Trollope on Article XXII: Of Purgatory

Although the title speaks of Purgatory 2\onSj the Article itself condemns four otner doctrines of the Romish Church, which are either based upon tiiatof Purgatory, or intimately connected with it: namely, PardcM^ the Worship qf Imagetf the Adoration qf Belies^ and the Invocation qf Saints*

2. What is the doctrine of the Church of Borne concerning Purgatory ?

It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome that, besides Heaven and HeU, there is a third place called Purgatory set apart for the purging or purification of departed souls between death and the resurrection. It this place, and in a state of suffering by fire which differs from that of Hell only in duration, the pious are condemned to bear the punish- ment of those venial slips and failings which do not merit eternal perdition ; but which, not coming within the object of Christ’s death and intercession, and not having been fully expiated by acts of penance during life, require a further cleansing lefore the soul can be admitted into Heaven. The period of detention in Purgatory varies according to the number and matude of the sins to be expiated ; but it may be considerably reduced by the prayers of the faithful, by alms and devotions, and by the sacrifice of the Mass.

ABTICIiB XXII. 93

3. Gire references to the principal passages of Scripture upon which a belief in Purgatory is founded.

The passages from the Old Tiestament (Gen.iii.24. 1 Sam. xxxi. 33. 2 Sam. i. 12. Psal. Ixvi. 12. Isai. ix. 38, 19. Micah vii. 9. Zech. ix. 11. Mai. iii. 2.), which were once adduced in support of the doctrine, have been more recently abandoned ; and its main prop, being derived from the Apocrypha (2 Mace. xii. 32. sqq.), does not, even did it prove the point, carry with it the weight of Scripture. From the New Testament the principal authorities are Matt, v. 25, 26. xii. 32. 1 Cor. iii. 10. sqq. 1 Pet. iii. 19.

4. How is the first text from St. Matthew

understood by the Romanists ; and what is its true

import ?

According to the Romish view of this passage, the

farthings are venial mis, for which satis&ction is to be made

in the prison of Purgatory ; whereas it is clear that, rig^htly

interpreted, it represents the eternal punishment which the

Almighty Judge will inflict on those who fail, during the

§ resent life, to make their peace with him, through the me- iation of Jesus Christ.

5. Set aside the Romish penrersion oi the second

text.

It appears from the parallel texts in Mark (iii. 29.) and Luke (xii. 10.), that our Lord’s declaration respecting the sin against the Holv G-host, for which he says that there will be foi^iveness * neither in this world, neither in the ’ world to come/ is merely a form of expression implying that it will never be forgiven. On the otoer hand the Ro- manist iufera that as this sin wiU not be forgiven in the world to come, there are some sins that will ; and that in Purgatory.

6. Shew that the Apostle’s argument to the Corinthians does not bear in any wise on the doctrine of Purgatory,

St. Paul is here speaking of certain teachers, who, in raising the superstructure of the Christian Church upon the

94 QUESTIONS jLND AITSWSBS OK

foundation laid by the Apoedes, employed different mate- rials, as goldt silveTf and preeiaus stones on the one hand, and mood, hay, stttbble, on the other, or true and erroneous doctrines respectively, for the work. Those, he continues, whose works abide tue fiery trial of the divine judjpment, wiU receive a reward ; whereas false teachers, even if they escape at all, will yet be saved so as by Jire: which is a figrurative expression, implying a narrow escape from immi- nent perdition. Compai’e Amos iv. 11. 1 Pet. i. 7. Jude 23. Upon what ground the Romanists interpret these eombtu^ tiole materials of venial sins, passing through the Jire qf Purgatory f it is somewhat difficult to conceive.

7. What are the Romish and the correct inter- pretations of St. Peter’s remark respecting the preaching of Christ to the Spirits in prison ?

According to the Romanists, the prison, in which St. Peter represents Christ as preaching to the Antediluvian sinners, is Purgatory ; but that view of the passage seems to be more reasonable, as it is also more generally received, which regards the preaching to be that of Noah, inspired by the Spirit of Christ, to the wicked spirits who are rwm in Hades.

8. Have any other texts of the New Testament been urged in support of the doctrine of Purgatory ; and is any weight to be attached to them ?

