(for in that way the soul was hurt rather than helped), and that everyone should give as much as he could. And did they not cheat both high and low with this transparent nonsense? Who, pray, is so senseless as not to see that such utter blindness could not have been so widespread unless the Lord had inflicted it upon us because of our unbelief? Since, therefore, we have now recovered our sight, so that we see plainly that those who trust in Christ are the sons of God and come not into judgment [cf. Jn. 5:24], let us no longer suffer ourselves to be held captive by such foolish lies.

I wil show, therefore, certain unequivocal passages by which it will be established that purgatory cannot even exist, much less does exist. And this again from the “Reply to Emser.”

[For this quotation from the “Reply to Emser” see below pp. 394-396.]

Thus I spoke on purgatory in answer to Emser, with words few but strong in the Lord. But since several passages have so long been bent to serve their purposes that they think them too fixed for anyone to bend back I will deal with several of them.

Christ, wishing to guard against His followers wrangling with each other in daily quarrels, wished to keep them from quarreling by reasoning of this sort. Because it often happens in courts that the man who had expected to win the case comes off beaten, it is a risky thing to go to law; therefore, if His followers would not refrain from quarreling from other considerations, let them at least allow their differences to be composed from fear of the risk. He therefore says, Matt. 5: 25-26: “Agree with thine adversary as quickly as possible, while thou art still with him in the way; lest in any wise it come to pass that the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the last farthing.” From this passage our sweet friends think they have proved that there is a purgatory, though by these words Christ intended absolutely nothing else than to dissuade from quarreling certain hard, unyielding persons who think that all men have the same feelings and selfish

expectations as themselves. To these, then, that sometimes happens which they had prepared for others; they were hoping, namely, to win gain along with the disgrace of their adversary, but the opposite resulted; for they were often cast into prison themselves, and afterwards were compelled to stay there until with poverty, hunger, and all the many other punishments usually inflieted they had made satisfaction for all that was due. That this is the real meaning is proved by Luke, who in 12:56, thus expresses the same idea: “And as thou are going with thine adversary before the ruler, on the way give diligence to be quit of him; lest haply he drag thee unto the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exacter,” ete. See how he plainly calls “ruler” him to whom you go with your adversary. St. Ambrose understood this passage in this sense as far as the language is concerned, for he says, “While thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate,” although he afterwards tries to find a different, allegorical sense, as was the custom of his time. But how can the Holy Scriptures help it, if turning a clear and unadulterated expression into a mystical one you go looking for knots in a bulrush? Chrysostom} and Theophylact assent to this idea. Hilary in his Canons comes to the conclusion that the language is to be interpreted according to the drift of the teaching in the passage, and the teaching here is the desirability of pardoning and being reconciled, as is shown with perfect clearness in what immediately precedes. Jeromett quotes the views of many, and so obscures his own that you come away knowing less than before. The second passage is Matt. 18: 34-35, where Christ wishes by the parable of the unmerciful servant to teach that unless we forgive we shall not be forgiven. He says, finally, of the wicked servant: “And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due. So shall

[principem: so the Latin Vulgate. Gk. ἄρχοντα- 1Ecposition of the Gospel according to Luke, bk. VII, ch. 154. iCommentary on Matthew, Homily 20, ch. 2. SEzposition of the Gospel of Matthew (on Matt. 5: 25f.) and Ezposi-]

[tion of the Gospel of Luke (on Luke 12: 58). Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, chap. IV, 19. TiTranslation of the Homilies of Origin on the Gospel of Luke, Homily]

[35 Also his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, bk. I, chap. 5.]

