Luther' in which 2 Maccabees enters the discussion. Notice, Johann Eck does not mention 2 Maccabees, Luther does:
Johann Eck: Since the reverend father [Martin Luther] says that he has cited several authorities in [his book, Resolutions Concerning the Ninety-Five Theses] and explained them — we have seen. We have also seen that his gloss does nothing to the text, which we will now show. We do not accept this either, that there is nothing in sacred Scripture about purgatory, which was indeed said to be favorable to the Greeks and Pichards but contrary to the Christian faith, as he rightly mentions in the Resolutions. But let us put his unique solution to the point, which he says has been adduced to do nothing to the purpose. [2. Cor. 5, 10f.] How aptly he answered! The apostle says that everyone will receive according to what he did in the body, the Lord Father [Luther] says that man receives also according to what he did in purgatory. Augustine says that all merit is here acquired, and the Lord Father [Luther] on the contrary says that merit is acquired even in purgatory. Jerome says that after we have departed from the body, we merit nothing with God, the Lord Father [Luther] on the contrary says that after we have departed from the body, we still merit in purgatory. So of Ambrose. Let your most illustrious lordships, your excellencies and your preeminence's now judge whether the things brought forward by me do not serve the purpose; which are directly contrary to the words of the father [Luther]. I therefore ask that he truly explain or show how they do not serve the purpose, and that he should not be surprised that I too am going to bring him many authorities, so that it may be manifest that this is not the work of theologians but of true theologians.
Martin Luther: I, who strongly believe, indeed I dare to say: I know that purgatory exists, am easily persuaded that mention is made of it in the Scriptures, just as Gregory [the Great] introduces that of Matthew in [his] Dialogues: “It shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come,” meaning that certain sins are forgiven in purgatory. I also admit that of 2 Maccabees: “It is a holy and salutary thought to pray for the dead.” But [this I maintain], that in all Scripture there is no mention of purgatory that could stand up to contention and convince. For even the book of Maccabees, although not in the canon, is powerful for the faithful, it is of no avail against the obstinate, and Gregory’s saying [Matt. 12, 32] is easily evaded, that neither here nor in the world to come sin is forgiven, that is, never. Therefore I do not want to be suspected of favoring the Bohemians and the Greeks. This for the first.
To the reply of the master doctor [Eck] I say nothing other than what I have already said before. For he repeats the same thing, therefore I answer the same thing. For I said that there is nothing in the sacred writings about purgatory, therefore neither they nor their explanations can be applied to the matter of purgatory. For either good is returned to the good or evil to the evil after death; the intermediate are those who are in purgatory, of whom the said authorities do not speak, to whom neither good nor evil is returned. And thus purgatory always passes through the middle of the authorities.
Original text: Dominus doctor Eccius: Cum reverendus pater plures se dicat allegasse auctoritates in Resolutorio et eas exposuisse —, vidimus. Vidimus quoque, glossam suam ad textum nihil facere, quod iam ostendemus. Hoc quoque non accipimus, in sacra scriptura nihil haberi de purgatorio, quod dictum quidem Graecis et Pichardis esset favorabile verum christianae fidei adversum, ut recte meminit in Resolutorio.Sed ponamus solutionem suam unicam ad aciem, qua dicit adducta nihil facere ad propositum. [2. Kor. 5, 10f.] Quam concinne respondit! Apostolus dicit unumquemque recepturum secundum quod in corpore gessit, dominus pater dicit hominem recipere etiam secundum quod in purgatorio gessit. Augustinus dicit omne meritum hic comparari, et dominus pater contra dicit etiam in purgatorio meritum comparari. Hieronymus dicit, postquam e corpore excesserimus, nihil nos promereri apud deum, dominus pater contra dicit, postquam e corpore excesserimus, adhuc in purgatorio nos promereri. Ita de Ambrosio. Iudicent iam illustrissimae dominationes, excellentiae et praestantiae vestraen [ n) fehlt P.], an per me adducta nihil faciant ad propositum; quae directo dictis patris contrariantur. Peto ergo quod vere solvat vel ostendat, quomodo ad propositum non faciant, nec miretur quoniam et ego plures sum ei adducturus auctoritates, ut manifestarium sit hoc non esse theologistarum sed verorum theologorum (WA 2:323-324; WA 59:527).
Dominus doctor Martinus: Ego, qui credo fortiter, immo ausim dicere: scio purgatorium esse, facile persuadeor in scripturis de eo fieri mentionem, quemadmodum [Matth. 12, 32] illud Matthaei inducit Gregorius in Dialogo: “Non remittetur neque in hoc seculo neque in futuro”, volens peccata quaedam remitti in purgatorio. [2. Makk. 12, 46] Admitto et illud Machabaeorum 2.: “Sancta et salubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare”. Sed hoc volo, quod in universa scriptura non [P 50r] habeatur memoria pur gatorii quae posset stare in contentione et convincere. Nam et liber Machabaeorum, cum non sit in canone, pro fidelibus potens est, contra pertinaces nihil valet, et dictum Gregorii facillime [Matth. 12, 32] eluditur, quod neque hic neque in futuro peccatum remittatur, id est nunquam. Ideo nolo mihi suspitionem fieri quod faverem Bohemis et Graecis. Hoc pro primo. Ad replicam domini doctoris dico nihil aliud quam quod iam prius dixi. Idem enim repetit, ideo et idem respondeo. Dixi enim in sacris literis nihil haberi de purgatorio, ideo non posse eas neque expositiones earum ad negocium purgatorii aptari. Redditur enim aut bonum bonis aut malum malis post mortem; medii sunt qui in purgatorio sunt, de quibus dictae auctoritates non loquuntur, quibus neque redditum est bonum sive malum. Et sic purgatorium per medium auctoritatum semper transit (WA 2:324; WA 59:527-528).
Fourth, Luther's view of 2 Maccabees was consistent throughout the Leipzig debate. After the initial exchange above, Johann Eck and Martin Luther sparred for a few days over purgatory. Below are some of the main excerpts from Luther explaining his position on 2 Maccabees. One thing is clear from the entire context: 2 Maccabees and the Apocrypha were not main subjects but were only mentioned briefly in passing. These excerpts below occur throughout the text, documenting Luther's consistent view on 2 Maccabees: the book had a secondary authority, not a primary authority and could not be used as a biblical prooftext. These comments below from Luther had to be sifted out: there was no detailed debate on either 2 Maccabees or the Apocrypha at the Leipzig debate.
Luther: First, as to what the eminent Lord Doctor [Eck] says—that something from Scripture should not be denied just because the stubborn cannot be convinced—he speaks most excellently and truly. But I am speaking of those stubborn opponents who can pierce us with our own authority and our own spear. For it is evident that the book of Maccabees belongs to the Old Testament. Therefore, since Saint Jerome described the Hebrew canon and defined that only those books in the canon are valid in a dispute—and since he is accepted in this opinion—we will easily be pierced by our own weapon unless we can persuade the faithful. Second, he proves that the book of Maccabees has been received into the canon. He is arguing toward an equivocation, and we will easily reach an agreement. I know that the Church receives this book, and I have said as much; but the Church cannot grant more authority or firmness to a book than it possesses in itself. In the same way, it approves or receives the minor works of other Fathers, but it does not thereby confirm everything said in them or make those words better. So, let this equivocation pass: 'canon' and 'canon' [distinguishing between the biblical canon and the Church's list of accepted books].
Original text: Primo, quod egregius dominus doctor dicit non ideo aliquid negandum esse de scriptura quia pertinaces convinci non possint, optime et verissime dicit. Sed loquor ego de iis pertinacibus qui nos propria auctoritate et proprio iaculo confodere possunt. Evidens enim est, librum Machabaeorum pertinere ad vetus testamentum. Quando ergo sanctus Hieronymus canonem hebraeum descripserit et eos solos libros valere in contentione qui de canone sunt, definiat sitque in hac sententia sua receptus, facile nostro telo perforabimur nisi fidelibus persuadeamus. Secundo probat librum Machabaeorum esse receptum in canonem. Contendit ad aequivocationem et facile concordabimur. Scio quod ecclesia recipit hunc librum et hoc dixi, sed non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libro quam per seipsum habeat. Sicut et caeterorum patrum opuscula approbat et reiicit o[ o) recipit MU.], sed non ideo omnia confirmat aut meliora reddit quae in his dicuntur. Transeat ergo ista aequivocatio: canon et canon (WA 59:529-530).
Luther: The excellent master doctor [Eck] has pursued three things in order against me most copiously: first, that the canon of Scripture includes the books of Maccabees, then, that purgatory is also proven in other places of Scripture, thirdly, he has attempted to show that souls are certain of their salvation. I respond. There is no dispute between me and his dominion about the first two.
Original text: Tria per ordinem egregius dominus doctor copiosissime contra me prosequutus est: primum, canonem scripturae comprehendere libros Machabaeorum, deinde, purgatorium probari etiam aliis locis scripturae, tertio conatus ostendere animas esse certas de salute sua. Respondeo. De primis duobus nulla inter me et dominationem suam controversia (WA 59:534).
Luther: That I have equivocated the canon against Augustine, in book xviii. chapter xxxvi. was forced upon me by Saint Jerome and Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History, reviewing the authorities of the ancients. Therefore the equivocation stands, while Augustine thinks differently, and Jerome and the more ancients think differently about the canon. And consequently there is no strength of argument left in the contention. Whether Jerome's prologue counts the books of Maccabees among the divine volumes, I do not remember.
Original text: Quod canonem ego aequivocaverim contra Augustinum, libro xviii. capite xxxvi.coegit me divus Hieronymus et Eusebius in Historia ecclesiastica, recensens antiquorum auctoritates. Ideo stat aequivocatio, dum aliter Augustinus, aliter Hieronymus cum antiquioribus de canone sentiunt. Et per consequens nullum robur argumenti in contentione reliquum est. An prologus Hieronymi inter divina volumina libros Machabaeorum numeret, non memini (WA 59:535).
Luther: Let Jerome himself first reconcile himself to himself, who in the prologue appended clearly lists the books of the Maccabees and some others among the apocrypha; on which authority it is that the book of the Maccabees is acceptable and approved to me, but open to refutation by contentious people. I have said enough today about the council.
Original text: Conciliet ipse primo Hieronymum sibi, qui in prologo allegato Machabaeorum libros et nonnullos alios manifeste inter apocripha recenset ; qua auctoritate fit, ut mihi liber Machabaeorum sit gratus et probatus, sed contentiosis pateat ad repulsam. Satis hodie de concilio dixi (WA 59:547).
Fifth, in 1521 while still believing in purgatory, Luther provided an explanation of the spurious nature of using 2 Maccabees as a prooftext for Purgatory:
But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith! [LW 32:96].