Certain other texts (Matt. v. 22. Luke xvi. 9. zxiii. 42. Acts ii. 24. 1 Cor. xv. 29. Phil. ii. 10. Heb. xii. 23. 1 Pet. iv. 18. Rev. V. 3.) have been occasionally urged in support of a Purgatory ; out they are now very generally given up : and indeed a living prelate of the Romish Church admits that even the passages, upon which the greatest reliance is placed, lead to * no certain results,’ and only ’ guide us to * some striking probabilities.’ Moreover the terms, Hades^ Paradise, and AhrahanCs bosom, wherever they occur in the New Testament, are understood by the Romanists to mean Purgatory; although the plainest declarations of Scripture are totally at variance with such an interpre- tation.

9. Prove that this doctrine is not only unauthor- ized, but contradicted by Scripture.

Not only are the Scriptures altogether Bilent respecting any intermediate state or pain and punishment after death, from which the merits of Christ cannot deliver us ; but the GFospel represents Lazarus as removed at once to happiness in Abraham! 8 bosom (Luke xvi. 22.)) and the penitent thief as receiving* our Lord’s promise to be in Paradise on the veiy day of his death (Luke xxiii. 43.). St. Paul exults in the idea of * departing to be with Christ’ (Phil. ii. 23.), and of being * absent from the body, and present with the Lord ’ (2 Cor. V. 8.). St. John too j)roclaims the ’ blessedness of ^ the dead which die in the Lord ’ to consist in ’ rest from ’ their labours ;’ which assuredly could not be the case in Purgatory : and with respect to tne all-sufiioiency of Christ’s atonement, it is asserted m the most explicit and unqualified terms, that * the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin’ (I John i. 7.), and that ’ there is now no condemnation to ‘them which are in Christ Jesus.’

10. Give a brief outline of the rise and progress of the doctrine of Purgatory.

During the first four centuries of the Christian sera the doctrine of Purgatory was altogether unknown ; and the confused ideas respecting it, which had sprung up in the two following centuries, were, in the beginning or the 7th century, moulded into form by Pope Gregory the Great. The doctrine was formerly adopted by the Councils of Flor- ence (A.D. 1439.) and of Trent (a.d. 1564.) ; and the Trent catechism teaches (i. 5. 5.) that ’ there is a fire of Purga- ‘tory, wherein the souls of the pious, for a certain deter- ’ minate term, are cleansed by sufferings, so that an entrance * may be opened into the kingdom of Heaven, into which ‘shall enter nothing that defileth.’

11. Do not the Romanists however assert an earlier origin of the doctrine in connexion with the practice of Prayer for the Dead ?

The Romanists maintain indeed that there is an insepar- able connexion between Puraatory and Prayer for the dead ; Inasmuch as it is neeoless to pray for the saints in heaven, and useless to pray for the condemned in Hell. Hence they infer the contemporaneous origin of the doc<* trine, and the practice which is said to rest upon it ; or rather, they would assign an earlier date to tne former:

whereas it is historioally certain that the custom of praying for the dead hegan in the end of the second century, long before any notion of a Purgatory existed in the Church.

12. What gave rise to the connexion of the doctrine and practice ; and are they necessarily connected ?

It was soon seen that the efficacy of Masses to redeem the souls of the departed from purgatorial sufferings, would become a fruitful source of emolument to the Clergy, and the one was accordingly appended to the other ; but the doctrine and practice are so lair from being necessarily connected, that the latter, witiiout such connexion, is comparatively inoffensive.

13. How has the Church of England expressed her sentiments with respect to Purgatory and Pray- ing for the dead respectively?

While the Church of England has authoritatively con- demned the doctrine of Pur^tory, she has given no direct statement of her opinion with respect to Prayer for the dead. At the same time the nature of that opinion may readily be inferred from the gradual removal of every trace of such prayers from her public formularies, and especially from the Prayer for the Chureh Militant, In the JLiturgy of 1549, this prayer contained a petition that God womd shew mercy to the departed ; in that of 1552, the petition was omittm ; and in our present Liturgv it has been suc- ceeded by a thanksgiving for those who have ’ departed ia ’ God*8 faith and fear,’ &c. with a petition that tne living may * follow their good examples.’

14. May not Prayer for the dead, however, be regarded as a charitable service ; and, as such, can it be open to censure ?

Piayer for the dead may doubtless have originated in the best and warmest affections of our nature ; and as offBred in the primitive Church for the * consummation of the bliss of the pious dead, without any I’eference to the fiction of Pur- gatory, might be free from any direct afiront to the Al- mighty. Still, as the Scriptures lead us clearly to believe

ARTICLB xxir. 97

that all Buoh prayers will be utterly useless, in behalf of those whose future destiny is finally sealed by death ; and might with eG[ual, if not ^ater, appearance of charity, be extended to intercession for the condemned in Hell ; they will partake perhaps of the nature of mill-morship rather than Christian obedience, and thus become offensive to the majesty of Heaven.

