2.
"O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine indignation; neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure" (ver. 1). For it will be that some shall be chastened in God's "hot displeasure," and rebuked in His "indignation." And haply not all who are "rebuked" will be "chastened;" yet are there some that are to be saved in the chastening. 1 So it is to be indeed, because it is called "chastening," 2 but yet it shall be "so as by fire." But there are to be some who will be "rebuked," and will not be "corrected." For he will at all events "rebuke" 3 those to whom He will say, "I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat." 4 ... "Neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure;" so that Thou mayest cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for those "who are to be saved, yet so as by fire." 5 Why? Why, but because they "build upon the foundation, wood, stubble, and hay." Now they should build on it, "gold, silver, and precious stones;" 6 and should have nothing to fear from either fire: not only that which is to consume the ungodly for ever, but also that which is to purge those who are to escape through 7 the fire. For it is said, "he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." And because it is said, "he shall be saved," that fire is thought lightly of. For all that, though we should be "saved by fire," yet will that fire be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever. 8 ...
-
Futuri sunt in emendatione quidam salvi. ↩
-
Emendatio (alluding to emendes in the Latin of v. 1.). ↩
-
Utique arguet. ↩
-
Matt. xxv. 42. ↩
-
1 Cor. iii. 15. ↩
-
1 Cor. iii. 12. ↩
-
Per. ↩
-
[See Augustin's ideas as to a possible meaning of the text 1 Cor. iii. 11-15 in vol. ii. this series, p. 474. He there propounds, as a conjecture merely, a purification of some souls in the intermediate state, which he does not care to reject. It is not his own theory; he says, I do not contradict; possibly it is true." He thus proves there was no dogma of any sort of purgatory in his day, and even this theory is entirely inconsistent with the dogma as expounded in the Trent Catechism.--C.] ↩