Original text: Das ſie aber auſſ dem buch .2. Maccab .12. für wenden. Wie Judas Maccabeus gellt zeu Hieruſalem ſchickt zeu bitten fur die erſchlagene ym ſtreytt ſchleüſſet nicht. Denn daſſelb buch. iſt nit unter den Bucherñ der heyligen ſchrifft. Unnd wie .S. Hierony. ſagt. ſind man es ynn der hebreiſchen zeüngen nit. ynn wilcher doch alle Bucher. des allten teſtaments. fundenn werdenn Auch hatt ſonſt daſſelb buch wenig glawben denn es widder das erſt buch Maccab ſtymmett ynn des kunigs Antiochus beſchreyben. unnd hatt viel fabelln mehr. die yhm den glawben nemen. Unnd obs ſchon gullte. Wer dennoch nott. ynn ſolchem groſſen artickell das auch zeü wenigſten noch eyn ſpruch auſſ eynem der hewbt bucher yhm zeu hilff keme auff das alle rede beſtund. ynn zeweer odder dreyer zeugen münd. Es iſt vordechtig. das auff diſen artickell alleyn ynn der gantzen biblien nit ſollt mehr. denn eyn ſpruch erfunden werden. dazu ynn dem geringſten vorachtiſtem buch. Szo er ſo groß unnd ſo viel an yhm gelegen iſt Das das Bapſtum unnd gant͡z prieſterſchafft hierauſſ faſt gebawen unnd alle yhr gutt unnd ehr dauon habenn. Unnd on zeweyſſel das mehr teyl hungerſz ſterben wurden. wo das fegfewr nit were. Ey man ſollt unſerñ glawben nit ſo loß unnd ſchwach grund gebenn (WA 7:452).
They have one place in the second book of Maccabees xii. which book I have mentioned, as I say still, is not of any authority in this matter, since nothing like it is read either in the New or in the Old Testament.
Original text: Vnum locum habent e. ſecundo Machabeorum xii. uſitatum, quem librum dixi, ſicut adhuc dico, non eſſe in hac re ullius autoritatis, cum nihil ſimile neque in novo neque in veteri teſtamento legatur (WA 7:149).
A very helpful overview of Martin Luther's view of purgatory was put together by Min Hwan Kim, "A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College
Addendum #2 Full Transcript of the 1519 Leipzig Debate
A transcript taken of Martin Luther's debate with Johann Eck on purgatory is found in WA 2:322-344. The following below was taken from WA 59: 526-553.
Dominus doctor Eccius ut opponens orsus est.
Non solum apud theologistas sed etiam in sacra scriptura et sanctis patribus habetur quod vita haec praesens sit status et terminus merendi et demerendi; quare existentes in purgatorio amplius mereri non possunt, et sic etiam maiorem gratiam non accipere. Haec ita esse probo per [Jer. 25, 14] Hieremiam xxv.: “Reddam eis secundum opera eorum et secundum 2. Kor. 5, 10f.] facta manuum eorum”. Ita etiam Paulus ait: “Omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis prout gessit, sive bonum sive malum. Scientes ergo timorem domini hominibus suademus”. Addo Hieronymum, ut | gradatim descendam, eo loco apostolum intelligentem: “Hoc dicit, inquam, quamdiu in mundo [vgl. 2. Kor. 5, 6] positi peregrinamur a domino, conversatione bona id agamus, ut ei in futuro placere possimus, non ut quidam putant, quod posteaquam excesserimus a corpore ibi aliquid operantes promereamur”. Idem fatetur Glossa ordinaria ibi: “Frustra ergo homo post corpus sibi hoc promittit quod hic comparare neglexit”. Ita etiam intellexit Ambrosius solum facta corporis alibi praemiari.Ex quibus liquet, cum gratia augeatur ex meritorum respondentia et animae in purgatorio non poterunt aliquid operari meritorie ex allegatis, non poterit etiam in eis augeri gratia. Subscribit apertissime beatus Augustinus in Enchiridio, capite cix. et cx., et repetit eadem verba principaliter quaestione vii., De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus post multa: “Quocirca, ait, hic omne meritum comparatur, quo possit post hanc vitam relevari quispiam vel gravari. Nemo autem se speret quod hic neglexit, cum obierit apud deum promereri”. Cessat ergo post mortem meritorii operis auctio, cesset et gratiae auctio meritis respondens.
Dominus doctor Martinus.
Opposuit egregius dominus doctor duas divinae scripturae auctoritates [Jer. 25, 14] et quatuor sanctorum patrum. Prima Hieremiae, ubi deus dicit: “Reddam eis secundum opera eorum”. Miror satis egregium dominum doctorem quod haec et similia arbitretur contra me pugnare, cum ego in Resolutorio meo multo plures adduxerim in hanc formam et exposuerim, quomodo nihil contra me pugnent aut aeque contra purgatorium pugnent, cum enim scriptura divina tota prorsus nihil habeat de purgatorio, sed omnia loquatur vel de inferno vel coelo.Volo hac una responsione ad omnes auctoritates respondisse quod non faciunt ad propositum, sequenter et omnes expositiones omnium patrum, nisi expresse meminerint purgatorii. Nam credibile est quod, quando tractant scripturas sanctas, sensum etiam scripturae sanctae sequantur. Ideoque aliis rationibus et [P 49v] auctoritatibus doceri oportet animas esse certas et non augeri in eis charitatem.
Dominus doctor Eccius.
Cum reverendus pater plures se dicat allegasse auctoritates in Resolutorio et eas exposuisse —, vidimus. Vidimus quoque, glossam suam ad textum nihil facere, quod iam ostendemus. Hoc quoque non accipimus, in sacra scriptura nihil haberi de purgatorio, quod dictum quidem Graecis et Pichardis esset favorabile618 verum christianae fidei adversum, ut recte meminit in Resolutorio.Sed ponamus solutionem suam unicam ad aciem, qua dicit adducta nihil facere ad propositum. [2. Kor. 5, 10f.] Quam concinne respondit! Apostolus dicit unumquemque recepturum secundum quod in corpore gessit, dominus pater dicit hominem recipere etiam secundum quod in purgatorio gessit. Augustinus dicit omne meritum hic comparari, et dominus pater contra dicit etiam in purgatorio meritum comparari. Hieronymus dicit, postquam e corpore excesserimus, nihil nos promereri apud deum, dominus pater contra dicit, postquam e corpore excesserimus, adhuc in purgatorio nos promereri. Ita de Ambrosio. Iudicent iam illustrissimae dominationes, excellentiae et praestantiae vestraen [ n) fehlt P.], an per me adducta nihil faciant ad propositum; quae directo dictis patris contrariantur. Peto ergo quod vere solvat vel ostendat, quomodo ad propositum non faciant, nec miretur quoniam et ego plures sum ei adducturus auctoritates, ut manifestarium sit hoc non esse theologistarum sed verorum theologorum.
Dominus doctor Martinus.
Ego, qui credo fortiter, immo ausim dicere: scio purgatorium esse, facile persuadeor in scripturis de eo fieri mentionem, quemadmodum [Matth. 12, 32] illud Matthaei inducit Gregorius in Dialogo: “Non remittetur neque in hoc seculo neque in futuro”, volens peccata quaedam remitti in purgatorio. [2. Makk. 12, 46] Admitto et illud Machabaeorum 2.: “Sancta et salubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare”. Sed hoc volo, quod in universa scriptura non [P 50r] habeatur memoria pur gatorii quae posset stare in contentione et convincere. Nam et liber Machabaeorum, cum non sit in canone, pro fidelibus potens est, contra pertinaces nihil valet, et dictum Gregorii facillime [Matth. 12, 32] eluditur, quod neque hic neque in futuro peccatum remittatur, id est nunquam. Ideo nolo mihi suspitionem fieri quod faverem Bohemis et Graecis. Hoc pro primo. Ad replicam domini doctoris dico nihil aliud quam quod iam prius dixi. Idem enim repetit, ideo et idem respondeo. Dixi enim in sacris literis nihil haberi de purgatorio, ideo non posse eas neque expositiones earum ad negocium purgatorii aptari. Redditur enim aut bonum bonis aut malum malis post mortem; medii sunt qui in purgatorio sunt, de quibus dictae auctoritates non loquuntur, quibus neque redditum est bonum sive malum. Et sic purgatorium per medium auctoritatum semper transit.
Dominus doctor Eccius.
Quod se excuset credere se et scire purgatorium esse, bene accipio et prius novi. Sed quod negat in sacra scriptura purgatorium probari, hoc tanquam falsum et Graecanicum respuo, in proposito manens, quamquam nec illa nec alia multo maiora contra protervos et pertinaces convinci possint, ut de Arrio et aliis patuit. At quod propterea illud dicatur non reperiri in scriptura quia contra pertinacem convinci non possit, est omnino captiosum et religioni nostrae adversum. De libris Machabaeorum, quos dicit facere pro fidelibus sed non esse in canone—, et hoc, inquam, falsum est. Quamvis enim apud Hebraeos in canone non fuerint, tamen ecclesia recepit eos in canonem, ut pater domini patris Augustinus libro De civitate dei testatur. Et sanctus Ivo in suis decretis constitutionem inserit, qua ecclesia libros illos in canonem recepit. Quod in suo proposito persistere vult reverendus pater, allegata per me non facere ad propositum, quae tamen de directo ei contrariantur —. Primo, quod dicit auctoritates illas respicere coelum vel infernum, non iuvat, quia de directo faciunt mentionem de statu merendi et demerendi [P 50v] et hunc statum definiunt morte | terminari. Contra reverendus pater nullo sancto doctore innixus audet animabus a corpore exeuntibus terminum merendi prorogare et merita purgatorii in coelo remunerari. Et apostolica [2. Kor. 5, 10] clamat sententia, solum remunerari opera quae homo in corpore gessit! Quare dicta in Resolutione sua pervidi sed tanquam insufficientia acceptare non potui, ut illas contrarietates prius aperui.
Dominus doctor Martinus.
Primo, quod egregius dominus doctor dicit non ideo aliquid negandum esse de scriptura quia pertinaces convinci non possint, optime et verissime dicit. Sed loquor ego de iis pertinacibus qui nos propria auctoritate et proprio iaculo confodere possunt. Evidens enim est, librum Machabaeorum pertinere ad vetus testamentum. Quando ergo sanctus Hieronymus canonem hebraeum descripserit et eos solos libros valere in contentione qui de canone sunt, definiat sitque in hac sententia sua receptus, facile nostro telo perforabimur nisi fidelibus persuadeamus. Secundo probat librum Machabaeorum esse receptum in canonem. Contendit ad aequivocationem et facile concordabimur. Scio quod ecclesia recipit hunc librum et hoc dixi, sed non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libro quam per seipsum habeat. Sicut et caeterorum patrum opuscula approbat et reiicit o[ o) recipit MU.], sed non ideo omnia confirmat aut meliora reddit quae in his dicuntur. Transeat ergo ista aequivocatio: canon et canon. Tertio dicit auctoritates inductas directe facere mentionem de statu merendi, et eundem morte terminari. Respondeo sicut prius, quia nihil de purgatorio meminerunt sed solum de coelo aut inferno. Ideo moriens ad infernum non meretur et moriens ad coelum non meretur, et sic terminatur utriusque status merendi. Alioqui possit eisdem auctoritatibus evidentissime probari purgatorium. Quarto dicit me nullo doctore inniti et prorogare terminum merendi, [P 51r] item merita purgatorii remunerata asse|rere. Fateor, hoc enim feci ut disputarem et audirem meliora quam ego noverim. Ego enim nihil de purgatorio novi nisi animas ibi pati iuvandas operibus et orationibus nostris, paratus humiliter doceri si quae plura de ipso possunt tradi. [2. Kor. 5, 10] Quare apostolus contra me adductus, quod solum opera in corpore gesta remunerentur, relative ad purgatorium acceptus est a domino doctore; quo modo iam dixi non posse accipi, sed solum ad coelum vel infernum. Ista relatio si observetur, patet quod non pugnent contra me, aut demonstrabunt purgatorium. Crastina hora septima continuabitur disputatio. Die Saturni nona mensis Iulii hora septima antemeridiana.