16. What were the Pardons of the primitive Church, and how were they abused ?

The word Pardon was applied, in the primitive Church, to the mitigation of ecclesiastical censures and penalties ; a power being vested in the bishops to relax or remit, accord- ing to circumstances, the sentence of penance or excommu- nication denounced by the Church against offenders. This power was abused to the purpose of promoting the wealth of the Clergy ; and at length assumed a most flagrant character under the name of InatUgenoes,

16. What do you mean by Indulgences j and what is the doctrine of the Bomanists respecting them?

past, Chu]

Indvlgenoea are pardons extended to all kinds of sins, st, present, and future. It is the doctrine of the Romish yhurch, that *the Roman Pontiff may, for reasonable ’ causes, by his Apostolical authority grant Indulgences out ^ qf the superabundant merits of Cnrist and tne Saints; * whereby all persons, whether Uving or dead, are delivered *from so much temporal punishment, due according to ‘divine justice for their actual sins, as is equivalent to the ’ value of the Indulgence bestowed and received.’

17. When and in what did Indulgences origi- nate ; what great result did they bring about ; and upon what principle do they rest ?

Urban II. set the scheme on foot, in the 11th century, as an inducement to serve in the Crusades ; and the extrava- gance to which thev were afterwards carried was the moi*e

• Purgatory ;’ and they are supported by the assertion that

98 QUBSTIOirS AUCD AKBWBBS ON

’ not only forgiveness may be had in the Oatholio Church, ’ bat that she nas the power to foi^ve sins.’

18. Quote a text from St. Peter, which proves that the practice of the Romisli Church with regard to Indulgences is unscriptural.

St. Peter expressly declares that it is not ‘with cor- ’ ruptible things, as silver and gold,’ that we are redeemed ; but * with the precious blood of Christi as of a lamb without * blemish and without spot’ (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) [See also under Art. xiv.]

19. Distinguish between Religiow and Idolatrous worship.

Beligioua worship is the veneration and homage (vene-’ ratio et adoratio) due to the true God, and offered in spirit and in truth (John iv. 24.) ; and Idolatry is not only the worshipping of a false God, but the worshipping of the true God through any image or representation, as forbidden in the second Commandment.

20. Whence does it appear that the primitive Christians had no images in their Churches ?

It is certain that the early Christians had no images in their Churches, from the fact that the heathen thence in- ferred that they worshipped no deity at aU ; and from the nature of the argument directed against image-worship by the earlv Christian writers, which uiey grounded upon the spiritual nature of God, as described in the Scriptures.

21. Give a brief statement of the rise and pro- gress of Image-worship in the Christian Church.

Images seem to have been first introduced into Churches during the fifth century. The first instance of the kind is mentioned by Epiphanius, who destroyed a representation of the Saviour in a Church in Palestine, becaiiselie regarded it as a violation of the divine command. From this period, however, the custom of placing images in Churches gradually became general; and, though designed at first as merely ornamental tributes to the memory of departed Saint^ the veneration paid to them became at length so gnroasly idola-

•

▲&TICLB 2LXII. 09

trou8, that in a CouDoil held at Gonstantmople (a. d. 754.) the praotice was authoritatively condemned. The memor- able Iconoclast oontroversy rorthwith ensued^ different Popes and different Councils espoused different sides of the question ; and the Council of Trent at last decreed that * due ’ worship should be ^iven to images ;* but their use was re- jected at the Reformation, as being-plainly repugnant to^the word of God.

22. State the arguments by which the Ro- manist defends the use of images ; and shew that it is inadmissible. •

The Romanists sometimes pretend that they do not wor- ship images, but God through the medium of images, wh^h are merely the fulcrum on which they rest their thoughts, and the aid by which they bring the real object of adoration more vividly before them. It is clear however that this distinction must be utterly beyond the reach of ordinary worshippers ; not to mention that the divine command is express against any use whatsoever of images in worship. Moses says indeed that the Israelites * saw no similitude ‘when the Lord spake unto them’ (Deut. iv. 16.), for the very purpose that they might not corrupt themselves by making an emblematic representation or the Deity ; and hence the worship of the Golden Calf, which appears to have been regarded merely as a s^bol of the true God, was nevertheless most severely punished. In order to elude the constant warning of the second Commandment, the Church of Rome, omits it in her public services ; and, to keep up the stated number, she divides the tenth into two.