also my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not everyone his brother from your hearts.” Here our friends launch out in this fashion: “Christ says here that the heavenly Father will do to us as was done to the wicked servant. He will not, therefore, let us out of the punishment of purgatory until we have paid all that is due.” To them I answer, or rather not I, but the Truth itself: This parable is preceded by a discussion about forgiveness, in which to Simon’s question about pardoning Christ replies [Mt. 18:22]: “I say not unto thee, until seven times” (must we pardon our brother, to wit) “but, until seventy times seven.” Now follows [Mt. 18: 23], “Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, who would make a reckoning with his servants,” etc. In saying “Therefore,” He made it plain that the parable which He immediately subjoined was intended to encourage forgiveness and to teach justice. This He brought out in the prayer, in Matthew 6:12, in which God requires that if we wish to be forgiven we ourselves also shall forgive, teaching us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” By this parable, then, Christ simply wished to teach that, as we continually wish to be forgiven by the heavenly King, whom we offend countless times every day, so we, too, ought always to forgive. For He says, in the character of the king who was wroth against the unmerciful servant [Mt. 18: 32f.]: “Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou besoughtest me; shouldst not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee?” Here they urge: “He was delivered to the tormentors till he should pay all that was due,’ and, having paid that according to the laws of the country, he was of course let out. Therefore when those who owe a debt to the justice of God have paid the debt in suffering, they will be let out.” I answer: First, you seem to think of a parable just as if it were an actual event, although this is of little consequence, except that you must always let a parable be a parable. In parables there are many details which do not altogether square with the things illustrated by them. For instance [ Mt. 10: 24]; “A disciple is not above his master”;

[it does not follow, therefore, no one can ever surpass his master.]

[That is true only in the case of Christ, not of others. And no]

one should imitate that steward [Lk. 16: 1-18] who provided for his own interests by wronging and cheating his lord, but we must look only to the argument for which Christ employs the parable. He wishes by that parable to teach care and attention as to heavenly things, by reasoning of this sort. If the children of this world, disregarding the punishment of the law, look out for their own maintenance, how much more ought those who are hastening to heaven to use every effort to prevent unjust riches from cheating them out of the salvation they hope for. So, also, in the present parable [sc. Mt. 18: 21-35] we must look simply at the argument. This is: Forgive and you will be forgiven; if you do not forgive, neither will you be forgiven. And as to the objection based on “till” or “until,” it brings no support to their argument; but let us grant for the sake of argument that God’s forgiveness is restricted by this designation of time. What else follows, pray, than that the man who is thus east into torments does not come out until the King of Heaven has been satisfied? Who shall say when He has been satisfied? Who shall fix the period? Suppose the punishment be eternal? Then He will be satisfied when you have been tortured forever, not when the Pope of Rome has drained your pocket-book. But, not to give an opening for the disease of verbal contention, it is clear that this word “till” ought not to be twisted into referring to a period of time; and this is clear through Christ Himself, for He was made our righteousness [cf. I Cor. 1: 30], because we could not attain salvation by our own righteousness. We are saved, therefore, by grace, not by our merits, as was said some time back. For if heaven could be scaled by our merits, there would have been no need of Christ’s coming down. Likewise, if our sins must be cleansed by the fire of purgatory, of what profit is Christ? Why did He put on the weakness of man [ef. Isa. 53:4; Mt. 8:17]? For if we are compelled to endure the fire of purgatory in order to satisfy the righteousness of God, as these people say, the righteousness of Christ wil profit us nothing, and all whose aim is to go to the Heavenly Father rely upon Christ in vain, unless they first have been burned in the fire of purgatory. What can be said more foolish or more blasphemous against Christ than this?

290 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli They do away with Him who set up a purgatory; nay, if we can go to heaven by means of purgatory also, they make Him a liar when He said that through Him alone is access to the Father possible [cf. Jn. 14: 6]. But eis κόρακας [to perdition ] with these torturers of souls and executioners of consciences, plotters against pocket-books, who for the sake of their bellies have invented a way to torture the souls of the dead in our hearts rather than in reality, and thereby to squeeze out money in order that it may be well with themselves. While they have inflicted upon the dead weeping, sadness, and torture, though falsely, in doing this they have themselves found most agreeable and pleasant refreshment.

The third passage is Matt. 12: 32: “But whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” From this passage they argue: “Christ said that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven in the world to come; therefore certain sins are forgiven in the world to come, for only the sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven in the world to come.” I answer: It is strange that they either have forgotten their own art or have not learned it properly. For it is no logical sequence this: The sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven in this world, and is not forgiven in the world to come; therefore certain sins are forgiven in the world to come. For how can a correct conclusion be drawn from negatives? The proper argument is this: The sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven in this world, nor is it forgiven in the world to come; therefore it is never forgiven. It is a case of disjunctive syllogism, as in the Apocalypse 4:8: “And the beasts rested not day and night.” The conclusion is not, “Therefore they rested some time,” but, “Therefore they never rested.” And that by this distinction between this world and the world to come Christ meant to indicate eternity is brought out by Mark, 3: 29, when he says, “hath never forgiveness,” and by Luke, 12:10, who says, “shall not be forgiven.”