Dominus doctor Eccius.
Primo, cum dominus pater dicit auctoritates adductas non intelligi de purgatorio, placet quoad hoc, quia meritum ponunt solum in hac vita, ergo meritum excludunt in purgatorio. Deinde certum est Augustinum in Enchiridio loqui etiam de purgatorio, quia ibidem probat animas suffragiis vivorum relevari. Et Hieronymus increpat eos qui putant animas [Jes. 66, 24] exutas mereri, qui purgatorium asserit Esaiae ultimo. Quod vero dicit conclusionem suam esse disputationem, quasi non habens de ea magnam fiduciam, miror plurimum, cum iam post annum illam ventilaverit et magnifico titulo disputationem inscripserit Contra novos et veteres errores; sententiam quoque recentiorum theologorum nec stulto verisimilem affirmat, ac contemptim eos theologistas nuncupat. Quod vero divinatur canonis aequivocationem non patior, quoniam Augustinus in illo libro xviii. De civitate dei, eundem terminum, maxime in puncto adversativo, non potuit aequivocare, dicendo quod non fuerit in canone apud Hebraeos sed apud ecclesiam. Deinde exploratum est, [P 51v] cum plura | essent evangelia conscripta, auctoritate ecclesiae quatuor in canonem recepta. Et sic libros Machabaeorum receptos testatur prologus: “tamen ab ecclesia inter divinorum voluminum annotantur historias”. Sed melius ad rem, quia se fundat in hoc, quod purgatorium non sit in sacris literis expressum. Contra quod est concilii Florentini decretum quod et Graeci abnegato errore assumpserunt , dein plures loci sacrae [Ps. 65 (66), 12] scripturae ut illud: “Transivimus per aquam et ignem et eduxisti nos in [Pred. 4, 14] refrigerium”, illud Ecclesiastis quarto: “De carcere et cathenis egreditur [Matth. 5, 25f.] ad regnum”, illud Matthaei quinto: “Dixit dominus: Esto consentiens etc., ne in carcerem mittaris. Amen dico tibi, non exies inde donec reddas novissimum quadrantem”, ubi per carcerem intelligit locum purgatorii, ex quo homo non liberatur nisi plene satisfecerit, sicut interpretatur [Luk. 12, 58] beatus Ambrosius in loco respondente super Lucam. Ratio tamen Gregorii, quam reassumit beatus Bernardus sermone sexagesimosexto [Matth. 12, 32] super Canticis, est valida, quod Christus innuat aliqua peccata remitti in futuro seculo. Sed apertissimus textus est primae ad Corinthios [1. Kor. 3, 12 –15] tertio: “Si cuius opus arserit, detrimentum patietur, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem”, et: “Dies domini declarabit, quia in igne revelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit”, et ibi de stipula, foeno etc.; ubi beatus Ambrosius dicit apostolum esse locutump[ p) expresse locutum MU.] de purgatorio. Itemq[ q) Idem MU.]testatur Glossa interlinearis, Glossa quoque ordinaria. Subscribit beatus Hieronymus libro ii. contra Iovinianum. Beatus quoque Gregorius de purgatorio accipit , quod et beatus Bernardus super Canticis facit. Et ne quis obiiciat mihi Augustinum in Enchiridio capite forte lxvii., qui et de igne praesentis seculi verba illa posse intelligi ait, legat eundem completius ibidem et quaestione ii. De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus, et reperiet Augustinum illa verba apostoli, sicut sunt manifestissima, accipere quoque de purgatorio.Quare [2. Makk. 12, 46] nedum in libris Machabaeorum, quod utique ecclesiae sufficeret, sed et in [P 52r] aliis scripturis purgatorium asseritur, nisi | Gregorius, Ambrosius, Augustinus, Hieronymus, Bernardus sint de numero theologistarum. Nescio alioquin quomodo reverendus pater possit fateri se scire, esse purgatorium, cum literae sacrae scripturae ita valide velit inniti. Et cum clarissima sint scripturae testimonia pro neotericis theologis, ipse nec unum locum in scriptura assignare poterit, ubi merita vel gratiam in [Pred. 11, 3] purgandis augeri asseratur, cum contra sapiens dicat Ecclesiastes xi.: “Et si ceciderit lignum ad austrum aut aquilonem, ad locum ubi ceciderit, ibi erit”; Glossa ordinaria: “Id est, locum quem hic tibi praeparaveris, [Joh. 14, 2] tunc habebis”.Et quia “in domo patris mei”, ait Christus, “mansiones multae sunt”, certa mansio morienti deputatur, ultra quam suis meritis in purgatorio ascendere nequit. Sic Damascenus libro ii. capite iiii. testatur: “Scire autem oportet quod hoc est in hominibus mors quod in angelis casus”, et declarat hoc quo ad terminum merendi. Sic sapiens Ecclesiastes [Pred. 9, 10] ix.: “Quicquid potest manus tua instanter operare etc.”, sicut ad illum sensum allegavit devotus ille et dignus ecclesiae minister Ioannes [Gal. 6, 7 –10] Capistranus.661 Ita hoc apostolus docuit, Ad Galatas vi.: “Nolite errare, deus non irridetur. Quae enim homo seminaverit, haec et metet. Quoniam qui seminant in carne sua, de carne metent corruptionem, etc. Bonum autem facientes non deficiamus. Ergo dum tempus habemus, operemur bonum ad omnes”; Glossa: “Quod homo seminaverit, scilicet praesentis vitae labore”. Non ergo in purgatorio seminantur merita sed in praesenti [Joh. 9, 4] vita, quod et Chrysostomus confirmat per illud Ioannis ix.: “Me operari oportet opera eius qui misit me, donec est dies. Venit enim nox, quando nemo operari potest”; dies, ait Chrysostomus, est praesens vita. Ideo Augustinus adhortatur nos debere operari dum vivamus, ne per noctem praeveniamur. Accedat testis etiam beatus Ambrosius, volens apostolum loqui de tempore praesentis vitae nobis concesso ut iuste conversemur. [Ps. 103 (104), 23] Quare egregius psaltes ait, Psalmo ciii.: “Exivit homo ad opus suum et ad operationem suam usque ad vesperam”. [P 52v] | Postremo, expressa est illa Augustini sententia praeter superius allegata ubi tamen purgatorii meminit. Sententia est eius capite iii. De fide ad Petrum: “Tempus acquirendi vitam aeternam in ista tantum vita deus hominibus dedit”.Hieronymus quoque, libro iii. super illud ad Galatas [Gal. 6, 5] vi.: “Unusquisque onus suum portabit”, ostendit quomodo homines meritis suis iuventur in hac vita, sed vocati ante tribunal, quod fit in morte, tunc nec Iob nec Noe nec Daniel possint stare pro quoquam, sed unusquisque portabit onus suum.Nam et pulchre beatus Bernardus docet quod in cuiusque hominis morte particulare fiat iudicium , quod fieri non posset si adhuc terminum haberet merita sua in purgatorio accumulandi [vgl. Sach. 4, 7] et gratiam augendi, quia, ut per prophetam Zachariam inquit, “adaequabit gratiam gratiae”, gratiam gloriae reddet in proportione ad gratiam fidei. Quod si etiam testimonia illa non essent ita clara, quae tamen sunt apertissima, hoc unum deberet reverendum patrem in proposito absterrere, quod theologus absque theologico fundamento pro arbitrio suo, non existens iudex nec iudicis assessor, animabus exeuntibus terminum merendi vult prolongare. Quare quoad istam particulam concludendum videtur, animas in purgatorio satis pati et purgari a delictis, sed maiorem gratiam non mereri. De secundo principali, quia negat animas in purgatorio esse certas de salute, hoc iterum arbitror nulla sacrae scripturae auctoritate fundatum. In praesentia tamen, quod sint certae de salute, adduco primo illud [Offenb. 5, 1 –4] Apocalypsis v.: “Vidi in dextra sedentis super thronum etc. et nemo inventus est dignus aperire librum, nec in coelo nec in terra nec subtus terram”. In inferno indubitate nulla est dignitas librum aperiendi; quare de purgatorio loquitur, in quo etiam sunt aliquando sancti viri miraculis coruscantes, sicut de sancto Paschasio testatur beatus Gregorius, iiii. Dialogorum. Et historia de sancto Severino Coloniensi episcopo, [Offenb. 5, 9.13] natione tamen Suevo, illud idem asserit. Et infra: “Et omnes cantabant, [P 53r] in coelo, in | terra et subtus terram”. Sed de salute quasi desperentes non cantant. Quare eo ipso, quod sacra anima cantum ibi esse asserit, animas certas de salute affirmat. Praeterea in canone missae, ubi pro defunctis in purgatorio oratur, ita dicimus: “Memento domine famulorum tuorum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei et dormiunt in somno pacis etc.” “Ipsis et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus etc.”Si ergo iuxta sacratissimum missae canonem animae quiescunt in Christo, quomodo possunt esse in tali turbatione et horrore quasi desperationis, sicut declarat reverendus pater in suo. Resolutorio, conclusione xiiii. usque ad xx.? Non enim video, quomodo in tali horrore, tremore, turbatione et quasi desperatione, quae omnia maximam dicunt inquietudinem, animae purgandae possint dici dormire in somno pacis, quod praedicta omnia paci adversentur. Sed tunc a veris christianis recte censebuntur in pace quiescere, dum secure expectant terminum suae purgationis. Haec sunt partim quae me moverunt et hodie movent ad dissentiendum reverendo patri, paratus tamen stare iudicio et informationi aliorum.
Dominus doctor Martinus.
