Annotation CCLIX
”But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” — 1 Corinthians 3:15
Whether Chrysostom acknowledged purgatory.
Chrysostom, [in] the ninth homily on the first [epistle] to the Corinthians, explaining this passage — of the perpetual fire of gehenna, and of those who shall be punished with the eternal punishment of fire — writes thus: “‘BUT he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.’ This signifies that he himself shall not so perish as [his] works, going [back] into nothing, but shall remain in the fire. Salvation, therefore, he calls this matter not simply [absolutely]: on that account he added, ‘As by fire.’ For indeed there is with us a custom of saying that [those things] are ‘safe’ [saved] in the fire, which are not burned up, nor turned into ash. Do not, therefore, when thou hearest ‘fire,’ think [that they are] burning [and] going back into nothing. But if he calls such a punishment ‘salvation,’ marvel not. For [Scripture] is wont, in badly-signifying [pejorative] matters, to use good names, and in well[-signifying matters, bad names]. As, for example, the name of ‘captivity’ seems a name of bad signification: but in a good [sense] Paul uses it in these words:1 ‘Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.’ Contrariwise, in an evil matter he uses an illustrious [noble] word:2 ‘Sin reigned.’ And yet the name of ‘reign’ is more laudable. Likewise in this place, when he says, ‘He shall be saved,’ it signifies nothing else than an increment of punishment: as [if] he should say, ‘He himself shall remain perpetually in punishment.’”
Mark, bishop of Ephesus, in the Apologia which he presented on behalf of the Greeks — [who] reject purgatory — in the Council of Basel, examining these words of Chrysostom, asserts that he [Chrysostom] never either expressed in words, or thought, anything of purgatory (to which the Latins apply the present passage of Paul) — Chrysostom crying out against [it], who [interpreted] it of the everlasting fire of gehenna,
—[of gehenna] truly, and quite genuinely, expounded [it]. But since the Ephesian’s [Mark’s] reproof has two parts — one, by which he asserts that Chrysostom never brought forth anything of purgatory in [his] writings, or [ever] thought [of it]; the other, by which he prefers Chrysostom’s exposition to the Latins’ exposition — I shall show [that] the man both errs in this part, and impudently lies in that. For there are had, in Chrysostom, very many passages, from which it is clear that that blessed man believed [that] after this life there is a place where [those] stained with spots are purged; where, outside the eternal rest, they suffer tribulation; where they receive refreshment from our suffrages and prayers; where the angered Judge is appeased for them: which place the Latins call purgatory. That this is so, as we say, the passages written below, culled from his homilies, most openly demonstrate.
[In] homily 32 on Matthew: “WHY, after [thy kinsman’s] death, dost thou call together the poor of thy [kin]? Why dost thou beseech the presbyters, that they may be willing to pray for him? I am not ignorant that thou wilt answer: that the deceased may attain rest, that he may find the Judge propitious.” And below: “FOR if many barbarous nations are wont to burn the goods of the dead together with the dead: how much more justly oughtest thou to hand over thy [goods] for thy deceased son — not that they be reduced to ash, but that thou mayest render him more glorious. Thou thinkest that he departed, stained with spots: give him his own [goods, as alms], that he may wipe [himself] clean of the spots by them.”
[In] homily 41 on the [epistle] to the Corinthians: “LET US therefore aid our deceased brethren, [and] make memory for them. For if a father’s victim [sacrifice] purged the children of that Job, why dost thou doubt that, if we too offer [something] for the sleeping [dead], some [portion] of solace will accrue to them? God is wont to be gracious to some for the sake of others,” etc.
[In] the third homily on the epistle to the Philippians, and [in] the 69th homily to the people of Antioch: “LET US bewail these dead, let us aid them according to [our] powers, let us procure for them some [thing] of help — a little, indeed, yet let us aid them. How, [and] by what reason? Praying, let us exhort others also, that they pray for them; and let us give alms unceasingly for them to the poor. This matter has no little of consolation. Hear, indeed, what God says:3 ‘I will protect this city for my own sake, and for the sake of David my servant.’ If the memory only of a just [man] availed so much, when [his descendants’] works also live [avail] for such a one: what shall [prayers and works] not be able [to do]? Not in vain was it sanctioned by the Apostles, that in the celebration of the venerable mysteries memory be made of those who have departed hence. They know [that] much emolument accrues to them thence, much of utility. For, the whole people standing, extending [their] hands to the heavens, and the priestly assembly likewise, and the awful sacrifice being set forth, how should we not appease God, praying for these [dead]? But this indeed we say of those who departed in the faith: but the Catechumens we deem not worthy even of this solace, but they are destitute of all help of this kind, one only excepted. Which one? It is lawful to give in their name to the poor, whence some [portion] of refreshment accrues to them,” etc.
[In] the fourth homily on the epistle to the Hebrews: “TELL me, what mean (at a funeral) those festive lamps? Do we not lead them forth (the deceased) as [it were] athletes? What too [mean] the hymns? [Is it] not that we may glorify God,
—and give him thanks? [Is it not] that he has now crowned the departed [one], that he now holds with himself [one] led [forth], freed from labors, from servitude? [Are] not the psalms and hymns for this [reason]? [Is] not the psalmody for this [reason]? All these are [the acts] of [those] rejoicing,” etc. And after a few [words]: “WHY dost thou chant at that time,4 ‘Return, O my soul, into thy rest, for the Lord hath done well to thee. I will not fear evils, since thou art with me’? And again,5 ‘Thou art my refuge from the tribulation that encompasses me’? Dost thou understand what these psalms mean?” etc. And again: “FOR what reason, tell me, dost thou call the presbyters and the chanters? [Is it] not that thou mayest receive consolation? [Is it] not that thou mayest honor the departed [one]?”
FROM these, therefore, and from other passages — which, lest the volume rise to a greater bulk, I of set purpose omit — let it be evident that Chrysostom held the very same [things] concerning Purgatory which we [hold].
BUT now, as to that [second charge] which the Ephesian adds — that Chrysostom’s interpretation contradicts the exposition of the Latins, and truly and sincerely expresses the mind of Paul — it is certainly not mine to sift out and decide who understood Paul’s sentence more rightly: whether, of the Greeks, Chrysostom, whom no pious [man] despises, or, of the Latins, Augustine, whom all the learned approve. Let his own honor remain, as far as pertains to me, to each. Yet this — by the leave of so great a man — I would dare to teach: that Chrysostom’s interpretation is hard and violent [forced]. For who ever spoke thus, as to say, “he shall be saved, but so, as [it were] by fire,” for [meaning] this, “he shall be tormented by eternal fire, nor ever consumed by it”? What, then, does that exception “But so” accomplish — which sounds [as if it means] that he shall be safe [saved] in some manner, yet not without torment? To me it becomes probable that Chrysostom in this place abused [the text] — not to contradict the exposition of the Latins (which perhaps he had not [even] seen), but to seize hence an occasion of deterring certain [men] who, at that time, believed — according to the dogma of Origen — that the punishments of gehenna would at some time have an end.