23. Prove that the worship of Images is alto- gether at variance with the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Since the Jews were never again addicted to Idolatry after their return from Babylon, our Saviour does not allu^ to it in the Gospels ; but St. Paul was greatly moved by the gross idolatries of the learned and polite Athenians, and reasoned with them on the absurdity of ’ thinking that the ’ Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by ’ art or man’s device ’ (Acts xvii. 29.). Ag^n, in writing to the Romans, he denounces Good’s anrer against those who ’ changed the glory of the unoorruptiole God into an image

100 QUBSTiairs asd aitswebs ov

• made like to oorraptible man, and to birds, and four-footed

• beasts, and creeping thin^ ;’ thereby ’ chang^g^ the truth of ’ God into a lie, and worshipping and serving the creature • more than the Cieater ’ (Rom. i. 23. 25.) : and he commends the faith of the Thessalonians, who had * turned from idols

• to serve the living and true God * (I Thess. i. 9.). * Little ‘Children,’ writes St. John, ‘keep yourselves from idols’ (lJohnv.21.).

24. What do you mean by Relics j and what was the origin and progress of the veneration at- tached to them ? *

Belies are the remains, real or supposed* of the bodies or clothing of the Apostles and earW martyrs, the instru- ments of torture bv which they su^red, or any thing of which they are said to have been possessed. It was natural that in the first days of the Gospel every mark of respect should be paid to the memories of those who had perished in its cause; and the religious meeting^ of the primitive Christians were very commonly held near the places where they were buried. It was not, however, till the fourth century that their relics were supposed to be endued with miraculous power as preservatives against natural and spiritual evils ; and shortly afterwards a violent dispute arose between Yigilantius and Jerome on the subject : but although the latter warmly maintains that miracles had sometimes been wrought by them, he is equalhr earnest in disclaiming all idea of making them objects of worship. The pretendeid discovery of the true cross by the empress Helena among the ruins of Jerusalem, led to the fabrication of an inexhaustible supply of relics, which the frauds of the monks, and the cupiaity of the Papal see, imposed upon the credulity and superstition of the people ; till at length the Council of Trent decreed that the glory of God is increased by reverencing the remains and ashes of the martyrs and saints, and all the Romish Churches are supplied with an abundant store of these venerated im- postures.

25. Shew that the Adoration of Belies receives no sanction from the Scriptures.

The burial of the body of Moses in a * sepulchre which ’ no man knew of’ (Deut. xxziv. 6.), seems to have been

intended to prevent any propensity of the Israelites to worship it; tne miracles wrought by the bones of Elijah (2 Kings xiii, 21.) were not followed by any superstitious veneration of them ; and Hezekiah’s conduct, in destroying the brazen serpent which Moses had made, was commended because the children of Israel burned incense to it (2 Kings xviii. 4.). These examples afford convincing arguments against the Romish practice. In those earfy times too, when the most valuable relics could have been obtained, the garments of our Lord passed, without an attempt at their recovery, into the possession of his executionera ; his cross was sought for above tiiree hundred years afterwards in the neglected rubbish among which it was supposed to lie; devout men buried the body of the Proto-martyr Stephen (Acts viii. 2.) ; and the handkerchiefs and dprons, which wrought special miracles for the sick in consequence of their contact with St. Paul’s body (Acts xix. 11, 12.), are not even said to have been preserved, much less to have been adored.

26. What is the meaning of the word Saint ?

The term Saint, as employed in Scripture, belongs to Christians in general, as persons ordained bv God {saticitiy and by abbreviation sancti) to be investea with certain privileges ; but the Romanists confine it to the Apostles and martyrs, and other individuals, sometimes of very question- able sanctity, whose works of supererogation have obtained for them the honour of Canonization.

27. What is the doctrine of the Church of Borne respecting* the Invocation of Saints ?

It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome that ’ saints * reiniing with Christ, offer their prayers to God for men ; ’ and that it is useful to invoke tnem in order to procure ‘their assistance in asking God for blessings through ‘Christ.’