Tria per ordinem egregius dominus doctor copiosissime contra me prosequutus est: primum, canonem scripturae comprehendere libros Machabaeorum, deinde, purgatorium probari etiam aliis locis scripturae, tertio conatus ostendere animas esse certas de salute sua. Respondeo. De primis duobus nulla inter me et dominationem suam controversia. Ideo non erat necesse tot auctoritates colligere ad eam rem, quam forte constantius affirmo quam ipse, ut qui me scire professus sim, esse purgatorium. Sed hic vertitur scopus, an possit probari animas in purgatorio mereri et gratiam in eis augeri. Tamen transeamus per ordinem. Primo dixit auctoritatibus heri adductis statui meritum solum in hac vita, ergo excludi in futura vita, quod ipse intelligit purgatorium. Et sic aptat auctoritates ad purgatorium. Ego autem concedo de futura vita vel inferni vel coeli. Adduxit etiam Augustinum in Enchiridio loquentem de purgatorio, et Hieronymum increpantem eos qui exutas animas mereri asserant.Utrumque concedo. Me etiam reprehendit quod dixerim me disputare hanc propositionem quasi non habens fiduciam de ea, qui magnifico titulo inscripserim contra novos et veteres errores me disputaturum, sententiam recentiorum nec stulto verisimilem affirmarim ac contemptim eos theologistas nuncuparim. Dico, sicut heri dixi, me adhuc nihil scire de negocio animarum et purgatorii; et hoc appellem errorem quod quidam audent asserere quod ignorant, et opiniones patrum ut b[eati] Thomae, Bonaventurae et similium, quas ipsi non asseruerunt, ipsi tanquam certos articulos fidei pronunciant. Hos ego appello theologistas et non theologos. Opiniones tractari debent in scholis, in populum praedicari [Ps. 18 (19), 2] debent verba et opera dei; Psalmo xviii.: “Coeli enarrant gloriam dei et opera manuum eius”. Non ergo ego damno opiniones optimorum patrum, sed resisto fabris illis qui ex opinionibus hominum nobis conflant articulos fidei, quod non est boni theologi officium. Quod canonem ego aequivocaverim contra Augustinum, libro xviii. capite xxxvi.r[ r) 26 MU.], coegit me divus Hieronymus et Eusebius in Historia ecclesiastica, recensens antiquorum auctoritates. Ideo stat aequivocatio, dum aliter Augustinus, aliter Hieronymus cum antiquioribus de canone sentiunt. Et per consequens nullum robur argumenti in contentione reliquum est. An prologus Hieronymi inter divina volumina libros Machabaeorum numeret, non memini. Transeo illud, quod quatuor evangelia auctoritate ecclesiae recepta sunt. Haec enim erit alia materia. Post hoc dicit, contra concilium Florentinum esse quod purgatorium non sit in scriptura expressum. Respondeo, quod concilium non potest facere esse de scriptura quod non est de scriptura natura sua, sicut nec ecclesia potuit facere evangelia, etiamsi approbavit evangelia. [Ps. 65 (66), 12] Quare videamus auctoritates. Primo illam Psalmi lxv.: “Transivimus [P 54r] per ignem et aquam”. Respondeo: Non valet ad purga torium; [Ps. 16 (17), 3] loquitur de persecutionibus sanctorum, sicut in multis aliis locis, Psalmo [Ps. 25 (26), 2] decimosexto: “Igne me examinasti”, item vigesimoquinto: “Ure renes [1. Petr. 1, 6f.] meos et cor meum”, et Petri primo: “Modicum si nunc oportet contristari in variis tentationibus ut probatio fidei vestrae multo sit preciosior auro, quod per ignem probatur”. Et breviter, tropus est ille vulgatissimus scripturae, per ignem et aquam intelligi tribulationes. Ideo nimis haerent in literis et syllabis, quod mihi imponit egregius dominus doctor, qui [Pred. 4, 14] ignem pro purgatorio accipiunt. Item et illud Ecclesiastis quod aliquis de carcere et cathenis egreditur ad regnum. Satis clarus est textus de vanitate huius mundi disputantis, quod casu vertente is qui nunc servus est, fit rex, et qui rex fit servus. His et similibus auctoritatibus si contra negantes pugnaremus, nihil nisi ludibrium de nobis et ecclesia adversariis faceremus quamquam ego libentissime haec omnia admittam et si qua sunt [Matth. 5, 25] similia. Tale et illud est Matthaei quinto: “Esto consentiens adversario tuo ne tradat te tortori”, ubi per carcerem dicit intelligi per Ambrosium locum purgatorii ; libenter admitto. Sed quia alii patres in diversum exposuerunt, praesertim Augustinus de inferno et nunquam egressuro exponit, fit auctoritas dubia, fidelibus suadens, resistentes non convincens; ut id taceam quod textus consequentia ne patiatur quidem de purgatorio intelligi. Dicit enim de consentiente adversario et dissentiente, volens dissentientem damnabiliter et contra Christi praeceptum peccare; quis[ s) quae MU.] pertinent ad infernum, non ad purgatorium. Rationem Gregorii consentiente Bernardo dicit esse validam, quod deus remittat aliqua peccata in futuro. Respondeo: verum est apud fideles, sed invalida est apud resistentes. Post haec dicit esse apertissimum textum, prima ad Corinthios iii.: [1. Kor. 3, 15] “Ipse salvabitur, sic tamen quasi per ignem”, et Ambrosium et Hieronymum, Glossam ordinariam et interlinearem, Gregorium, Bernardum [P 54v] intellexisse apostolum de purgatorio, licet Augustinus ali | cubi de praesentis seculi igne eadem verba posse intelligi dicat.691 Respondeo: adeo non est apertissimus hic textus, ut ego hodie fatear, cum multa excusserim, me adhuc nescire germanum sensum Pauli, ita variantibus interpretibus, quamquam pro me libens admittam de purgatorio. Verum cum apostolus apertissime dicat, opus uniuscuiusque per ignem probari, in quo [1. Kor. 3, 13] igne dicit revelandam diem domini quae declaret uniuscuiusque opus, ut sunt aperta verba, meo tenui iudicio videtur loqui de igne conflagrationis et extremi iudicii, aut ut Augustinus tropologizat, de igne persecutionis temporalis qua maxime probatur fides et fidei doctrina et quaecunque super haec aedificantur. Quare adhuc nihil habetur ex sacris literis manifestum de purgatorio, quod in contentione valeat. Non ergo beatissimos patres de numero theologistarum habeo, quia purgatorium cum eis confiteor nec ipsi opiniones et ignorantias suas de statu animarum pro articulis sanxerunt, sicut faciunt theologistae. Miratur dominus, quomodo possim scire esse purgatorium, et ego nec unum locum habeam pro me in scriptura, cum haec ut dicit clarissima scripturae testimonia pro neotericis theologis facere putet. Respondeo: non est necesse confiteri qua via noverim purgatorium vel quaecunque, deinde haec testimonia clarissima pro purgatorio sunt adducta, non pro statu animarum in purgatorio. [Pred. 11, 3] Iam illa auctoritas, Ecclesiastes decimo: “In quocunque ceciderit lignum, sive ad austrum sive ad aquilonem, ibi erit”, ubi Glossa ordinaria intelligit: “locum, quem hic tibi praeparaveris, tunc habebis”, nescio quo ingenio ad propositum ducatur. Si enim per locum praeparatum et habendum intelligit purgatorium, manendum erit in aeternum in purgatorio. Si autem intelligit quod hic praeparaveris, id est merueris, tunc non facit ad auctoritatem Ecclesiastis qui nihil de merito loquitur sed de morte hominis. [P 55r] [Joh. 14, 2] | Transeo illud quod Christus dicit in domo patris sui esse multas mansiones, et quod certa mansio morienti deputatur, ultra quam ascendere nequit. Totum pro me est. Scio quod unicuique mansio deputatur post mortem, sed non statim pervenit ad mansionem post mortem, nisi mansionem iterum pro purgatorio accipiat et sic morientes ab aeterno regno excludat. Item et illud Damasceni: “Hoc hominibus mors, quod angelis casus”. Respondeo: si ergo post mortem ceciderint in purgatorium, sequitur quod in aeternum purgabuntur, aut oportet Damascenum, sicut et omnia praecedentia, intelligi de duabus ultimis mansionibus, damnationis [Pred. 9, 10] et beatitudinis, et non de purgatorio. Ita et illa, Ecclesiastes ix.: “Quodcunque poterit manus tua, instanter operare, quia nec ratio nec sensus apud inferos est quo tu properas”; si de purgatorio intelligit, iterum purgatorium erit infernus, ergo solum de inferno citra memoriam purgatorii loquitur. Ioannem Capistranum695 libenter admitto, sed extra contentionem. [Gal. 6, 7] Iam quod apostolum, Galatas vi., dicit contra nostram sententiam loqui: “Quae homo seminaverit carnet[ t) in carne MU.], haec et metet”, et illud Ioannis [Joh. 9, 5] viii.: “Venit nox quando nemo poterit operari”, quod Ambrosius de praesentis tempore vitae exponit quo meremur — clarum est quod nihil faciat ad rem. Apostolus enim non de purgatorio sed de extremo iudicio loquitur, et Christus per noctem, salva reverentia Chrysostomi, intelligit infidelitatem, ut clarum est ex proximo textu: “Quamdiu ego in mundo sum, tandiu lux sum mundi”, volens quod extra fidem Christi nemo possit bene operari. Tamen Chrysostomum admitto, quia respicit ad extremum iudicium. [Ps. 103 (104), 2] Auctoritas Psalmi ciii.: “Exibit homo ad opus suum usque ad vesperam”, permittitur trahi figurativo sensu ad vitam et mortem hominis, sed genuino sensu et qui pugnet in contentione, loquitur de admirabili dispositione dei, quod hominem sic disposuerit, quod mane exeat usque ad vesperam diei naturalis ad opus suum. Et Augustinus recte sentit, [P 55v] capite iii. De fide ad Petrum, | tempus acquirendi vitam aeternam esse datum hominibus tantum in ista vita, quia ut dixi semper ad futuram [Gal. 6, 5] vitam respiciunt, non ad purgatorium. Et Hieronymus ad Galatas vi.: “Unusquisque onus suum portabit”, bene ostendit quod homines meritis suis iuventur in hac vita, sed vocati ante tribunal quod fit in morte, tunc nec Iob, nec Noe nec Daniel possunt stare pro quoquam. Respondeo: haec auctoritas robustissima est contra egregium dominum doctorem, quia si verum est hominem in morte vocari ante tribunal et tunc nec Iob nec Noe nec Daniel possunt stare, frustra orat ecclesia pro mortuis et sic negatur purgatorium; quare de tribunali novissimo loquitur Hieronymus post finitum purgatorium. Bernardum etiam induxit, quod in hominis morte agatur particulare iudicium, quod non fieret si haberet terminum adhuc merendi. Respondeo: quicquid sit de particulari iudicio, consequentia [Sach. 4, 7] non valet. Transeo auctoritatem Zachariae: Adaequavitu[ u) adaequabit MU.] gratiam gratiae, quia tropologico et bono sensu exponitur, sed non proprio. In fine huius articuli dicit: etiam si non essent