The fourth passage is I Cor. 3: 12-15: “Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for

[in aeternum non.]

the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire shall prove every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abides which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned, he shall suffer a loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.” This most lucid passage of Paul they have so befouled in the soot of their purgatory, to the support of which they have twisted it, that men otherwise of keenest scent have been unable to smell out its native sense. I shall, therefore, give the sense of this passage, not from my own idea but from that of Paul himself, and of Jerome on Ezekiel, Ch. 3: 18-19. To build, then, in this passage is to preach. The foundation is Christ. The work which is built is those who have received the word. The fire is the trial or persecution which is inflicted at God’s decree: “Thou hast tried me with fire,” ete. [cf. I Cor. 3:13]. The gold, silver, gems, are those who have so thoroughly received Christ that they would die rather than betray Him. The wood, hay, and stubble are those who believe for the moment, or perhaps only pretend to believe, and in the time of trial desert Christ [cf. Mt. 13: 20-21]. Let us now see the argument that Paul makes here, and having seen it let us then measure the whole idea by it, and new light will arise upon us. When Paul learned that certain men at Corinth were setting a high value upon themselves, on the ground that they were more learned or more eloquent than himself, he most courteously warned them not to allow themselves to be drawn away from his simple teaching by any pretence of learning or of eloquence. He was not, he admitted, an extraordinarily clever speaker, though he lacked nothing necessary to the suitable setting forth of the heavenly teaching. There were also other learned men, but how far they excelled him the Corinthians could not easily judge, being still inexperienced when he was teaching in their midst. He was, he said, in the habit of employing every means in order to win as many for Christ as possible. When, therefore, he had been with them before, he had not forthwith disclosed the most abstruse parts of his teaching, because that would have been a vain attempt with persons who were then not capable of

[Commentary on Ezekiel, Bk. I, ch. 3.]

receiving them. Now he was very greatly displeased because some of them had heard him with such dull ears that they could endure to be called followers of Apollos or of Peter or of Paul. These were all, he said, ministers of the word and builders of the house, that is, the church, of God, upon the true foundation, Christ. He was not so covetous of glory as to grieve that others should now be preferred to himself, or so envious as to be unable to endure that the fame of others should increase. Yet, he had always anxiously striven to teach to the best of his ability, and he doubted not that the others also desired to have the same thing thought of them which he, Paul, proclaimed of himself. Therefore he says [ef. I Cor. 3:9-15]: “We are God’s fellow-workers, all of us who teach; ye are God’s husbandry, that is, God’s building or work. But as for me, I will render an account of my labor. According to the grace of God which was given unto me, after the example of wise master-builders I have laid a solid foundation which cannot be shaken, namely, Christ. Now I see others building thereon, and I send every man to himself in this matter. Let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For as far as the foundation that I have laid is concerned, I have no fear that any man can lay other foundation (if only he be minister of Christ) than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. And if any one has made some men so strong in Christ that when persecution comes it can have as little effect upon them as fire upon gold and silver and gems, it is certainly evident how faithfully and skilfully he built who administered the word, since his hearers would sooner lose their lives than the word. But if anyone has handled the word so coldly that when persecution comes the hearers disappear as wood and hay and stubble are consumed by fire, the carelessness or faithlessness of the builder, of which until then no one was aware, will become manifest. “The day reveals all things,’ as also heathen writers have said. So, too, this day of the Lord, in which he shall reveal what was hitherto hid, will uncover all things. I am not speaking of the last day, but of the day in which it pleases God to uncover what was for some time concealed and what he has thus far been willing to wink at. On that day, therefore, the teaching of all is proved as by fire. If any man’s

---

← 58. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 60. Commentary on True and False Religion →