28. In what does the practice seem to have originated; and at what period had it become general ?

On the anniversaries of the death of the early martyrs, it was usual to pronounce an eulogistic oration over their

K-2

[…]

graves, in which the speaker would soraetimes indulge in the idea that the departed was interceding for his suffering friends on earth, * if he had any sense or knowledge of what ’ was doing here helow.’ By an easy transition, these quali- fied expressions passed at length into a direct petition for the intercession of the Saints in their hehali ; and the practice naturally grew up in connexion with the reverence paid to Relics. &reat indeed, it might be argued, must be the influence of the beatified spirit, if the corruptible re- mains were endued with such miraculous energies. Thus at length they were invoked as mediators between God and man; kingdoms as well as individuals had their patron Saints; Churches and monasteries were erected to their honour; and at length, in the beginning of the tenth century, Saint-worship in general, and that of the Virg^in in particular, became an established practice in the Chris- tian Church.

29. What is the name by which the anniver- sary commemorations of the early martyrs were designated f

They were called Nataiitia ; because the martyr’s ad- mission to the joy of heaven was regained as another JVativity,

30. How do the Eomanists attempt to justify the practice of praying to the Saints I

They allege that the degree of worship which is paid to God IS of a more exalted character than that which they pay to the Saints; of which the former is denominated Aarp€ta, and the latter dovXeia. Of this last ajg^ain they recognize two degrees, whereof that paid to the Virgin, and called vnepdovXeia, is superior to that of which the Saints in general are the objects.

31. What is the negative argument by which the judicious Hooker proves that Saint-worship is unjustifiable?

In one of his Sermons, Hooker speaks thus : — ’ Against

• invocation of any other than God alone, if all argument

• else should fail, the number whereof is both great and ‘forcible, yet this very bar and single challenge might

’ suffice : that whereas God hath in Scripture delivered us

• so many patterns for imitation when we pray ; yea, framed

• ready to our hands, in a manner, all suits and supplica-

• tions, which our condition of life on earth may at any ’ time need ; there is not one, no, not one to be fouua, ’ directed unto angels, or saints, or any save God alone.’

32. Shew that the Invocation of Saints is plainly forbidden in the New Testament.

Although the examples of the pious dead are proposed in the Scripture for imitation, yet in no case are we directed to worship them. On the other hand, it is expressly declared that * there is ofts mediator between God ana man, the man

• Christ Jesus* (1 Tim. ii. 5.)) * through whom we have access *to the Father’ (Eph. ii. 18.). Let no man beguile you, says the Apostle (Col. ii. 18.), * in a voluntary humility and

• worshipping qf angeU ;* and the angel in the Apocalypse (Rev. XIX. 10.) rejecting the worship of St. John,, as hieing his fellow servant,’ enjoined him to * worship God. If then Angels are not to be worshipped,, much less are the Spirits of holy men.

33. Adduce the testimony of the early Church againflt the several errors denounced in this Article.

Tertnllian affirms (adv. Marc. IV. 34.) that th& souls of the righteous are rmreshed in AhraharrCs hosom wntU the consummoMon qfaltthinqs shall complete the general resur- rection with the fulness oj’ reward. St. Cyprian (Epist. 55.) urges the sinner, while it is yet in hispower and while yet a mrh of life remains, to make his pea4ie with God, Ix)r, he continues, when once we ha/ve departed hence, there is no more plxicefor repentance, tieither any means qf satis- faction. It is here that l\fe is either lost or secured, Chrysostom observes (in Gen. Hom. 36.) that to such as live mrtuausly death is a change from worse to better, from this transitory life to one that is immortal and etemm. While we are in this world, says Jerome (Comment, in Galat. c. 6.), we are able to help one another either by our prayers or our advice ; but when we come btfore the judgment-seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can entreat jor any one, but every one must bear his own burden. Clement of Alexandria teaches (Quis Div. salv. C. 40.) that qfall bein/fs the Father is the only Ofie who can undo those

QUXSTIOKS ABD AI78WXBS 05

things that are danCf and who only, by his merey, and by ihe dew qf his Spirit y can blot out our former trans- gressions, Laotantius maintains (Instt. Div. ii. 19.) that wherever there is an image, there is no religion : because there can be nothing heavenly in what is made out qf earthly things. Au^stine (de Oper. Monaoh. c. 28.) con- demns those who traffic in the limbs qf martyrs^ \f indeed they be genuine relics ; and again (de vera Reli^. c. 65.) he lays down a caution against maJting it apart qf religion to worship men that are dead : for if they lived weUy they are to be honoured for imitation, not to be adored for religion.