tam clara haec testimonia, hoc tamen deberet me absterrere theologum quod sic absque fundamento pro meo arbitrio cum nec iudex nec assessor fuerim, animabus exeuntibus terminum prorogaverim merendi. Idem retorqueo in dominum doctorem, cum nec ipse iudex nec assessor fuerit et tamen animabus certum statum iuxta opiniones suas definiat absque fundamento, praesertim cum id nolit esse opinionem duntaxat, quod libentissime tolerarem, sed certam scientiam. Hora secunda pomeridiana continuabitur disputatio. Hora secunda pomeridiana eiusdem diei. Dominus doctor Martinus continuavit coepta sua ut sequitur. Et quia mea sententia non satis intellecta videtur egregio domino doctori, quantum possum apertius me exponam. Quod scripturae et [P 56r] sancti patres antiqui in suis sententiis respi|ciunt futuram vitam, qua vel salvantur vel damnantur animae, nihil de purgatorio interim cogitantes, ideo multae illae auctoritates quae abnegant statum merendi post hanc vitam, non pertinent ad purgatorium. Quod si adhuc non intelligitur, fingatur purgatorium nullum esse sicut non fuit eius cogitatio in mentibus eorum; tunc adhuc stabunt et verae erunt omnes auctoritates inductae quod ante mortem est vita merendi. Deinde non sic de meritis loquor animarum in purgatorio quod aliquid operentur sed quod recipiant gratiam ampliorem, cum apud omnes constet culpam non remitti etiam venialem sine augmento gratiae, et in purgatorio culpas remitti scribat divus Gregorius in Dialogorum iiii., et recitatur distinctione xxv. capite Qualis. Sic tamen haec assero ut pro opinione habeam, immo ut fatear pro ignorantia: soli deo credo cognitum esse statum animarum in purgatorio. Ad tertium principale de scientia salutis earum, ubi induxit primo Apocalypsim, quinto capite, quod nemo inventus nec in coelo nec in terra nec subtus terram, qui dignus esset aperire librum, volens per subtus terram intelligere purgatorium, ut in quo aliquando et sancti viri fuerunt sicut Paschasius et Severinus. Dico quod haec glossa auctoritatem non habet, ideo eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. Fateor quidem sanctos in purgatorio fuisse, immo nullum in purgatorio esse nisi sanctum. Posset ergo contentiosus dicere subtus terram esse idem quod infernus vel quodlibet aliud, ut quod nec daemones nec homines nec angeli possint aperire librum, sicut dicitur trina rerum machina colere deum et, apud [Phil. 2, 10] apostolum, tam coelestia, terrestria quam inferna genu flectere, siquidem [Jak. 2, 19] et daemones contremiscunt. Immo, ut in eodem libro modus est, subtus [Offenb. 20, 13] terram significat etiam mortuos, ut dicit in alio capite: “Terra dedit mortuos suos et infernus dedit mortuos suos”. Quod autem sequenter inducit, omnes cantabant in coelo et in terra [P 56v] [Offenb. 5, 9.13] et subtus terram, desperantes autem non cantare posse | —, respondeo: non dixi animas desperare unquam, sed quando una ecclesiae sententia eadem est poena inferorum et purgatorii dixi eas esse similes desperatis, quomodo leguntur et in hac vita quidam tentati fuisse desperatione ut in [Ps. 26 (27), 9 u. 27 (28), 1] Psalterio in multis locis: “Ne avertas faciem tuam a me, et assimilaborv[ v) assimulabor MU.] descendentibus in lacum”. Deinde, cantare domino non semper est laetari et gaudere, immo canticum novum est canticum crucis, hoc est, laudare et portare deum in mediis tribulationibus atque adeo in morte. Quod tertio adduxit canonem missae, ubi pro defunctis orantes dicimus: “Dormiunt in somno pacis” et quiescunt in Christo —, non videt, ut dicit, quo modo possint dici dormire in somno pacis, si sint in tali turbatione, tremore et inquietudine maxima. Ideo interpretans hanc quietem pacis dicit quod expectant secure terminum suae purgationis. Respondeo: non satisfacit mihi haec glossa, et idem per idem probatur. Nam esse eos inquietos probat id quod sequitur in canone: “Ipsis domine et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis indulge”, et illud quod omnes oramus: “Requiem aeternam dona eis domine”, item: “Dona eis pacem” quod non potest intelligi: Dona eis expectare secure terminum suae purgationis, quod dominus doctor interpretatus est esse pacem. Rectius ergo meo iudicio requiescunt in pace quoad corpus. Dormire enim in sacris literis in pace significat quiescere in sepulchro. Et sic patet quod egregius dominus doctor non probavit scientiam salutis eorum, immo quodammodo tollit poenas purgatorii dum eis tribuit pacem.
Dominus doctor Eccius.
Quia nobis constitutum est arctum tempus hanc materiam hodie finiendi, ut pro qualitate materiae solutiones nihili refutare non possim et alia puncta purgatorii attingere, paucula quaedam afferam, ut facile agnoscatur vitasse reverendum patrem materiae nostrae medullam et diverticula quaesivisse. Unde primo, cum Augustinum induxissem: “omne meritum hic comparatur” et quod “nemo speret quod hic neglexit, [P 57r] cum | obierit apud deum promereri”, similiter et Hieronymum , dicit se utrumque concedere. Sed quae tunc est ista obstinatio si Augustinum concedit omne meritum hic comparari, ut dicat gratiam in animabus etiam in purgatorio augeri? Neque valet in praesentia collyrium suum ad omnes auctoritates, quas dicit non loqui de purgatorio. Nam beatus Augustinus illud idem dixit cum de animabus in purgatorio tractaret, et in Enchiridio et in libro De cura pro mortuis agenda, capite primo: “Nam post mortem non possumus agere quod prosit, sed recipere quod egimus”. In hanc enim inciderat Augustinus difficultatem, quomodo suffragia mortuis prodesse possent cum nihil mererentur; recurrit ad hoc ut in vita meruerint quod eis post mortem prodesset. Quare frustra nitebatur me instruere de sensu, quem satis bene accepi. Nec persuasiuncula sua quicquam momenti habet apud christianum quia venialia non remittantur sine augmento gratiae. Probet hoc reverendus pater! Nulla auctoritate hoc est fulcitum, immo est falsum: cum peccatum veniale dei offensam non faciat ex dei misericordia, non opus est nova gratia in eius deletione, sed sufficit quod aliquis pro eo satis patiatur. Quod vero secundo loco excusat se de errore —, quia non video unam literam adductam per dominum patrem pro sua nova doctrina, ideo merito debet reputari suspecta, cum recentiorum theologorum sententia tot sacrae scripturae et sanctorum patrum nitatur auctoritatibus. Nec hoc excusat, quod aliquibus imponit facere se opiniones Thomae vel Scoti sicut articulos fidei. De quo mihi non constat. Nam ego non Thomam vel Scotum, sed clarissima ecclesiae lumina cum sacra scriptura adduxi. Viderit ipse quos theologistas incuset. Tertio ad Augustinum dicit de libris Machabaeorum fortiorem opponendo beatum Hieronymum. At Hieronymus nullibi negat libros [P 57v] Machabaeorum apud ecclesiam esse de canone bibliae, | quin in prologo hoc constanter asserit fuisse annotatum inter divinorum voluminum historias. Quare opusculis sanctorum patrum in capite Romana, xv. distinctione , non debuit aequiparari. Cum vero ei opposuissem de concilio Florentino, respondit concilium non posse facere aliquid esse de scriptura quod non sit. Hoc quidem verum. Sed quid hoc est, concilium tam laudabile tanta temeritate contaminare, ut hoc absurdum decernat? Cum vero doctissimi fuerint in eo concilio viri, malo credere concilio quod a spiritu sancto regitur, quam domino Lutthero, non quod concilium faciat aliquid esse de scriptura quod non sit, sed quod credam concilium habere sensum et intelligentiam scripturarum, decernendo hoc esse de scriptura quod in scriptura reperitur. Evanida est sua excusatio, posse reperiri semper expositionem, ita quod textus allegatus non valeat in contentione contra pertinaces. Nam illud esset omnium haereticorum latibulum, qui semper aliquem expositionis fucum possent afferre quo contenderent catholicas veritates in scriptura sacra non esse expressas. Ita hodie adhuc perfidi Arrii duraret haeresis quod homousia ex sacris literis tam expresse probari non posset quin in contentione pertinax qualicunque fuco evaderet. Similiter bene novimus ecclesiam non posse facere evangelia. Tamen ecclesia facit ut, relictis Nicodemi, Bartholomaei, Thomae et aliorum evangeliis, quatuor dumtaxat indubitatam fidem adhibeamus, in quo ecclesiae iudicio standum in evangeliorum electionew[ w) acceptatione MU.], ita et in sacrarum scripturarum intelligentia et expositione. Porro assumens auctoritates per me inductas ab initio, voluit praeter necessitatem hoc factum, quia et ipse crederet purgatorium esse. Non meminit quod ex tot auctoritatibus terminum merendi in praesenti vita statuentibus voluit se evolvere, quia purgatorium ex sacris literis non probaretur ; quod dictum, ne Pichardi et alii schismatici pro se arriperent qui non sciunt purgatorium esse sicut dominus pater, merito [P 58r] fuerat a me confutandum. Dimissis aliquibus duos saltem conspi | ciamus [Matth. 5, 25] locos. Matthaei v. noluit per carcerem intelligi purgatorium, quia et Augustinus, quod minime me latebat, per carcerem infernum intelligat.Addo ultra dominum patrem Chrysostomum intelligere praesentem vitam , sed rectiorem esse Ambrosii sententiam vel saltem non contemnendam, qui per carcerem purgatorium intelligit. Verba Christi hoc [Matth. 5, 26] indicant, debere illum solvere usque ad novissimum dodrantem. Sed in inferno nulla est solutio, sicut nulla est redemptio. Neque fucus additus Ambrosii expositionem repellere potest, quod in carcerem trudendus peccaverit mortaliter, quoniam et propter peccata venialia et propter peccata mortalia, tamen contrita, in purgatorio puniuntur, quod ex [2. Makk. 12, 46] Machabaeis accipimus, dum inquit: “Sancta et salubris ergo est cogitatio pro mortuis exorare ut a peccatis solvantur”. Hi enim qui occisi fuerant [2. Makk. 12, 32 –46] et pro quibus Iudas Machabaeus oblationes fecit, peccaverant mortaliter propter spolia idolorum, quamvis credantur poenituisse in ipsa caede, [Ps. 77 (78), 34] iuxta Glossam ordinariam ibidem et illud Psalmi: “Cum occideret eos, quaerebant eum”. [1. Kor. 3, 12 –15] Quarto, dum apertissimum Pauli apostoli locum, prima ad Corinthios iii., adduxissem, quem Augustinus, Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Gregorius, Bernardus, Isidorus cum Glossa ordinaria intelligunt de igne purgatorii, fatetur reverendus pater se germanum sensum huius loci non habere. Ideo contemptis tot patribus novam attulit sententiam, apostolum loqui de igne conflagrationis quia apostolus meminerit diei [1. Kor. 3, 13] domini et quod uniuscuiusque opus ignis probabit. Ego, qui semper audivi antiquioribus maxime sanctis credi debere, sanctorum patrum exosculor sententiam et novam illam glossam et verba domini Luttheri non accipio, nisi probet sacrae scripturae auctoritate. Nec iuvant ea quae ponderat in praesentia, quae et sancti patres bene legerunt. Quamvis enim peculiariter dies iudicii extremi dies domini dicatur, ut Bernardus quoque meminit , tamen in cuiusque hominis morte, cum iudicium [P 58v] fert, dies | domini dici potest. Neque tam exactam et captiosam accipiat distributionem, ut sophistae facere solent, in vocula uniuscuiusque, sed [1. Kor. 3, 12] de his accipiat qui stipulam, lignum et foenum superaedificarunt, sicut [Joh. 1, 9] et Augustinus complicat distributionem Ioannis primo: “Illuminet omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum”. Unde invicta est [1. Kor. 3, 12] apostolica sententia, eos qui super fundamentum aedificant lignum, foenum, stipulam, salvos fieri sed per ignem purgationis, ut sic nullum malum maneat impunitum. [Pred. 11, 3] Ad illud Ecclesiastes de casu ligni, respondet: si loquatur de purgatorio, sic probari perpetuo animam manere in purgatorio. Dico, optime sensisse Glossam, per lignum intelligi hominem, sicut et Ezechielis xxxi. rationalem [Ez. 31, 8] creaturam significat: “Omne lignum paradisi etc.”, et per casum mortem; nec tamen sequi ideo perpetuo remanere in purgatorio. Sed, ut egregie exponit beatus Hieronymus, per austrum bonum, per aquilonem malum et damnatio significatur. Quare sapiens non loca illa intellexit sed statum, quod in casu vel est bonus et ita perseverabit sine augmento gratiae ob peccatorum deletionem —, si est malus, perdurabit in malitia. [Joh. 14, 2] De mansione, apud Ioannem, dixit, statim post mortem certam animae deputatam mansionem. Quomodo ergo erit certa, si fiat accessio maioris gratiae? Nam tunc necessario accedet altior mansio. Consectarium quoque esset, eum qui ad purgatorium descenderet cum pluribus venialibus, melius habere quam descendentem cum paucis vel morientem cum nullis, quia maior fieret ei gratiae accessio ad plurium venialium deletionem. Addo, quod noxium et damnabile esset orare pro mortuis, et plus prodesset eis si in poenis purgatorii perdurarent, propter maioris gratiae accessionem, sicuti alicubi scripsit reverendus pater animam alienis suffragiis liberatam minus beari quam si per se in purgatorio satis pateretur, [2. Makk. 12, 46] quod est non solum contra sacram scripturam: “Sancta ergo et [P 59r] salubris est cogitatio etc.”, sed et contra observantiam et pietatem totius ecclesiae quam mortuis impartiri debemus, ut beatus Augustinus pulcherrime libro De cura pro mortuis agenda, et libro Enchiridio explanat. Ad Damascenum porro respondit, eum non loqui de purgatorio, quoniam sic perpetuo durarent in purgatorio. Et ego sentio nec Damascenum nec alias auctoritates sonare de purgatorio, quoniam alioquin mihi obessent et domino patri prodessent. At cum de praesenti loquantur vita, in qua terminum ponant merendi et demerendi, non potest porrigere tempus merendi ultra terminum constitutum, scilicet mortem. Quare non aliam accipio expositionem quam auctor ipse velit, qui de termino merendi in loco allegato loquitur. Ita et de aliis dicere possum, neque simili obiurgatione increpari possum sicut reverendus pater, quod auctoritate sanctorum patrum et sacrae scripturae cursum et merendi terminum cum morte finiam. Ipse autem nulla fulcitus sacrae scripturae auctoritate, eis terminum porrigit et prorogat, contra Augustinum et contra Hieronymum ; quamvis suae sit modestiae ut hanc dicat sententiam suam esse opinionem. Sed tunc non debuit oppositum vocare errorem. De Hieronymi auctoritate conatus est eam in me retorquere, nec Noe nec Iob nec Daniel stare pro quoquam post mortem, quia ibi de extremo loquatur iudicio; quod ex litera non convincit. Non solum enim [Gal. 6, 5] in extremo iudicio, sed statim etiam post mortem unusquisque onus suum portabit. [Offenb. 5, 3.9.13] Postremo ad aliam accedens particulam, respondit ad illud Apocalypsis quod per sub terra intelligitur infernus. At tunc sequens de cantico stare nequit, quia daemones et damnati non cantant, sed blasphemant et eiulant; quare per sub terra necessario purgatorium et non inferos intelligere potest, quamvis non negem in sacra scriptura etiam daemonum [Phil. 2, 10] fieri mentionem in inferis, ut in apostolo: “caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum”, sed hoc nihil ad rhombum. Adportavit autem glossam [P 59v] [Offenb. 5, 9] super illo verbo cantat, quod sit crucem por|tare et in tribulationibus deum laudare, quam glossam, ut a domino patre hoc loco fictam, ea facilitate contemno. Immo Ioannes non patitur sic se exponi, qui inquit: [Offenb. 5, 9.13] “Cantabant in caelo, in terra”; modo in caelo non portant crucem nec in tribulationibus laudant, quoniam abstersit deus omnem lachrymam ab [Offenb. 21, 4] oculis sanctorum et iam non est labor etc. Quodsi etiam daretur expositio sua ut esset vera, sicut tamen literae repugnat, adhuc hoc propositum non rumperet. Nam laudantes deum in tribulationibus post mortem, certissimum haberent futurae beatitudinis signum, cum damnati contra consummato odio dei in perpetuam prorumpant creatoris blasphemiam. Quare animaex[ x) animae purgandae MU.] de salute securae cantant et deum laudant, terminum purgationis expectantes. Cum vero induxissem canonem missae738 , quo eos dormire in somno pacis asseritur, non patitur illationem meam: si in somno pacis, ergo sunt securi de salute et non in horrore, tremore, pavore et quasi desperatione. Rationem duplicem adduxit; primo, quia sequatur: “ut eis locum refrigerii et lucis et pacis indulgeas”, secundo, quia frequenter oramus: “requiem aeternam dona eis, domine”, et: “dona eis pacem”. Ideo aliam glossam dedit, quod dormiant somno pacis, scilicet quo ad corpus. Non contentor nec obiectione nec nova sua glossa, quae nullam habet apparentiam, nullum quoque fundamentum, nam dicit canon: “Memento eorum etc. qui dormiunt in somno pacis”, et infra: “et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus”, non dicit: in sepulchro quiescentibus. Porro quid refert ad animam, corpus habere pacem vel minus, sive in mare iactetur vel a feris laceretur?, quemadmodum beatus Augustinus testatur ; ecquis hominum patitur corpus exanime et exsangue dormire in pace? Unde distinctiones in neotericis theologis non libenter admittit, et tamen egregie hic de pace distinguit corporis et animae. Quare verior amplectenda est sententia, animas purgandas et dormire in pace et quiescere in Christo. Unde quies illa et pax turbationem [P 60r] animae, horrorem et quasi desperationem | excludit, cum inquietissimae sint animae quae hac turbatione mentis agitantur ut quasi desperent. Ad inducta vero non impendio respondemus, orare nos et obsecrare deum ut det eis pacem, non pacem quam modo habent, securitatis scilicet de salute, sed pacem aeternam; quoniam pax est, ut Bernardus testatur, et a culpa et miseria. Det ergo deus animabus in purgatorio pacem a poenis sicut contulit eis gratiam contra peccatum. Quare adhuc vera et inconcussa est veritas, animas in purgatorio non quasi desperare de salute.
Dominus doctor Martinus.
Contra solutiones replicat egregius dominus doctor ex Augustino dicente: “Omne meritum hic comparatur”, atque agente de purgatorio, quod post mortem solum recipiamus quod egimus. Respondeo brevissime: ergo non est purgatorium aut purgatorium est quod recipitur pro vita praeterita; quare patet Augustinum non posse de purgatorio intelligi. Non enim hoc egerunt in vita praeterita, ut purgatorium reciperent; quamquam et haec auctoritas mihi patrocinetur quod meritum quo merentur iuvari, hic meruerunt. Ego autem fateor intelligere me non posse quomodo iuventur animae in purgatorio et liberentur absque ullo munere gratiae, per solam ablationem poenarum. Intelligat qui potest! Deinde dicit hoc falsum esse venialia non remitti sine augmento gratiae. Quando ergo vult dominus doctor quod venialia possint remitti absque augmento gratiae, non concedo donec probet. Immo est contra [Röm. 7, 14.24f.; vgl. Gal. 5, 17] expressum textum, Romanos v., Galatas v., ubi apostolus dicit: “Venumdatus sum sub peccato”, “quis liberabit me de corpore mortis huius?”; respondet: “Gratia per Iesum Christum”. Certum est autem, apostolum non fuisse in peccato mortali. Caetera relinquo disputationi futurae inter egregios dominos doctores Andream et Ioannem Eccium. Et hoc erroneum est quod veniale peccatum deum non offendat, cum displiceat [Matth. 5, 19] deo omne immundum et reprobet eum qui minima solverit, Matthaei [P 60v] v. Nec probavit dominus doctor sufficere | quod satis patiantur. Secundo criminatur quod nec unam literam pro mea sententia induxerim, cum ipse pro recentiorum theologorum sententia tot scripturae et patrum induxerit auctoritates. Respondeo: eo magis mihi suspecta est eius sententia quo plures induxit, quia per capillos et obtorto collo adduxit, sicut in praecedentibus satis dixi. Minus peccat qui dubitat in cogitationibus suis, quam qui dubia sua verbis divinis nititur statuere. Dicit etiam non constare sibi qui pro articulis fidei opiniones Thomae vel aliorum statuerint, quia ecclesiae lumina cum scriptura adduxerit. Monet ergo, quod videam quos appellem theologistas. Dixi hodie et iterum dico: permitto opiniones esse opiniones neminique hoc vitio verto, sed trahere repugnantem scripturam in aliorumy[ y) alienum MU.] sensum pro firmandis opinionibus et in hoc pertinaciter stare, hoc dico theologistarum esse officium. Ad aliud, de canone librorum, ubi nixus Hieronymi et concilii Florentini auctoritate mavult credere concilio, quod a spiritu sancto regitur, quam mihi —, et gratias ago, pie enim sapit. Nunquam volui mihi credi. Sed respondeo breviter. Conciliet ipse primo Hieronymum sibi, qui in prologo allegato Machabaeorum libros et nonnullos alios manifeste inter apocripha recenset ; qua auctoritate fit, ut mihi liber Machabaeorum sit gratus et probatus, sed contentiosis pateat ad repulsam. Satis hodie de concilio dixi. Immo, ut ipsemet dominus doctor dicit, concilium non errat ; si autem errat, non est concilium. Et ut meo sensu loquar, credo concilium et ecclesiam nunquam errare in his quae sunt fidei; in caeteris non est necesse non errare. Quod vero exclamat latibulum hoc esse haereticorum qui hac fiducia quaslibet expositiones auctoritatum refutarent vel acciperent, respondeo: quare hoc non sunt conquesti sanctus Augustinus, Hieronymus aliique victoriosissimi haereticorum triumphatores?; sed donatis ambiguis [P 61r] locis studuerunt certis et apertis locis pugnare. Hoc | faciamus et de animabus in purgatorio. Ad rem et auctoritates. Ad solutiones auctoritatum dixit, a me contemptos esse Augustinum, Hieronymum, Ambrosium, Bernardum, Gregorium, Isidorum cum Glossa ordinaria. Hoc pro modestia, immo molestia Ecciana dixit, nimis cupidus movendae invidiae. Dixi hodie, non esse contemptos a me, et iterum dico. Quod autem meam glossam non accipit, non curo; probet [1. Kor. 3, 12 – 15] autem ipse et suam, cum textus sit clarus de die domini et igne in quo revelabitur dies domini. Quod etsi potest trahi ad purgatorium, ut dixi, et sic sententiam domini doctoris non reprobavi purgatorium scilicet esse, non tamen potest hac intelligentia oppilari os contentiosum. [Matth. 5, 25] Item et illud Matthaei v. de carcere non contempsi pro Ambrosii sententia. Sed quod addit dominus doctor, verba Christi indicare [Matth. 5, 26] debere solvi usque ad novissimum quadrantem, ideo de inferno intelligi non debere, hoc satis eluitur per divum Hieronymum, qui adversus Helpidium hanc dictionem ‘donec’ recte exponit, quod non cogatur significare quod Ambrosius cum domino doctore hic voluit. Nam sic et [Matth. 1, 25] Matthaei primo scribiturz[ z) + de Ioseph MU.]: “Nec cognovit eam donec peperit filium suum”, et tamen non sequitur quod post partem cognoverit eam Ita hic non sequitur ut sit exiturus post solutionem, sed solvet et non exibit. Quod autem confutavit quod non peccaverit mortaliter dissentiens adversario, atque quod et mortalia, modo sint contrita, et venialia purgentur in purgatorio —, dico quod hic textus non loquitur de contritis mortalibus. Nam contritum mortale iam non est mortale, et poenitens iam non est dissentiens adversario suo. Ergo de dissentiente et sic permanente loquitur Christus. [Pred. 11, 3] Transeo illud de casu ligni apud Ecclesiastem, ubi Hieronymum inducit intelligere per austrum statum bonum, et per aquilonem statum malum. Concedo utrumque, et nihil ad purgatorium. [ P 61v] [Joh. 14, 2] | De mansione apud Ioannem certa, ubi argutatur in hunc modum: quo modo fiet certa, si fiat accessio gratiae, cui debeatur altior mansio? —, potest idem argui de quolibet fideli post baptismum, cui est certa mansio ab aeterno praedestinata. Deinde in purgatorio existentes sic ordinati sunt ut hoc modo ad certam mansionem veniant. Illud etiam humanum argumentum nihil concludit, quod sequeretur descendentem cum pluribus venialibus peccatis melius habiturum esse quam eum qui cum paucis. Si haec ratio bona est, timendum est ne meretrix melior fieret quam beata virgo. Quasi non sint differentes gradus animarum in purgatorio!, cum ipse hodie sanctos velut prae caeteris praestantiores in purgatorio asseruerit. Deinde Sylvestrinum argumentum inducit, quod prodesset eis, si perdurarent in poenis . Nam sic et martyribus expediret usque in diem iudicii mori et pati. Quasi ignoret dominus doctor ad certam mensuram poenas esse animabus constitutas. Non enim damnabile est orare pro [z. B. 1. Thess. 5, 25] mortuis, sicut nec damnabile fuit quod apostolus pro se oravit et orari [2. Kor. 12, 8f.] petiit, cum tamen cresceret virtus eius in infirmitate. Ita quilibet fidelis pro qualibet necessitate cuiuslibet fidelis debet orare, debet adiuvare, non obstante quod ille per necessitatem istam magis ac magis mereatur. Per idem volo solutum quod contra observantiam ecclesiae et pietatem sit, quod dixi animam alienis suffragiis liberatam minus beari quam si per se satis patiatur in purgatorio. Hoc velut corollarium sumpsit ex dictis meis, ubi ego sensi animabus esse succurrendum , quantumlibet perfectius genus meriti esset, iustitiae divinae omnibus modis satisfacere. Damascenum transeo cum termino meriti et remitto ad praecedentia. Item iterum me carpit quod nullo fulcitus testimonio prorogo terminum meriti, ipse autem nitatur multis et neget. Respondeo: nullis nititur et ipse nisi violenter intellectis, ut satis dictum est. [P 62r] Capere etiam me in verbis meis volens dicit, me appellas se sententiam meam opinionem; ergo male oppositum errorem appellaverim. Dico sicut prius, non solum opinionem sed et ignorantiam appello meam sententiam. Errorem appellavi non contrariam opinionem, sed quod opinionem pro veritate statuunt. Deinde auctoritatem Hieronymi de Noe, Iob et Daniele dicit valere non tantum pro extremo iudicio; nec possim hoc convincere ex litera. Relinquo hoc iudicio melius sentientis, cum manifeste textus habeat quod pro homine ad tribunal — quod in morte fit — rapto nec Noe nec Daniel nec Iob orent. Quod omnino de iudicio extremo intelligi oportet, aut saltem non de purgatorio, quia pro mortuis in purgatorio orant Noe, Iob, Daniel et omnis ecclesia. [Offenb. 5, 3.9] Ad auctoritatem Apocalypsis recte dicit quod daemones sub terra non cantant sed blasphemant etc., ... Dominus doctor Martinus exclusus tempore, cum iam duae horae transiissent, obtulit se ad reliqua in scriptis tradenda notariis et primum domino doctori Eccio exhibenda. Obtulit autem infrascripta per notarium suum. Quod daemones in inferno non laudant sed blasphemant deum, scio. Sed quod ideo subtus terram significet purgatorium, in quo cantent animae, non sequitur; primum, quod sunt in tribulationibus et poenis, necdum [Offenb. 21, 4] abstersit deus omnem lachrymam ab oculis earum. Dominus doctor autem negat cantare esse in tribulationibus laudare deum, ideo contra seipsum loquitur, dum subtus terram in purgatorio laudem ponit simul et poenas in quibus non laudent. Nego autem et ego quod animae ideo cantent, quia habent certissimum signum beatitudinis. Hoc enim signum certissimum [Offenb. 5, 3.13] fuit probandum. Deinde ego sub terram non dixi significare solum infernum, sed et alia, quaecunque sub terra sunt, in quibus omnibus laus [Jes. 6, 3] dei abundat. Omnia enim sunt plena gloria et laude dei, qui laudabilis [Ps. 144 (145), 3.17] est in omnibus operibus suis. Alioquin oportet dominum doctorem non solum purgatorium per subtus terram intelligere sed etiam aliquod quartum [P 62v] [Offenb. 5, 13] per subtus mare, | cum eodem Apocalypsis v. etiam subtus mare recitetur et omnia quae in eo sunt. Rectius ergo creaturas omnes hoc quaternario intelligimus significatas quam ea quae dominus doctor Eccius imaginatur. Quod autem in tribulationibus laudare deum sit cantare, probo non [Röm. 5, 3] esse a me fictum, ut dominus doctor dicit, quia Romanos v. dicit: “Gloriamur [Ps. 41 (42), 9] in tribulationibus”, et Psalmus xli.: “In die mandavit dominus misericordiam suam et nocte — id est tribulatione — canticum eius”, et [Jak. 5, 13] Iacobi v.: “Tristatur aliquis, oret aequo animo et psallat”, item: “Benedicam [Ps. 33 (34), 2] domino in omni tempore”; omni inquit tempore, etiam adverso. [Ps. 48 (49), 19] Contra vituperatur ille, de quo Psalmus: “Confitebitur tibi cum benefeceris ei”. Fateor autem hoc me non dixisse de damnatis subtus terram, sed ut excluderem sententiam domini doctoris volentis quod cantare sit tantum de beatitudinis securitate in purgatorio. De canone missae non est contentus quod dormire in pace ad corpus retuli, quia dicit canon: “in Christo quiescentibus”, non: in sepulchro quiescentibus; porro: quid referat ad animam, corpus in mari aut aere versari ac non quiescere?; item: quis, inquit, corpus exanime dicat dormire in pace?. Respondeo: nihil ista argutia valet. Nam quiescentes in sepulchro aut ubilibet secundum corpus iactati vere quiescunt [Offenb. 14, 13] in Christo, hoc est ut Apocalypsis xiiii., requiescunt a laboribus suis, videlicet quod separata anima a corpore iam non laborat in corpore in variis huius mundi molestiis. Alioquin quomodo Christi corpus in sepulchro negabit dormire in pace et requiescere in deo?; cum in tot [Ps. 4, 9] locis de eo sic loquatur scriptura et cantet ecclesia: “In pace in idipsum [3698] [Ps. 15 (16), 9] dormiam et requiescam”; et Psalmo xv.: “Et caro mea requiescet in spe”; [Offenb. 14, 13] item Apokalypsis xiiii.: “Beati qui moriuntur in domino”; item Stephanus, [Apg. 7, 59] Actuum viii., obdormivit in domino, quod sine dubio de corporali [P 63r] morte tropo scripturae dicitur. Si Eccio non dormit | corpus exanime, sinat, quaeso, illud dormire suscitatori deo et scripturae auctoritati. In fine dicit, orari a nobis pro pace, non quam habent sed quam habere a miseria poenarum contingat purgatis. Respondeo. Haec est petitio principii, quia pax illa securitatis, quam habeant, nondum est probata. Relinquitur ergo quod in poena sunt, et ut ab hac solvantur et pacem habeant, oremus. Haec omnia sic volo dixisse, ut ostendam me ignarum esse eorum quae in purgatorio agat deus, et nimio eos audere qui huius ignorantiae impatientes potius fingere volunt sua quam confiteri sese ignorare. Mea probare non possum, sed nec illi sua. Quare recte mea conclusio id tantum voluit, esse nec scripturis nec rationibus probatum, animas certas esse saltem omnes de salute sua et gratiam in eis non augeri. Sufficiat quod scimus eas pati et nos debere eis succurrere. Caetera deo relinquenda soli.
Acta sunt haec in praesentia honorabilium virorum Ioannis Teuber Vueysman et Barptolomaei Schaller Ernfridsdorffensis Bambergensis et Misnensis dioecesis laicorum testium ad praemissa requisitorum specialiter et vocatorum, die solis decima mensis Iulii in solito disputationis loco, hora meridiana vel quasi. Dominus doctor Eccius sequentia obtulit in scheda quadam die lunae, undecima mensis Iulii, mane hora septima.
Solutiones reverendi patris apparent mihi insufficientes, potissimum quod Augustinum dicat non loqui de purgatorio cum maxime hoc agat, scilicet de purgatorio: “Neque negandum est animas defunctorum pietate suorum viventium relevari cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur vel eleemosynae in ecclesia fiunt. Sed haec eis prosunt qui, cum viverent, ut [P 63v] haec sibi postea prodesse possent me | ruerunt. Est enim vivendi modus nec tam bonus ut non requirat illa post mortem nec tam malus ut ei non prosint post mortem. Quocirca hic omne meritum comparatur, quo possit post hanc vitam relevari quispiam vel gravari”.I nunc, Lutthere, et dic Augustinum hic non de purgatorio loquutum. Praeterea non probat, ad deletionem peccati venialis requiri augmentum gratiae. Fateor, augmentum gratiae tollere aliquando veniale, sed etiam veniale tollitur satispassione. Unde apostolus allegatus ad [Röm. 7, 14.24f.] Romanos septimo non loquitur de veniali peccato; porro si loqueretur, satispassionem non excluderet. At de eius consensu velut impertinente nihil dico in praesentia. Veniale, fateor, offendit sed venialiter, quia hominem in odio dei non constituit nec inimicum dei facit, quod alioquin cum gratia non staret. Ideo in purgatorio quidem habent peccata venialia citra inimicitiam dei. At quod causatur, me torquere auctoritates per capillos ad propositum —, dispeream si tota disputatione vel unam adduxerit auctoritatem tam pertinentem sicut ego hic adduxi. Sed hoc iudicent iudices, non Luttherus. Indignatur, cur non et Augustinus et Hieronymus causati sint hoc latibulum haereticorum quod dixi. Bone deus, si non ubique clamet Augustinus contra Pelagianos, Cyprianus et Ambrosius contra Arrianos et Novatianos, eos pro arbitrio interpretari sacram scripturam! Petit, quod probem meam sententiam, cum suam probare non possit. Meam vero probatam iudicum relinquo iudicio. De ‘donec’ alia est ratio Hieronymi ad Helpidium, quia aliunde probatur ex scriptura Mariam semper mansisse virginem. Igitur ‘donec’ [Matth. 1, 25] ibidem non dicit consummationem, quod hic non potest facere. Porro de rationibus meis gratia brevitatis non moror. Sed quod dixit, me certum fecisse ex dictis suis, quod animae suffragiis viventium liberatae minus beentur, male mihi imponit nec enim mihi somnia fingo. [P 64r] Refert enim in di|lutione adnotationum mearum, noluisse Paschalem sua sibi minui praemia, ideo maluisse ardere. Sed missa haec facio et iudicibus committo. Porro, non nego quin in tribulationibus quis laudet deum, sed hoc [Offenb. 5, 9.13] loco accipi non potest, quod et in caelo cantare eos dicit cum ab illis [Offenb. 21, 4] absterserit deus omnem lachrymam. Unde liquet lectori, quomodo sententiam meam invertat. Unde animae in purgatorio cantant, secundum Ioannem, deo, et quaero, causam explicet incertitudinis gloriae. Quare falsissime comminiscitur, quod contra me ipsum loquar. Unde non nego, bonos gloriari in tribulationibus et cantare, sed negavi illam glossam quam [Offenb. 5, 9] ipse finxit, quod cantare sit in tribulationibus deum laudare. Alioquin angeli non canerent deo et beati! Quod errorem patentissimum defendere conatur, scilicet animas dormire somno pacis quo ad corpus etc., quoniam anima separata a corpore non laboret in corpore variis molestiis —, vide vafriciem, quia cum solvendo ad corpus retulisset in sepulchro quiescens , iam se transfert ad quietem animae a laboribus corporis. Sed heus bone vir, est hoc quiescere a laboribus, quia videlicet non in corpore molestias patiatur, tamen incomparabiliter maiores molestias sentiat extra corpus in anima? Quid iuvat, si quiesco a febre et infestor calculo? De Christi quiete aliud est, resurrectionem absque corruptione [Offenb. 14, 3] expectante. Beati ergo qui moriuntur in domino. Sed quis dicturus est corpus beatum nisi per redundantiam animae in corpus? Sic et de beato [Apg. 7, 59f.] Stephano, qui in domino obdormivit. Deinde inquit me petere principium: sunt in pace et tamen eis petimus pacem. Et quia ridiculum est referre pacem habitam ad corpus, sequitur illam esse in anima scientia securitatis. Quod ait, se sua probare non posse, reputo verissimum. Contra alii sua probant, quamvis pertinax et cervicosus etiam demonstrationibus non acquiescat, quoniam semper contenderet, non esse demonstrationem; [P 64v] velut Gregorius Arimi|nensis et Petrus Aliacensis Aristoteli faciunt in rationibus de primo motore, in septimo et octavo Physicorum. Quare cum communi concludo sententia, et in purgatorio gratiam non augeri et eas certas esse de salute.
Addendum #3 William Webster on the Importance of the Glossa Ordinaria
William Webster has done excellent work on the status of the Apocrypha throughout history. The material below was extracted from his response to a Roman Catholic apologist. The same content is found here. I did a little editing, mostly by checking and revising some of his references (which is noted below). Why highlight the Glossa Ordinaria? This was a standard and acceptable reference that Martin Luther used to formulate his views on the Apocrypha. Mr. Webster does an excellent job on demonstrating the historical importance of the Glossa Ordinaria.
The Glossa Ordinaria
The Ordinary Gloss, known as the Glossa ordinaria, is an important witness to the view of the Western Church on the status of the Apocrypha because it was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance:
A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of "glosses" on the text of a given manuscript. The earliest Glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century…Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries…So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and ‘the bible of scholasticism’ (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Glossa Ordinaria; Glosses, Biblical, pp. 515-516). [Beggars All: here is a link to the second edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia with the same information found on pages 246-247].
Karlfried Froehlich summarizes the importance, authority and influence of the Glossa ordinaria on the Middle Ages:
For medieval Christians this tool was supremely necessary, indispensable for the reading of the sacred book which could not be understood without it. In their preface of 1617, taking up Peter Lombards remark about the Gloss as the tongue of Scripture, the Douai theologians gave voice to this sentiment. Many generations, they suggested, thought of this collection of scriptural interpretation so highly that they called it the normal tongue (glossa ordinaria), the very language (lingua) of Scripture, as it were. When Scripture speaks with it, we understand. But when we read the sacred words without it, we think we hear a language which we do not know (Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret Gibson, Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria, Introduction to the Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassborg 1480/81 (BrepolsTurnhout, 1992) Karlfried Froehlich, The Printed Gloss, p. XXVI.
Alister McGrath adds these comments:
…the Glossa Ordinaria may be regarded as a composite running commentary upon the text of the bible, characterized by its brevity, clarity and authoritativeness, drawing upon the chief sources of the patristic period…So influential did this commentary become that, by the end of the twelfth century, much biblical commentary and exegesis was reduced to restating the comments of the gloss (Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), p. 126).
[Beggars All: here is the same quote from the revised edition: ...the Glossa Ordinaria may be regarded as a composite and extended running commentary upon the text of the Bible, characterized by its brevity, clarity, and authoritativeness, drawing upon the chief sources of the patristic period... So influential did this commentary become that, by the end of the twelfth century, much biblical commentary and exegesis was reduced to restating the comments of the gloss (Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the Reformation, pp. 123-124).]
The work consisted of standard commentaries on the books of the Bible by major Church fathers and theologians from the Carolingian period. The principal Church fathers and theologians who provided authoritative commentary in the Gloss are described by Margaret Gibson:
Ultimately the principal contributor to the Gloss–the giant who bears it on his shoulders is Jerome. He was responsible for the text of the Bible, for many of the explanatory prefaces to individual books, and for the learned and comprehensive exegesis of most of the Old Testament and part of the New. Behind Jerome stands Origen, whose work was known directly to Jerome but to later scholars indirectly (and partially) in Rufinus translation. Augustine contributed to Genesis and Ambrose to Luke; Cassiodorus to the Psalms, and Gregory the Great at least to Job and perhaps to Ezekiel and the Gospels. The next great figure is Bede. He is the leading player in Ezra/Nehemiah, Mark, the Acts of the Apostles and the Canonical Epistles. The basic material from Jerome to Bede, was edited in the ninth century by Rabanus Maurus, who commented the entire Old Testament (except Baruch) and much of the New. Paschasius Radbertus supplied a commentary on Lamentations and revised Jerome’s commentary on Matthew (Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret Gibson, Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria, Introduction to the Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassborg 1480/81 (Brepols–Turnhout, 1992), The Glossed Bible, pp. VIII-IX).
The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome. For example, the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and noncanonical books or Apocryphal books:
Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.
Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and noncanonical books, catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon:
There are, then, twenty-two canonical books of the old testament, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, as Eusebius reports, in book six of Ecclesiastical History, that Origen writes on the first Psalm; and Jerome says the same thing more fully and distinctly in his Helmeted Prologue to the books of Kings: All the books are divided into three parts by the Jews: into the law, which contains the five books of Moses; into the eight prophets; and into the nine hagiographa. This will be more clearly seen shortly. Some, however, separate the book of Ruth from the book of Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah from Jeremiah, and count them among the hagiographa in order to make twenty-four books, corresponding to the twenty-four elders whom the Apocalypse presents as adoring the lamb. These are the books that are in the canon, as blessed Jerome writes at greater length in the Helmeted Prologue to the books of Kings.
In the first place are the five books of Moses, which are called the law, first of which is Genesis, second Exodus, third Leviticus, fourth Numbers, fifth Deuteronomy. Secondly follow the eight prophetic books, first of which is Joshua, second the book of Judges together with Ruth, third Samuel, i.e. first and second Kings, fourth Malachim, i.e. third and fourth Kings, fifth Isaiah, sixth Jeremiah with Lamentations, seventh Ezekiel, eighth the book of twelve prophets, first of which is Hosea, second Joel, third Amos, fourth Obadiah, fifth Jonah, sixth Micah, seventh Nahum, eighth Habakkuk, ninth Zephaniah, tenth Haggai, eleventh Zechariah, twelfth Malachi. Thirdly follow the nine hagiographa, first of which is Job, second Psalms, third Solomons Proverbs, fourth his Ecclesiastes, fifth his Song of Songs, sixth Daniel, seventh Paralipomenon, which is one book, not two, among the Jews, eighth Ezra with Nehemiah (for it is all one book), ninth Esther. And whatever is outside of these (I speak of the Old Testament), as Jerome says, should be placed in the apocrypha (Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali. Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498. British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward. See also Walafrid Strabo, Glossa ordinaria, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris. PL 113:19-24).
Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and noncanonical books, catalogues the precise books [which are] the noncanonical Apocrypha:
These are the books that are not in the canon, which the church includes as good and useful books, but not canonical. Among them are some of more, some of less authority. For Tobit, Judith, and the books of Maccabees, also the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are strongly approved by all. Thus Augustine, in book two of De Doctrina Christiana, counts the first three among canonical books; concerning Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, he says they deserved to be received as authoritative and should be numbered among the prophetic books; concerning the books of Maccabees, in book 18 of the City of God, speaking of the books of Ezra, he says that, although the Jews do not consider them canonical, the church considers them canonical because of the passions of certain martyrs and powerful miracles. Of less authority are Baruch and Third and Fourth Ezra. For Augustine makes no mention of them in the place cited above, while he included (as I have said) other apocryphal works among the canonical. Rufinus as well, in his exposition of the creed, and Isidore, in book 6 of the Etymologies, where they repeat this division of Jerome, mentioned nothing of these other books.
And that we might enumerate the apocryphal books in the order in which they appear in this Bible, even though they have been produced in a different order, first come the third and fourth books of Ezra. They are called Third and Fourth Ezra because, before Jerome, Greeks and Latins used to divide the book of Ezra into two books, calling the words of Nehemiah the second book of Ezra. These Third and Fourth Ezra are, as I have said, of less authority among all non-canonical books. Hence Jerome, in his prologue to the books of Ezra, calls them dreams. They are found in very few Bible manuscripts; and in many printed Bibles only Third Ezra is found. Second is Tobit, a very devout and useful book. Third is Judith, which Jerome says in his prologue had been counted by the Nicene Council in the number of holy scriptures. Fourth is the book of Wisdom, which almost all hold that Philo of Alexandria, a most learned Jew, wrote. Fifth is the book of Jesus son of Sirach, which is called Ecclesiasticus. Sixth is Baruch, as Jerome says in his prologue to Jeremiah. Seventh is the book of Maccabees, divided into first and second books…Further, it should be known that in the book of Esther, only those words are in the canon up to that place where we have inserted: the end of the book of Esther, as far as it is in Hebrew. What follows afterward is not in the canon. Likewise in Daniel, only those words are in the canon up to that place where we have inserted: The prophet Daniel ends. What follows afterward is not in the canon (Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward. See also Walafrid Strabo, Glossa ordinaria, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris. PL 113:19-24).
[This was] all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church. We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment