m 
 
 Ml 
 i 
 
 ll^iH'!l''ii ;' M!i"^i:5ii:<5■^•^■- 
 
 !RffnKnmHim»i«i 
 
^^-'.^ 
 
 ^,- <>' 
 
 i 
 
 ^^ v^ 
 
 
 
 A^' 
 
 <'J- ^ 
 
 A^^ 
 
 V' 
 
 1P .^X' 
 
 '.■^o. 
 
 
 %/' '"^^. C^^ 
 

 
 v^^' ^/ 
 
 ..V- 
 
 
 
 o 0^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^^■*/^p^ 
 
 nO°<. 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ * 
 

 .'V 
 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D.D. ^'C^:^t% 
 
 on THE 
 
 
 \/ 
 
 
 ERRORS OF ROMANI^?ir,"-.;v> ^^' '>V- '' 
 
 IN RESPECT TO THE 
 
 
 WORSHIP OF SAINTS, SATISFACTIONS, PURGATORY, 
 
 INDULGENCES, AND THE WORSHIP OF 
 
 IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 m' 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A 
 
 OF WOHCESTEH, COLLEGE. OXFORD. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, ^\ 
 
 110 BALTIMORE STREET. 
 
 1843, 
 
 \ 
 
 W. 
 
 
■/ 
 
 y'^^^,? 
 
 Theoi, Sem. 
 
 Mitf^i9<M 
 
 ^■^•* 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The publication of the series of Letters now brought to a 
 conclusion (at least for the present)^ was undertaken with 
 a view to exhibit some of the most important features of 
 Romanism in their genuine form. This task has become neces- 
 sary in consequence of the systen of Reserve so generally prac- 
 tised by Romish controversialists,, in reference to the more 
 obnoxious parts of their system. 
 
 The system referred" to^ studiously distinguishes the doc- 
 trines and practices* prevalent in the Roman Communion into 
 two classes ; the former consisting of matters of faith, or doc- 
 trines defined by the Church ; the latter consisting of matters 
 of opinion, or doctrines not so defined. The use made of this 
 distinction in all writings and discourses intended for those who 
 are opposed to Romanism, is to avoid all responsibility for, and all 
 discussion on doctrines of the latter class, by representing them 
 as mere non-essentials, which any member of the Roman Com- 
 munion may dispute or reject at pleasure ; while the attention 
 of opponents is drawn entirely to the former class of doctrines, 
 which being commonly proposed in general terms and with 
 great caution, are far less assaifable. • 
 
 The benefits derived from this system are various. In the 
 first place it induces some of those who are opposed to Roman- 
 ism, to direct their attention almost entirely to the formal defi- 
 nitions of the Council of Trent, and to condemn some points 
 which might be more discreetly left untouched. The effect of 
 this to create division amongst opponents, and to place some of 
 them in untenable positions. Secondly, all discussion is avoided 
 on weak and vulnerable points, and there is no danger lest the 
 
iv * PREFACE. 
 
 popular mind should be disturbed by doubts on the propriety of 
 its most favourite notions and practices. Thirdly, it smooths 
 away any opposition which might arise from Romanists them- 
 selves if these doctrines were pronounced essential ; and facili- 
 tates their dissemination throughout the community. So that, 
 in fine, the most highly objectionable tenets may be universally 
 received amongst Romanists, and yet it may be positively de- 
 nied that the Roman Catholic Church teaches those tenets. 
 It has been a chief object in these Letters to detect and expose 
 this system, which must be considered as more ingenious than 
 honest. 
 
 The Author is desirous to record his most settled con- 
 viction, that evils are prevalent in the Roman Communion, of 
 a far more dangerous character, than can be found elsewhere. 
 In the present series of Tracts, only a small portion of those 
 evil3 has been detailed ; but enough has been said to shew, that 
 several doctrines of a dangerous and heretical character, and 
 various practices .which are most decidedly Idolatrous, are 
 openly, and without censure, disseminated, sanctioned, and 
 authorized amongst Romanists. 
 
 Setting aside those sects which are bound by their profession 
 to reject articles of the Christian faith, there are perhaps few 
 religious communities which would not, on the whole, contrast 
 favourably with Romanism. A comparison, not on insulated 
 points, nor with any partial view, would suffice to shew, that 
 any evils which may have arisen in connexion with the Refor- 
 mation, were more than counterbalanced by the evils of the 
 opposite system ; and a more accurate knowledge of that system 
 would enable us to do more justice to the principles of the Re- 
 formers, and to feel more gratitude for the results of their 
 labours. 
 
' CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Dr. Wiseman's episcopal rank denied — Mr. Newman's lan- 
 guage on Romanism explained. — Tactics of Romish contro- 
 versialists — The decrees of Trent not the only authoritative 
 teachinor in the Church of Rome. — Idolatrous addresses to 
 the Virgin by the present Pope. — Similar prayers approved 
 by other Popes, — Prayer of Cardinal Bona. — Romanists res- 
 ponsible for these prayers. — Idolatry of Ligorio, — Of Girol- 
 amo. — Idolatrous addresses to vSaints. — Indulg-ences and Pur- 
 gatory are made to take the place of Heaven and Hell. — 
 Purgatory a place of torture according to Romanists. — Im- 
 -Miscellaneous remarks on Dr. Wiseman's Pamphlet^ 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION, 
 INDULGENCES^ &C. 
 
 Introduction. — Doctrine of temporal penalties due to remitted 
 sin. — A large mass of error depends on this doctrine — Its 
 proofs from Reason examined. — Its scriptural proofs examined. 
 — Specific objections to the doctrine. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 ON SATISFACTIONS OR PENANCES. 
 
 Romish doctrine of Satisfaction stated.— Requires perpetual 
 penances. — Suppose the pardoned sinner still subject to God's 
 wrath. — Destroys all peace of mind.— Mskes Christians 
 miserable, contrary to the Gospel. — Burdens of this doctrine, 
 and miseries endured by devotees. — it leaves Christians vv^ith- 
 Gut peace or hope. 
 
vi CONTENTS. 
 
 ,• 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 
 
 Romish arguments in support of Satisfactions from Scripture. 
 — From the Fathers. — Orthodox doctrine on this subject. — 
 Proved from Scripture. — Romish doctrine refuted by the Fa- 
 thers. — By the Council of Trent. — By Romish practice. — 
 By Romish theologians. — Conclusions from the whole discus- 
 sion. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 ON THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 
 
 Introductory remarks on Dr. Wiseman's reply. — Romanism con- 
 victed of Idolatry by his admissions. — His citations from 
 spurious writings of the Fathers. — His defence of idolatrous 
 addresses to the Virgin refuted. — His defence of idolatrous 
 addresses to the Saints refuted. — Testimony of Catholic 
 Antiquity against such addresses. — Additional proofs of 
 Romish Idolatry and Superstition. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 Introduction. — Doctrine of Purgatory stated and refuted. — 
 Romish arguments refuted. — Orthodox doctrine opposed to 
 Purgatory, confirmed by Scripture and Catholic Antiquity. — 
 Punishment not due to remitted sins. 
 
 LETTER. VII. 
 
 ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 Connexion of Indulgences with privileged Altars and Churches, 
 confraternities, associations, particular devotions, good works, 
 &c — Practical importance of Indulgences in the Romish sys- 
 tem.— Doctrine of Indulgences refuted. — Ancient doctrine of 
 Indulgences. — Origin of Romish doctrine — Objections to it. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 ON THE WORSHIP OP IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 Uneasiness of Romanists under the Charge of Idolatry. — 
 Reasons for this. — Idolatry what. — Idolatry taught by emi- 
 nent Romish divines. — Romish subterfuges. — Dangers of the 
 system. — Conclusion. 
 
A LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D. D. 
 
 (CALLING HIMSELF BISHOP OF MELIPOTAMUS,) 
 
 CONTAINING REMARKS ON HIS 
 
 LETTER TO MR. NEWMAN. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A. 
 
 OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD, 
 
A LETTER &c. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Having ascertained from Mr. Newman that it is not his inten- 
 tion to make any reply to your Letter, (a resolution which 
 considering his recent labours, cannot excite surprise,) I take 
 the liberty of offering to your notice certain remarks which the 
 perusal of your Letter has irresistibly suggested, and I sincerely 
 hope, that the '^ plainness of speech" which in a discussion of 
 such importance, it is necessary to employ, will not be regarded 
 by yourself or by others as indicating any want of respect for 
 your abilities and attainments, or any deficiency in charity and 
 good feeling. 
 
 You will excuse me therefore, if I seem to question your 
 right to the title of " bishop" which you assume, and which 
 your adherents are willing to recognise. You, at least, cannot 
 deny, that episcopal consecrations, performed ostehsihly for 
 Churches without clergy or people, but really for the purpose 
 bf introducing or perpetuating schism, are illegitimate, and 
 confer no canonical mission or jurisdiction.^ You are aware, 
 that such ordinations are, according to the Canons, virtually 
 null and void ; and that they do not constitute those who receive 
 them 7'eal bishops — successors of the Apostles. If therefore, as 
 is reported, you have received the form of episcopal consecration 
 at Rome, this does not prove you to be a bishop, or excuse you 
 for exercising episcopal and sacerdotal functions without the 
 license, and in opposition to the authority, of your legitimate 
 Diocesan, the Bishop of Worcester : an offence which subjects 
 you to deposition and excommunication by the Canons received 
 by the whole Catholic Church. 
 
 You have availed yourself with characteristic sagacity of the 
 existing controversy, to invite public attention to those views 
 of Romish doctrines and practices, which the leaders of your 
 party are anxious to impress on us. I rejoice for the sake of 
 Truth that you have stepped forward so promptly in vindication 
 of those views. It will Hfford an opportunity for testing their 
 accuracy. Circumstanced as Romanism is in this country, it is 
 perfectly natural that its advocates should endeavour to disem- 
 
 a Dublin Review, vol. v. p. 288, &c. 
 
10 LETTER I. 
 
 barrass themselves, as far as possible, of various doctrines and 
 practices which have given serious offence. The interests of 
 .your communion are so obviously promoted by such a policy, 
 that language and sentiments are tolerated under your circum- 
 stances, which in a purely Romish country would be visited 
 with severe reprobation — perhaps, might put you in the prisons 
 of the Inquisition. The end for which you labour sanctifies, 
 in the eyes of your superiors, means which they would other- 
 wise view with jealously and displeasure. Romanists in Eng- 
 land have long been deeply sensible of the obstacles which are 
 presented to their system of proselytism by the existence of 
 general prejudices (as they regard them) against the supersti- 
 tions of their Church. They have felt with you, that "it is 
 " exceedingly difficult to think differently from what every 
 ^' body about us has always been thinking and saying. It is 
 " almost impossible to stay the mind, when hurried on by the 
 " press of those behind and on either side of us," (p. 19.) And 
 as the general impression has been and continues to be, that 
 superstitious and idolatrous doctrines or practices are more or 
 less authoritatively sanctioned by the Church of Rome, you 
 avail yourself of the opportunity afforded by Mr. Newman's 
 statement to that effect, to clear your Communion as far as you 
 can from imputations so injurious to its interests, and so distres- 
 sing to your own feelings as an active agent in the system of 
 proselytism. 
 
 It will be my endeavour in the following pages to shew, that 
 public opinion is not so grossly mistaken in these matters as you 
 would fain have us imagine, and that, while it would be 
 undoubtedly most unjust to attribute superstitions and idolatrous 
 notions or practices to those individuals of your Communion 
 who disclaim them /or themselves, the stain adheres most deeply 
 to the community at large, and that the Roman is, emphat- 
 ically, a corrupt Church. 
 
 You have, as you imagine, detected at the commencement 
 of Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, an untenable position, and 
 you direct against this assumed position a vast deal of argument 
 more or less plausible ; but you have so obviously mistaken and 
 misrepresented his views, that I can only account for the mis- 
 takes you have committed, by the haste with which you have 
 rushed into this controversy. 
 
 Mr. Newman states his persuasiyi, that the Thirty-Nine 
 Articles *^ do contain a condemnation of the authoritative teach- 
 '^ ing of the Church of Rome" on the subjects of Purgatory, 
 Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, the 
 Invocation of Saints, and the Mass. He asserts indeed, and 
 
LETTER I. 11 
 
 rightly asserts, (speaking generally,) that whereas those Arti- 
 cles '^ were written before the Decrees of Trent, they were not 
 " directed against those Decrees^^ But still, he maintains 
 that the Church of Rome does, even now, in some sense author- 
 itatively teach the errors and superstitions against which the 
 Articles are directed, and which were held by Romanists 
 when those Articles were compiled. His next words are, 
 " The Church of Rome taught authoritatively before those 
 '^ Decrees (of Trent) as well as since. Those expressed her 
 ^' authoritative teaching, and they will continue to express itj 
 "^ while she so teaches. The simple question is, whether taken 
 ^' by themselves, in their mere letter, they express it ; whether, 
 " in fact, other senses, short of the sense conveyed m the 
 '^ present authoritative leaching of the Roman Church, W\\\ not 
 ^^ fulfil their letter, and may not even now, in point of fact, be 
 ;*^ held in that Church." (p. 6.) 
 
 The meaning of this passage is obvious. It asserts as plainly 
 as words can do, that the ivording of the Decrees of Trent in 
 some points may not convey doctrines which our Articles con- 
 demn ; while the interpretation generally given by the Roman- 
 ists — their practical comment — the comment furnished by Au- 
 thority exterior to the Council of Trent, is objectionable. Mr. 
 N. in the next page explains that he is speaking of the ^' pop- 
 ^' ular system" of Romanism, and soon afterwards he mentions, 
 *^ the comment which the Church of Rome has put on them 
 *^ (the Decrees of Trent) in preaching and practice." (p. 9.) 
 
 Having perused all these passages, you thus address Mr. N. 
 
 '■^ Your intention seems to be, as far as I can gather it from 
 '' these and other passages in the Letter, to establish a dis- 
 *"* tinciion between the doctrines defined or decreed in the 
 ."General Council of Trent, and the authoritative teachinof of 
 '"'the Roman Church." Certainly: so far you have caught 
 his meaning. He undoubtedly does draw a distinction between 
 the Decrees of Trent, and the authorized teaching of the 
 Church of Rome on these points. That is, he is of opinion, 
 that the words of the Decrees of Trent ''fall short of the sense 
 " conveyed in the present authoritative teaching of the Roman 
 '^Church." (p. 6.) The Decrees are encumbered by a prac- 
 tical comment which goes far beyond them. 
 
 You now triumph in the persuasion that you have placed 
 
 )your opponent in an absurd position, and you ironically remark, 
 
 . "The existence of any such authoritative teaching at vor- 
 
 '^ riance with the doctrines of the Tridentine Synod, is to me 
 
 b Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6. 
 
ta LETTER I. 
 
 *' a novel idea, and I think it will prove so to all Catholics.^' 
 (p. 5.) . 
 
 Permit me for a moment to arrest you in this hasty jump to 
 a conclusion. You have correctly stated, that Mr. Newman 
 maintains a distinction between the Decrees of Trent on these 
 subjects, and the present authoritative teaching of the Church 
 of Rome ; but surely distinction does not necessarily imply va- 
 riance or opposition. You have studied so loner in the Roman 
 schools, that this cannot have escaped your observation. Why 
 then do you so readily assume that Mr. N. would set the pre- 
 sent authoritative teaching of the Roman Church '^at variance''^ 
 with the Decrees of Trent ? 
 
 You have commenced by mistaking the plain meaning of your 
 Author, and in this mistake you steadily persist to the end of 
 your Pamphlet. Excuse me, Sir, if, on further consideration, 
 it appears to me that this mistake is not quite unintentional. 
 One might hesitate indeed before one presumed to think, that 
 so practised a controversialist as yourself had permitted any 
 thing to escape from his pen inadvertently. Romish controver- 
 sialists have before now found it convenient to close their own 
 eyes, and to endeavour to close those of the public, against dis- 
 tinctions in which the turning points of controversy are invol- 
 ved. Nothing would be less in accordance with the system 
 which has been adopted by the English Romanists in their 
 controversies wdth us, than the recognition of such a dis- 
 tinction as that which you have assailed. The language of 
 the Council of Trent has been your invariable refuge, when- 
 ever we have pressed you hard with the errors and superstitions 
 prevalent in your Church. To this alone you would gladly 
 direct our attention, as presenting the only exposition of doctrine 
 authorized by all the Churches in communion with Rome. 
 Whatever else may be held or practised amongst you, is, you 
 would assure us, only a matter of private opinion or practice — 
 quite unauthorized. And your Church is therefore to be held 
 responsible for nothing but the guarded and comparatively 
 moderate statements of the Council of Trent. You would 
 persuade us, that because idolatry and superstition are not pro- 
 nounced necessary to salvation by your Church — because you 
 are not obliged to practise them under pain of Anathema — 
 because they do not enter into the very language of the decrees 
 defide — your Church is quite free from the offence of allowing 
 and authorizing them. You seem to argue, that because you 
 may be Romanists without superseding the worship of God by 
 that of the Virgin Mary, the Saints, Images, and Relics, you 
 are therefore actually free, generally speaking, from the guilt 
 
LETTER I. 13 
 
 of so doing. Your argument goes to prove^ that a man who 
 deliberately takes the life of another^ is not a murderer, provi- 
 ded that his act is purely voluntary, and is not done in obedi- 
 ence to the law of God or of the Church. This is a very con- 
 venient system of argument indeed. It enables you to avoid 
 any discussion on the weak points of your Church, and to raise 
 an outcry against the prejudice and bigotry of those who would 
 venture to impute superstitions or errors to the Church of Rome 
 generally. It will be my endeavour to shew, that there is 
 some authoritative teaching in the Church of Rome besides 
 that of the Council of Trent, and you will yourself afford testi- 
 mony to the correctness of this position. 
 
 But I return to your pamphlet. You ask Mr. N. what his 
 reply would be, if you should assert that an interpretation at vari- 
 ance with that which he believes '^ to he the only one reconcile- 
 '' able with catholic truth^^ is generally prevalent in the Church 
 of England, and should thence argue, that the Church of Eng- 
 land is '' not to be judged b}^ the Articles, but by such authorita- 
 '• tive teaching, and that therefore its doctrines, and consequently 
 '' itself, are not catholic." (p. 5.) The reply is obvious and 
 easy. You have no reason to assume that Mr. N. believes his 
 interpretation to be " the only one reconcileable with catholic 
 '' truth." He merely advances what appears to him a catholic 
 interpretation. I am of opinion that the language of the Arti- 
 cles, and the circumstances under which they were written, 
 point to an interpretation somewhat different from that advan- 
 ced by Mr. N. and yet I have not the least doubt that he would 
 readily admit the orthodoxy of that interpretation, though dif- 
 ferent from his own. Your premises therefore break down ; 
 and your conclusion finishes in smoke. Supposing however, 
 that, for the sake of argument, he were to admit, that the Arti- 
 cles are unsoundly interpreted by many persons, still that would 
 not render the Church uncatholic, while such interpretations are 
 openly opposed by many other persons of learning and author- 
 ity, and while they are not recommended and urged by the au- 
 thorities of the Church. When you can shew, that the idola- 
 trous and superstitious doctrines and practices authm^ized in 
 your Church are openly opposed and condemned by any influ- 
 ential portion of its members, we shall be rejoiced to relieve 
 your Communion from imputations which must, until then, 
 adhere to it. 
 
 ^' It is a serious thing," you continue, '^^ to charge us with 
 '' setting up the Blessed Virgin in place of the Holy Trinity, 
 *-' and Purgatory instead of Heaven and Hell. We naturally 
 '• ask, what shall be considered sufl[icient evidence of there 
 
14 LETTER I. 
 
 ^' being an authoritative teaching that supersedes the solemn 
 '' and synodal Decrees of our Church, and makes us responsible 
 '' in solidum for its lessons ?'' (p. 6.) To this question you 
 have yourself in part furnished the reply in the next pag-e, 
 where you say, '^ To the teachings of the Roman schools, 
 '' the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the sentiments 
 " of the best writers, 1 have no hhjections to make. But that 
 '^ you should give as evidence of authoritative teaching popular 
 " notions and practices is certainly surprising-." You therefore 
 admit that there is some authoritative teaching in the Church 
 of Rome, besides that of the Decrees of Trent, and of course 
 you cannot hesitate to add to the sources of such authoritative 
 teaching, the decrees of Roman Pontiffs, and the actions of 
 canonized Saints, which are held up at this day for the imi- 
 tation and edification of the whole Roman Church. I am per- 
 fectly satisfied with the concessions you have made, and I be- 
 lieve there will be little difficulty in establishing on these grounds 
 the substantial correctness of the positions which Mr. N. has 
 advanced. Let us consider those positions for a moment. 
 
 Of ^'^the present authoritative teaching of the Church of 
 ^' Rome," he says, '^^ Instead of setting before the soul the Holy 
 " Trinity, and Heaven and Hell, it does seem to me, as a pop- 
 '' ular system, to preach the blessed Virorin, and the Saints, and 
 ^^ Purgatory," — And again, ^' In the Roman schools we find 
 '^ St. Mary and the Saints the prominent objects of regard and 
 '' dispensers of mercy. Purgatory or Indulgences the means of 
 ^^ obtaining it." (p. 7.) 
 
 Without doubt, '' it is a serious thing" to make this charge, 
 and " it is a serious thing'''' for you to hear it made. You do 
 not relish such plain speaking. I must however entreat you to 
 bear with me, while I proceed to establish its substantial accu- 
 racy — while I demonstrate, that the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, 
 Indulgences, or Purgatory, are commonly and authoritatively 
 set before the vSouls of your people instead of the Trinity, Hea- 
 ven and Hell, and viewed as prominent objects of regard, dis- 
 pensers of mercy, or means of obtaining it. After this I shall 
 proceed to consider the remainder of your Letter. 
 
 1 . The Blessed Virgin is authoritatively set before your souls 
 instead of the Trinity. 
 
 It is not meant that the Roman Church disbelieves the 
 Trinity, or never worships the Trinity, but that the Virgin 
 receives honours which are due only to the Trinity — honours 
 which interfere with the sole prerogatives of the Deity. The 
 
LETTER I. 15 
 
 first proof of this shall be derived from an authoritative docu- 
 ment which all members of your Communion are bound to rev- 
 erence, r mean^ the Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI. 
 addressed in 1832 to all Patriarchs^ Primates, Archbishops, and 
 Bishops^ in which the following passage occurs. 
 
 '' We hasten unto you. Venerable brethren, and as a sign of 
 •• our good will towards you^ we address this letter to you, on 
 '' this most joyful day, when we solemnize the festival of the 
 '' triumphant Assumption of the Holy Virgin into Heaven, that 
 *' she whom we have acknowledged as our patroness and dc- 
 "■' liverer amongst the greatest calamities, may projntioiisly 
 '*^ assist 7is- lohile we write, and by her celestial inspiration may 
 '^ guide lis to such councils as may he most salutary to the 
 
 Christian Church J''^^ 
 
 1 need scarcely remark, that the passages printed in Italics 
 distinctly invest the Virgin with the attributes of Deity. The 
 holy Psalmist declares^ that God is his *^ fortress and de- 
 '' liverer^" (Ps. cxliv. 2.) — his ^' help and deliverer." (Ps. xl. 
 17.) The Pope regards the Virgin Mary as his '^ patron and 
 " deliverer." The Prophet Isaiah teaches us, that ^^ counsel" 
 is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, (Is. xl. 2.) The 
 Roman Church herself prays in the sacrament of Confirmation, 
 '^ Emitte in eos (confirmandos) septiformem Spiritum tuum 
 '' Paraclitum de ccelis, Spiritum sapientiae et intellectus, Spiri- 
 '^ turn consilii et fortitudinis," &c. (Pontifical. Rom. De Con- 
 firm.) I turn to the first treatise on the Trinity by one of your 
 Professors of Theology that comes to my hand, and I there 
 find that the Divi7iity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is pro- 
 ved amongst other things by the fact, that the power of giving 
 grace, of giving spiritual gifts, is ascribed to them in holy 
 Scripture. (See Tournely de Trinitate, p. 384, 499.) And 
 yet, notwithstanding all this, the Pope ascribes confidently to 
 the Virgin Mary the very powers which Scripture and tradi- 
 tion give to the Holy Ghost. 
 
 And now. Sir, perilous and idolatrous as such sentiments are, 
 have they ever once been publicly objected to by a single mem- 
 ber of your Communion ? Has any one of you ever dared to 
 protest against this ascription of the attributes of Deity to a 
 creature ? Will you yourself venture to utter a w^ord in oppo- 
 sition to it ? I am afraid this would be rather too much to ex- 
 pect from any ^' Vicar Apostolic." And why is it that the 
 
 c Ut quam patronam ac sospitam inter maximas quasque calami- 
 tates persensimus, ipsa et scribentibus ad vos nobis adstet propitia, 
 mentemque nostram ccelesti afiQatu suo in ea inducat consilia, quse 
 Christiano gregi futura sint quam maxime salutaria. 
 
16 LETTER I. 
 
 whole body of your Communion have remained silent, and re- 
 frained from uttering- a word in censure of language so plainly 
 savouring of heresy and idolatry ? Why is it, that even those 
 amongst you who may disapprove of such statements, have re- 
 mained mute and confounded ? Because they emanate from 
 Authority— 2in Authority to which you are obliged to submit. 
 You have asked for some proof that the Virgin Mary is author- 
 itatively put forward in your Church instead of the Trinity ; 
 and I believe you have received a sufficient answer. 
 
 I pass over another passage of the same revolting character 
 at the conclusion of the-Encyclical Letter, and proceed to other 
 proofs which will further establish the character of the author- 
 itative teaching in your Church. You will not deny the au- 
 thority of the I^itany of the Blessed Virgin, printed at the end 
 of the Roman Catechism compiled by the Cardinal Bellarmine, 
 and to the repetition of which, Indulgences were attached by 
 8ixtus V, Benedict XIII, and Pius VII. At the conclusion of 
 this is the following prayer. 
 
 '^ We fly to thy protection. Holy Mother of God, despise not 
 "' our prayers in our necessities, but deliver us at all times from 
 '' all evils, glorious and blessed Virgin.'"^ The holy Psalmist 
 placed his trust in God. *^^ The Lord will be a refuge for the 
 oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble." (Ps. ix. 9.) He 
 consoled the afflicted of Israel by the hope that the Lord 
 '' will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their 
 prayer. (Ps. cii. 17.) Our Lord himself taught us to pray to 
 our heavenly Father to ^^ deliver us from all evil." And yet, 
 in spite of all this, the Popes grant indulgences for the repeti- 
 tion of prayers which express the very same sort of confidence 
 in the Virgin as the Scriptures teach us to feel towards God. 
 
 I will here mention another prayer to the Virgin, to the rep- 
 etition of which Pius VI. in 1786 granted Indulgences. It is 
 as follows : ^^ Condescend to permit me to praise thee, sacred 
 ^'^ Virgin. Grant me strength against thine enemies. Blessed 
 '' be God in his Saints."^^ The '' Stabat Mater," which has 
 Indulgences annexed to its repetition by Innocent XI, is full of 
 similar petitions/ But I will not dwell further on this branch 
 of the subject. 
 
 You wish for some proofs from your ^^ best writers," or any 
 of them, that the Virgin Mary is presented instead of the 
 
 i Sub tuum prscsidum confugimus, sancta Dei Genetrix, nostras 
 deprecationes ne dcspicias in necessitatibus nostris; sed a periculis 
 cunctis libera nos semper, Vir^o gloriosa et benedicta. 
 
 •^ Bouvier, Traite dcs Indulgences, p. 244. 
 
 ab. p. 245. 
 
LETTER 1. 17 
 
 Trinity, and that she is regarded as the dispenser of mercy. 
 You will readily admit the eminent learning and piety of Car- 
 dinal Bona. Hear then the following prayer extracted from 
 his writings. 
 
 ^^ Oh most sweet Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Lord 
 ^' Jesus Christ, refuge of sinners, and mother of Mercy, 1 com- 
 '' mit myself this day and evermore to thy peculiar protection 
 " with most humble devotion. Place me near unto thee, and 
 '^protect me from all my enemies visible and invisible. Say 
 " unto my soul, I am thy salvation. Direct me thy servant 
 '^ in all my ways and actions. Console me in all my griefs and 
 ** afflictions. Defend and preserve me from all evils and dan- 
 *' gers. Turn thy face unto me when the end of my life shall 
 '' come ; and may thy consolation, in that tremendous hour, 
 "^ rejoice my spirit. Thou canst do all that thou wilt in hea- 
 '^ ven and earth, nor can any resist thy will, for thou obtainest 
 '^ from the Almighty whatever thou seekest. Hear therefore 
 ^^ and receive my prayers, and despise me not when I confide 
 '' in thy mercy. Behold I fall down before thee, most gracious 
 ^^ Virgin, 1 fall down and worship in thee thy Son, and I 
 '' implore thy suffrages to obtain that my sins may be blotted 
 " out, to reconcile the heart of thy Son to my heart, that He may 
 " possess me, and make me a man according unto his heart, "e 
 
 If this prayer does not ascribe to the blessed Virgin the 
 Divine attribute of '^'^ dispensing mercy," J know not what 
 words can do so. She is addressed exactly in the terms which 
 we should use in praying to the second or third Persons of the 
 Holy Trinity. We see in it the same feeling of confidence in 
 the protection of the Being addressed — the same degree of 
 worship which is offered to Jesus Christ. '^ I fall down and 
 worship IN THEE thy Son." The Virgin Mary is worshipped 
 with the honour due to God ! You will not, I venture to say, 
 express any disapprobation of this prayer, any more than of the 
 sentiments of Gregory XVI. or of the authorized and indul- 
 genced prayers which I have cited above. You will be satis- 
 fied to say, that such things are not enforced upon your con- 
 sciences by the Decrees of the Council of Trent. Then if they 
 are not, your guilt is so much the greater in practising them. 
 By your own confession, such idolatrous invocations are not 
 
 g *• In hora ilia tremenda consolatio tua leetificet spiritum meum. 
 Omnia poles qusecumque vis in coelo et in terra, nee est qui possit 
 
 resistere voluntati tuee Ecce procido coram te, benignissima 
 
 Virgo, procido et adora in te Filium tuum," &c. Jo. Bonse Presbyt. 
 Cardinalis, Horologium Asceticum, §2. Opuscula Spiritualia, t. i. 
 p. 13. 
 
18 LETTER L 
 
 compulsory on you. They are therefore voluntary ; and yoa 
 are wholly without excuse or justification. It is in vain to 
 allege that they are not universally approved or received. 
 What proofs can you afford of this assertion ? When have you 
 yourself protested against them ? Who amongst you lifts up 
 his voice against them ? You content yourselves with general 
 disclaimers of superstition and idolatry^ bat you will never ven- 
 ture to lay your finger on any specific case amongst the thou- 
 sands which are authori2^ed amongst you. 
 
 But I have not concluded this branch of the subject yet. I 
 have to adduce a third branch of evidence, the authority of 
 which you, at least, will scarcely deny. 1 allude to the 
 '"' Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Francis de Girolamo, &c. 
 -'whose canonization took place on Trinity Sunday, May 26, 
 -' 1839." Of this publication you are the reputed Editor,^ and 
 if you are unwilling to avow your connexion with it, you can- 
 not hesitate to admit the authority attached to the actions and 
 sentiments of Saints recently canonized, after the strictest and 
 minutest investigation of their lives and conduct by the highest 
 tribunals in the Roman Church — actions and sentiments which 
 had been brought under the special notice of those tribunals, 
 and which are now published (probably by yourself) for the 
 general edification and imitation of Roman Catholics. Let us 
 then see what is thus authorized by your Church. I extract 
 the following from the Life of St. Alphonsus Liguori. 
 
 '^ His loving patroness, our blessed Lady, rewarded his zeal 
 ^^ in the cause of charity and devotion by appearing to him in 
 " the sight of an immense crowd of people collected in the 
 "'^ Church of Foggia to listen to a discourse upon his favorite 
 '^ subject, the intercession and patronage of Mary. . From her 
 '' countenance a ray of light, like that of the sun, was reflected 
 " upon the face of her devout servant, which was seen b)'^ all 
 "^'^ the people, who cried out 'a miracle! a miracle!^ and re- 
 '^ commended themselves with great Jervour and many tears to 
 ''the Mother of God; and many women of abandoned life 
 •' were seized with such intense sorrow, that they mounted 
 ^'^ upon a platform in the church, and began to discipline them- 
 "-^ selves and cry aloud for mercy ; and then leaving the church, 
 '•^ retired ta the house of penitents in that city. Alphonsus, in 
 
 •> At the end of the Catholic Directory and Annual Register for the 
 year 1841, 1 find in the Catalogue of Books of" F, A. Little, Catholic 
 bookseller and Stationer," the following-:— 
 
 Works by the Rev. Dr. Wiseman. 
 
 The Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, &c. 
 
LETTER i. 19 
 
 ^^ his judicial attestation^ deposed, that during the Sermon, he, 
 ^^ together with the assembled audience, saw the countenance 
 ^^ of the blessed Virgin resembling that of a girl of fourteen or 
 *"' fifteen years of age, who turned from side to side, as was 
 ••' witnessed by every one present."^ 
 
 '^ Whilst he was preaching on the patronage of the blessed 
 "■^ Virgin, and exciting his hearers to recur with confidence to 
 ^^ her in all their ivants, he suddenly exclaimed, ' O, you are 
 " too cold in praying to our blessed Lady! 1 ivill pray to Mr 
 "'Jor you.'' He knelt down in the attitude of prayer, with his 
 " eyes raised to heaven, and was seen by all present lifted more 
 " than a foot from the ground, and turned toivards a statue of 
 '' the blessed Virgin near the pulpit. The countenance of our 
 *' Lady (the statue!) darted forth beams of light, which shone 
 ""'* upon the face of the ecstatic Alphonsus. This spectacle 
 ^^ lasted about five or six minutes, during which the people 
 '- cried out, 'Mercy, mercy ! a miracle, a miracle P and every 
 ■* one burst into a flood of tears. But the Saint rising up, ex- 
 ^'ciaimed in a loud voice, ^ Be glad, for the blessed Virgin has 
 '' granted your prayer.'' "^ 
 
 Now, Sir, with every disposition to avoid uncharitable or 
 general imputations of idolatry, and to allow the sincerity of 
 those amongst you vv^ho disclaim it, I cannot refrain from ex- 
 pressing to you the horror and amazement which such a scene 
 inspires. Here is a Saint of your Church — a Saint canonized 
 only two years ago, and after the most rigid investigation of all 
 his actions by the highest authorities amongst you. — This Saint 
 excites his hearers to '^'^ recur with confidence to the Virgin in 
 '' all their wants," as if she were a Deiiy. He follows this up 
 by kneeling down and '^ 'praying'''' to the Virgin.— Observe, not 
 seeking her intercession, but fraying to her. ^ miracle is 
 wrought to sanction this impiety ; and that nothing may be want- 
 ing to complete the abomination of the scene, this miracle is 
 wrought, while the Saint is in an attitude of adoration before 
 the image of the Virgin, and while that image itself becomes, 
 as it were, animated, and testifies the presence of the Virgin 
 within it ! This is the teaching which you place before the 
 members of your Church. This is the teaching which your 
 Saints inculcate —your Cardinals and your Pope approve and 
 authorize — and which you yourself print and publish for the 
 edification of the faithful ! But I pass on to another example 
 of the same teachino^. 
 
 ' Lives of St. Alphonsus Ligiiori, &c. p. 12. Dolman, London, 18Z9. 
 
 tib. p.2T. 
 
20 LETTER I. 
 
 ** He established confraternities amongst his flock^ as a means 
 «^ of inducing them to frequent the Sacraments, and to hear the 
 *• word of God, and maintained the spirit of their foundation by 
 '' frequently preaching to them ; and one evening, whilst he 
 **• was preaching during a retreat to the confraternity of gentle- 
 " men at Arienzo xiipOK the 2:>atronage of the Messed Virgin, he 
 " was on a sudden wrapt in ecstasy, and his countenance shone 
 ^'^ with such splendour, that the whole Church was lighted up 
 *^ with unusual brightness ; and he exclaimed, ^ See, the blessed 
 -« Virgin is come to dispense graces amongst us; let us pray 
 ''to her, and loe shall obtain whatever vje ask.^ "' 
 
 When Moses descended from the mount with these words of 
 God, '' I am the Lord thy God. Tliou shalt have none other 
 " Gods but meP^ the skin of his face shone, and they were 
 afraid to come nigh him. Liguori is invested with an equally 
 miraculous splendour, while he declares that the Virgin is a 
 Goddess — while he asserts that she "^ dispenses graces," or is 
 invested with the attributes of the Deity, and while he admon- 
 ishes the people to address her as an all-powerful Being ! 
 Which would you have us believe ? Or is this fable intended 
 to turn the Scripture itself into ridicule and contempt, and to 
 afford Infidels the means of opposing Revelation to Revelation, 
 and arguing the absnrdity of the whole from its contradictions ? 
 I turn to the life of another of your recently canonized Saints, 
 St. Francis di Girolamo, where, after some mention of his love 
 of Christ, the following passage occurs. 
 
 ^'^ In like manner he was tenderly devoted to our blessed 
 •' Lady. For twenty-two years he preached a Sermon in her 
 '' praise and honour every iceek. To youth especially, it was 
 "'^ his custom to recommend this devotion as the surest preser- 
 '^ vathve of innocence, and the best remedy against sin ; saying 
 -' that one coidd hardly be saved who felt no devotion towards 
 •" the Mother of God. Mary was his counsellor in doubt, his 
 '*■ comfort in toil, his strength in all his enterprises, his refuge 
 '^ in danger and distress. He experienced an inexpressible 
 "' delight whenever he recited the Rosary of our blessed 
 '^ Mother." Lives of Liguori, &c. p. 10 L 
 
 I leave this passage to speak for itself. It requires no com- 
 ment. If ever idolatrous reverence was felt for a created being, 
 it certainly was in this case ; and yet this is an example which 
 the authorities of your Church hold up for general admiration I 
 With such facts before the public, you have the confidence to 
 ask for evidence that the Virgin and the Saints are set up 
 
 •lb. p. 36. 
 
LETTER I. 21 
 
 instead of the Hol}^ Trinity. Can you ask for better evidence 
 than that which has been given ? I have not quoted antiquated 
 documents — I have not cited a thousand idolatrous passages 
 from your books -of popular devotion and other unauthorized 
 sources — I have not referred to ^' local abuses" or '' popular 
 '^^ superstitions," but to the highest and most undeniable author- 
 ities in your Church. They convict you of all that has been 
 alleged against you, and you may writhe beneath that convic- 
 tion, but you cannot escape from it, except by shewing what it 
 is impossible to shew, that the errors and idolatries which I 
 have pointed out, have been resisted and protested against 
 in your community. 
 
 2. The saints are authoritatively placed before you instead 
 of the Trinity. That is, they share the honours of the Deity 
 — they receive honours which are only due to God. 
 
 Tn proof of this I again appeal to the Encyclical Letter of 
 Gregory XVI, where, near the conclusion, he thus addresses 
 all the Bishops of the Roman Obedience. 
 
 '^ We will also earnestly beseech with humble prayers from 
 ^^ the Prince of tl:^ Apostles, Peter, and from his co- Apostle 
 " Paul, that you may stand as a wall, that no other foundation 
 '^belaid but that which has been laid. Relying on this de- 
 *^ lightful hope, we trust that the author and finisher of our 
 '^ faith, Jesus Christ, will at length console us in all our tribu- 
 "'■ lations. (Id et ab apostolorum principe Petro, et ab ejus co- 
 ^' apostolo Paulo humili prece efflagitemus, ut stetis omnes pro 
 •^^ muro, ne fundamentum aliud ponatur praeter id quod positum 
 ^* est. Hac jucunda spe freti, confidimus auctorem consumma- 
 ''^ toremque fidei Jesum Christum consolaturum tandem esse 
 " nos omnes in tribulationibus, &c.") 
 
 To avoid mistakes it may be necessar}?^ to observe, that the 
 " foundation" here alluded to is not the Saviour, but the estab- 
 lished doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church, the dangers 
 of which deeply excite the Pontiff's grief and alarm. In this 
 passage then St. Peter and St. Paul are distinctly invested with 
 the attributes of Divine Providence. They are supposed to give 
 grace and power to the Bishops — to confirm them in the faith. 
 JVb prayer whatever is addressed to any Person of the blessed 
 Trinity. No supplications are offered to our Lord, but it is 
 hoped that in consequence of the prayers addressed to the Vir- 
 gin Mary and the Apostles Peter and Paul, he will console his 
 Church. St. Mary, Peter, and Paul, guaixl and protect the 
 Church — our Lord consoles it I Such is the system taught by 
 authority. 
 
22 LETTER I. 
 
 Do you wish for further evidence ? It shall be immediately 
 supplied. 
 
 Pius Vll. by his decrees of the 28th April, 1807, granted 
 300 days of indulgence to all who should devoutly use the fol- 
 lowing invocations."^ 
 
 ^' Jesus, Joseph and Mcinj, 1 offer to you my heart and my 
 " soul. 
 
 ^' Jesus, Joseph and Ma^'y, assist me in my last agony. 
 
 '^^ Jesus, Joseph and Mary, may my soul expire in peace 
 " with you.''^ 
 
 This, Sir, is a new Trinity, wholly unknown to Scripture or 
 to Catholic Tradition. 
 
 Pius VI. by a Brief dated 2d October, 1795, granted an In- 
 dulgence of lOddays to the faithful who repeat the following 
 prayer to their guardian Angel. 
 
 '^ Angel of God, who art my guardian, enlighten me who 
 *' am committed to thee with heavenly piety, guard, direct, and 
 '^ govern me. Amen." Bouvier, p. 248. 
 
 Pius VH. by his Rescript of September 21st, 1802, granted 
 a year's Indulgence, applicable to the deac^, to every Catholic 
 priest, who should recite the following prayer. 
 
 '^ O, holy Joseph, guardian and father of Virgins, to whose 
 ^' faithful care Christ Jesus, who was Innocence itself, and 
 " Mary, Virgin of Virgins, was committed, I beseech and pray 
 '^^ thee by both these dear pledges Jesus and Mary, to preserve 
 "^ me from all uncleanness, and make me ever most chastely to 
 ^^ serve Jesus and Mary, with an undefiled mind, a pure heart, 
 '" and a chaste body. Amen. (Te per hoc utrumque charissi- 
 " mum pignus Jesum et Mariam obsecro et obtestor, ut me ab 
 " omni immunditia prseservatum, mente incontaminata, puro 
 '' corde, et casto corpore Jesu et Marise semper facias castis- 
 " sime famulari. x\men.") Bouvier, p. 265. 
 
 In this prayer Joseph is addressed as a Deity — a Being who 
 has the power of bestowing divine grace, and of enabling Chris- 
 tians to serve God. The Son of God is made a sort of Media- 
 tor between Joseph and his worshippers; and, in fine, the 
 service of Christians is supposed to be divided between Jesus 
 and Mary ! And yet this is a prayer sanctioned by the highest 
 authority in your Church, and unscrupulously published in your 
 most approved practical Treatises on Indulgences. 
 
 I shall only extract, in addition, the following prayer from 
 one of your best and most approved Authors, Cardinal Bona. 
 
 ^^ Holy Angels, seals of the Divine likeness, full of wisdom > 
 
 ?n Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. S526. 
 
LETTER I. 23 
 
 '^ perfect in beauty, be present with me and defend me from the 
 *^ assaults of evil spirits, from the frauds and snares of the 
 *' enemy. Inflame me with that fire which the Lord sent on 
 *^ earth, and which he desired to burn vehemently. Ye seven 
 *•' Spirits which stand before the Lord ever prepared to do his 
 *^ bidding-^ succour a wanderer in this vale of tears. Cleanse 
 " me from all filthiness, and infuse into my mind the splendour 
 " of the saints, that all earthly matter being consumed, I may 
 "' burn wholly with divine love, and become one spirit with 
 '' God for ever. Thou St. Michael, most glorious Prince of the 
 '^ celestial army, helper of the people of God, receiver of the 
 '' elect souls, who hast fought with the Dragon and conquered, 
 '^ come to my assistance in this doubtful battle, which I, un- 
 " armed and feeble as I am, must wage with a most powerful 
 '' foe . . . You, ye other saints of God, to whose patronage I 
 " have intrusted myself, and whose feast is this day celebrated, 
 " assist me a miserable sinner sitting in darkness and the sha- 
 ** dow of death. Dissolve the bonds of my captivity, &c."" 
 Bona, Oper. Spiritual, t. i. p. 13, \A, 15. 
 
 I believe it would be needless to adduce any more proofs that 
 Saints and Angels receive in your Church honours which are 
 only due to God. 
 
 3. I am now to shew, that your Church regards Purgatory 
 or Indulgences as ^' means of obtaining mercy," and that they 
 are preached *• instead of Heaven and Hell." Do not suppose 
 that I mean to assert, that Heaven and Hell are not believed or 
 preached amongst you. T only contend, that Indulgences 
 (which are connected with Purgatory) are made to take the 
 'place, which Scripture and Catholic tradition assign only to 
 considerations connected with the eternal state; that they are 
 presented to the consciences and the hopes of your people, to in- 
 fluence them to the performance of duties which ought only to 
 be urged on the motives of the love and fear of God. This is 
 what we complain of. We see good works urged amongst you 
 on motives which obscure and interfere with the grand and 
 simple motives which Revelation places before us. When we 
 would excite our brethren to the performance of good works, 
 we can but say to them, '' Yield yourselves unto God, as those 
 '^ that are alive from the dead, and your members as instru- 
 " ments of righteousness unto God." (Rom. vi. 13.) We can 
 but quote to them our Saviour's words, ''^If ye love me, keep 
 " my commandments .... He that hath my commandments 
 " and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth 
 " me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and 
 ** will manifest myself unto him." (John xiv. 15 — 21.) And 
 
24 LETTER I. 
 
 again, "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven^ where 
 ^"^ neither the rust and moth doth corrupt, and where thieves 
 " do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is,^ 
 '' there will your heart be also." (Matt. vi. 20^ 21.) These' 
 are the only motives which Scripture and Tradition place be- 
 fore us. Our works are to be done simply in reliance on God's 
 assistance, and with a view to shew forth our love and obedience 
 to Him, without w^hich we should forfeit eternal life. Not so 
 with you. Every good work has in your eyes a very different 
 sort of value. It is a satisfaction for sins^ it is a means of ob- 
 taining so many days or years of Indulgence from the tortures 
 of Purgatory. 
 
 Are your people to be excited to visit the sick, to give alms 
 to. the poor, to hear mass, to repent of their sins and confess to a 
 priest, to receive the holy Eucharist, to pray for the extirpation 
 of heresies, the propagation of the Catholic faith, and for the 
 Church generally ? You may promise them a plenm-y Indul- 
 gence on certain feast-days in the year." Do you wish to excite 
 the people to repeat devotional offices during their life^ and to 
 recommend their souls to God at the hour of death ? You 
 promise them Indulgences. (lb. p. 185.) Is it your desire that 
 they should instruct their children, relations, or servants, in the 
 Christian doctrine ? You offer them two hundred days of 
 Indulgence for doing so. (p. 185.) They meditate on our 
 Saviour's passion to gain a hundred days of Indulgence, (p. 
 186.) They examine their consciences, and repent of their 
 sins, resolve to amend them, and recite the Lord's prayer, to 
 gain the same amount of Indulgence, (p. 186.) They accom- 
 pany the holy Sacrament when it is brought to the sick ; 
 endeavour to bring back into the right way those who have 
 wandered from it ; and practise other good works in honour of 
 our Lord. And for what reason .^ To gain an Indulgence of a 
 hundred days. (p. 191.) Is it considered desirable to promote 
 the spirit of prayer ? One indulgence is promised to all those 
 who instruct the people to meditate or to offer prayer, and 
 another to all who offer prayer every day for half or a quarter 
 of an hour. (p. 213.) In short, there is not a good work or a 
 devotional practice amongst you, which is not presented as a 
 means of obtaining Indulgences. Your whole system depends 
 on the popular belief in indulgences, and the popular w^ish to 
 obtain them. Your confraternities, your charitable and religious 
 works of all kinds, are vitally dependent on them. The prom- 
 ise of future glory, the desire to shew love and gratitude to 
 
 iBouvier, Traitc dca Indulg-ences, p. ^S3, 184. 
 
LETTER I. 05 
 
 Him who redeemed us with His own blood, are insufficient to 
 excite your people to the discharge of Christian duties. They 
 require the stimulant of Indulgences to rouse them into activity. 
 And what are those Indulgences ? Which of the Fathers ever 
 wrote a treatise on Indulgences, or even mentioned them ? 
 Were they known to Augustine, to Chrysostom, to Gregory, or 
 to any of the Fathers for a thousand years after Christ ? You 
 are well aware that there is a profound silence in Christian 
 Antiquity on this subject ; that the only Indulgences known for 
 a thousand years were remission of canonical punishments im- 
 posed in this life. And this novelty it is, which now constitutes 
 the moving power of your religion, and which usurps amongst 
 your people that influence which Revelation assigns to Heaven 
 and Hell — to the love and the fear of God. 
 
 Having now completed the first part of my task, and shewn 
 that the public is not so grossly mistaken as you would persuade 
 us, in the view which it takes of the superstitions prevalent 
 amongst you, I return to the consideration of your Letter. 
 
 You assure us, that throughout the whole course of your resi- 
 dence in the Roman schools you '' never heard a word that could 
 " lead you to suppose that our blessed Lady and the Saints are, 
 '^ or ought to be, the ^ prominent objects of regard,' or could be 
 •"^ ' dispensers of mercy,' nor that ^ Purgatory or Indulgences 
 '' are the means of obtaining it,' " &c. ; and you have, as you 
 say, '^ always there heard and taught exactly the contrary." 
 (p. 9.) In a certain sense ^ perhaps, the Professor in the 
 Roman tTniversity may not maintain those doctrines ; but I 
 would ask, whether you have ever heard any contradiction 
 offered by them to the scandalous and blasphemous positions 
 which have been above cited from authorized sources ? Until 
 you have shewn this, they and you yourself must be held res- 
 ponsible for those positions. 
 
 You argue, from the shortness of the Treatises on Invocation 
 of Saints and Purgatory in your theological course, that there 
 could have been no intention to supersede the worship of 
 the Trinity by the one, and the preaching of Heaven and Hell 
 by the other. This seems to me a very bad argument, for 
 surely we are not to judge of the practical importance of a doc- 
 trine by the extent which its discussion occupies. A Treatise 
 on the Trinity involves many difficult questions, and therefore 
 occupies more space than one on the Invocation of Saints. Yet 
 3 
 
26 LETTER I. 
 
 it does not follow that the Trinity itself is practically more 
 worshipped and honoured than the Saints. 
 
 What has been just observed applies equally to the argument 
 from your Catechisms. The Trinity, Incarnation, and Creed, 
 may be, as you say, the principal articles of instruction, (p. 13.) 
 They may occupy most space, and yet the worship of the Vir- 
 gin, and the Saints, arid Purgatory, may practically be " the 
 " main subjects" put before the popular mind. 
 
 You are indignant at Mr. N.'s assertion, that, with reference 
 to Purgatory, ^* the main idea really encouraged by Rome is, 
 " that temporal punishment is a substitute for Hell in the case 
 '' of the unholy," and you characterize this doctrine ascribed to 
 you as " wicked and fiendish." (p. 14.) What, Sir, are you 
 not well aware, that, according to your Church, ^^ the unholy," 
 those who are guilty of mortal sin, are, by the Sacrament of 
 Penance, relieved from the punishment of Hell, and made sub- 
 ject only to temporal penalties ? It is your doctrine that Hell 
 is the penalty annexed to mortal sins which have not been 
 remitted by the sacrament of Penance, and that temporal pun- 
 ishment in this life or the next, follows sins which have been 
 thus remitted. I shall not occupy your time in attempting to 
 prove what is the well-known doctrine of your Church — a doc- 
 trine which was evidently in Mr. N.'s mind, when he employed 
 the expressions which have excited your wrath. 
 
 Mr. N. has quoted from the Catechism of Trent the follow- 
 ing passage, which he says, " expresses the existing Romish 
 doctrine.^^ 
 
 " There is purgatorial fire, in which the souls of the pious 
 " are tormented for a certain time and expiated, in order that 
 '' an entrance may lie open to them into their eternal home, 
 *' into which nothing defiled enters." 
 
 Your reply is, that " it is unnatural and a fallacy" to ^^ put 
 ^* the Catechism at variance with the Council which ordered it 
 to be drawn up" — that we must suppose persons who had been 
 members of the Council " deliberately contradicting their own 
 acts," &c. Now, Sir, the fallacy, permit me to say, is all your 
 own. Mr. N. never adduced the Catechism of Trent as ''at 
 '^ variance^"* with the Council or as ^' contradicting'''' the 
 Council. He merely adduces it as expressing *' the existing 
 " Romish doctrine," which he most correctly distinguishes from 
 the Decrees of Trent, without meaning that there is any 
 opposition between the two. He asserts nothing more than 
 what you yourself admit — that it (the Catechism) " employs 
 " the usual language in which a doctrine is spoken of in the 
 " Church" of Rome. (p. 15.) That it is invested with authori- 
 
LETTER I. 27 
 
 ty in your Church you cannot deny^ though it may not be bind- 
 ing on you in the same sense as the Decrees of Trent. 
 
 You quote the Theology of Perrone to shew^ that Romanists 
 are at liberty to speculate on the nature of Purgatory notwith- 
 standing the Decrees of Trent. He remarks, '^^ that questions 
 *^ relating to the place^ duration^ and quality of the punishment 
 ^^ there inflicted, do not pertain to the catholic faith, or are not 
 " defined by the Church^ I have not Perrone's work in my 
 possession ; but I would ask, whether he does not add to the 
 above statement^ that the doctrine of a purging material fire is 
 the general and most probable opinion of theologians ? Perhaps 
 in the next edition of your Letter you would furnish us with 
 the entire passage. This however is clear, that " the language 
 *'' of every (Roman) Catholic theologian" goes rather further 
 than you would wish us to think. I turn to Bellarmine first. 
 His words are, ^^ It is certain, secondly, that one punishment of 
 " Purgatory is the want of the Divine vision .... It is certaiii, 
 *^ thirdly, that besides this punishment, there is also some other, 
 *^ which theologians call punishment of sense (poenam sensus). 
 '^ It is certain, fourthly, that there is in Purgatory, as also in 
 " Hell a punishment of fire, whether that fire be understood lit- 
 ^^ erally or metaphorically, and whether it signifies punishment 
 ^^ of sense^ or of loss, as some prefer to say. (Certum est, quarto, 
 ^^ in Purgatorio, sicut etiam in Inferno, esse poenam ignis, sive 
 " iste ignis accipiatur propria, sive metaphoric^, et sive signifi- 
 '^^^ cat poenam sensus, sive damni ut quidam volunt)." Bellar- 
 minus de Purgatorio, lib. ii. c 10. I am afraid. Sir, that the 
 liberty here allowed will not afford any great consolation to 
 those who are fearful of the torments of Purgatory. Whatever 
 they be, they are, it seems, the same sort of punishments as 
 those of Hell I And this too is a matter of certainty I 
 
 The next chapter of Bellarmine's Treatise is thus headed , 
 *^ Cap. X. Ignem purgatorii ipse corporewn ;" and commences 
 thus ; '^ It is the general judgment of theologians, that the fire 
 '^ (of Purgatory) is truly and properly such, and of the same 
 ^^ species with our elementary fire , (communis theologorum sen- 
 " tentia est, verum et proprium esse ignem, et ejusdem 
 '^ speciei cum nostro elementari.) Which judgment is not 
 ^'^ indeed de fiule, because it has no where been defined by the 
 '^^ Church; yea, in the Council of Florence the Greeks openly 
 '^ professed that they did not admit^re in Purgatory, and yet 
 '^ in the definition made in the last session, the existence of 
 *^ Purgatory is defined, without any mention of fire. Yet it is 
 ^^ the most probable doctrine. (Tamen est sententia probabilis- 
 '' $ima.)" 
 
2^ LETTER J. 
 
 In chapter xiv. De gravitate pcenarum, we find, that '' the 
 '" Fathers constantly teach that the pains of Purgatory are 
 ''^ most fierce (atrocissimas,)" and that "no pains of this life 
 '^ can be compared to them, (et cum illis nullas poenas hujus 
 ••^ vit^e comparandas ;)'' and that " in a certain sense all (wri- 
 '^ ters and others) admit, that the pains of Purgatory are greater 
 '■' than those of this life.'''' 
 
 Such, Sir, is the doctrine of the Father of your modern theo- 
 logians, " the prince of controversialists," as he is styled by 
 your friend Mr. Philiipps ; and this doctrine still continues to ' 
 be that of your theologians, as Delahogue declares, when speak- 
 ing of questions on the subject of Purgatory, he says, '^ whether 
 '' they (souls in Purgatory) be shut up in some dark prison, or 
 ••^ he to7^tured by some fire, as theolog-iaiis commonly hold, (vel 
 "igne aliquo torqueantur, ut communiter sentiunt theologi)" — 
 '"' cannot be certainly affirmed." Delahogue, De Piienitentia, 
 p. 304. 
 
 I need not proceed further with citations from your theolo- 
 gians. Those will suffice to shew, that although the doctrine 
 of a meterial and torturing fire in Purgatory is not an article of 
 faith in your Church, it is by far the most probable and popu- 
 lar opinion, and I very much doubt whether you could point 
 out any instances of writers or preachers in your Communion 
 maintaining in public the contrary doctrine. You would your- 
 self, r doubt not, have been regarded as a heretic, or as a 
 person ^^ suspected of heresy," had you ventured to maintain in 
 Italy, that the punishment of Purgatory is not '^ material 
 " fire," but the " want of the Divine Vision." The general 
 belief and doctrine is quite opposed to such notions, and this is 
 what is obviously meant, when it is asserted, that the doctrine 
 of the Catechism of Trent with regard to Purgatory ^' expresses 
 the existing Romish doctrine.'^'' 
 
 I am wearied, and I fear my readers will be wearied, with a 
 refutation of all your errors and false- reasonings, but I must 
 continue the ungracious task. 
 
 You send us to the statement of the Catechism of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent with reference to Images, and ask, whether such 
 statement is " an authoritative teaching which supersedes the 
 ^' Decree of Trent," or '' sanctions on the subject of images 
 " more than it warrants." The Catechism, as quoted by you, 
 says, '^ As the enemy of mankind, by his wiles and deceits, 
 "^ seeks to pervert every the most holy institution, should the 
 '-'- faithful happen at all to offend in this particular, the pastor, 
 ^' in accordance with the Decree of the Council of Trent, will 
 *•* use every exertion in his power to correct such an abuse, and 
 
LETTER I. , 29 
 
 *^ when occasion offers^ will explain the Decree itself to the 
 ''people, (^c." (p. 16, 17.) Certainly, Sir, the authority of the 
 Decree of Trent is here recognised. No one ever for a 
 moment doubted that it was fully received in your Churches. 
 But let me observe, that no definition whatever is given of 
 what really are abuses. The people may, according to the 
 doctrine of Alexander de Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, 
 Bonaventura, Marsilius, Almayn, Carthusianus, Capreolus, 
 Vasquez, and a host of your most approved writers, pay the 
 worship of Latria or Divine honours to the images of Christ. 
 (Bellarm. De Imag. ii. 20.) They may, with St. Thomas 
 Aquinas, (Summa, 3. 25. 4.) and the Schoolmen, worship the 
 true Cross or its image with the adoration of Latria. They 
 may believe in the miraculous powers of the images and relics 
 of the Saints; — may make pilgrimages to them — may carry 
 them in procession during plague and other public calamities; 
 and may put their trust in them. But the Catechism of Trent 
 does not say a word against such idolatries and superstitions. 
 It merely refers to the Decrees of Trent, which are equally 
 silent; and the explanation of those Decrees which the Priest 
 is to give, may be in exact accordance with the errors which I 
 have mentioned. So far for any safeguard supposed to be fur- 
 nished by this Catechism! You refer us to what the Catechism 
 says of the *^ worship of Saints." (p. 17.) Undoubtedly it re- 
 cognises what all your well-informed theologians theoretically 
 hold — that Divine worship or Latria is not due to the Saints. 
 No Man in his senses would gravely maintain such an ab- 
 surdity. And yet notwithstanding this, the Virgin and the 
 Saints do practically (and by authority too) receive honours 
 due only to God 
 
 You call (p. 17.) for '^ the testimony of all or any of your 
 "• best writers," in favour of '^preaching the blessed Virgin, the 
 "'^ Saints, and Purgatory," instead of " the Holy Trinity, Hea- 
 '• ven and Hell." This challenge has been answered, and if it 
 be necessary, 1 can easily add a thousand other proofs. Be it 
 observed too, that it has been answered not merely from the 
 '^ statements of travellers," or '* the assertions of the great body 
 *^ of writers against you," or/^ popular notions of Roman Catho- 
 ^Mics;" (p. 19.) but from authoritative documents, from your 
 own approved theologians and writers. 
 
 Yes, Sir, we do hold that the '' tacit sanction," (p. 20.) which 
 the members of your Churches give to the idolatries and super- 
 stitions alluded to, is the deepest stain upon them. You are 
 surrounded by notions and practices which every enlightened 
 Christian must most deeply disapprove. You see them sanc- 
 3* 
 
30 • LETTER L 
 
 tioned by the highest authorities in your Church, greedil}'" re- 
 ceived by the people, and endangering their salvation. And 
 yet you give them your '' tacit sanction." Which of you dares 
 to uplift his voice, and warn the people against the delusions in 
 which they are involved ? No ! This would be too great a 
 triumph to those whom you call '' heretics," and therefore you 
 gently and in general terms warn them against superstitions. 
 You never enter into particulars, or denounce this or that doc- 
 trine or practice as contrary to sound religion. We praise your 
 caution; but is this Christian honesty? Is this the duty of 
 Bishops ? Is this even the best mode of relieving your Church 
 from the imputations which are now thrown upon it ? 
 
 You enquire whether '* any extent of corruption or sanction - 
 "■" ing error by the members of a Church, if at variance with its 
 '^^ acknowledged formularies, deprives the Church of the benefit 
 "^ of these, and warrants its being treated as having admitted a 
 -•^ new faith ?"' (p. 20.) I must profess, that to the question 
 thus broadly put, none but an affirmative answer can be re- 
 turned. I suppose you would not yourself deny, that a Church 
 which openly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, or the 
 Divinity of Christ, even though it admitted the Nicene Creed, 
 would be heretical. But we do not contemplate any such para- 
 doxical case, in maintaining that the doctrines and practices 
 taught and received by authority in your Church, go Jar beyond 
 the wording of the Decrees of Trent. We do not pretend that 
 the doctrines generally received amongst you supersede those 
 Decrees. All that is meant is, that they are your doctrines, 
 and that you have no right to fall back on the wording of the 
 Decrees of Trent, as if you were responsible only for them. 
 We cannot permit you to escape so easily. 
 
 It is in vain therefore that you attempt to involve in self- 
 contradictions, (p. 20.) those who admit that the Western 
 Church before the Reformation had not ceased to be a true 
 Church, and yet maintain that the existing Roman Church 
 sanctions and authorizes idolatrous and erroneous doctrines. 
 There is no inconsistency in their views. They allow that the 
 Western Church before the Reformation was deeply culpable; 
 that most serious corruptions had become prevalent ; yet still 
 they do not deny her claim to be a part of Christ's Church, 
 though a corrupt one ; because there had been no definition of 
 errors J and no imposition of idolatries, by any authority to 
 which every member of the Church was bound to submit his 
 own judgment. In like manner, though they see much that is 
 erroneous, and objectionable, and presumptuous in the Decrees 
 of the Council of Trent ; and though they see idolatries and 
 
LETTER I. 31 
 
 grievous errors sanctioned by the authorities of your Church, 
 and generally received ; still they are not prepared to say, that 
 the Churches in communion with Rome have ceased to be 
 Christian^ because it seems to them that individuals may and 
 do continue in your Commuuion without practising or holding 
 what is contrary to the Articles of the Christian faith. But 
 notwithstanding this^ they consider your Churches as corrupt, 
 and as most deeply culpable in sanctioning corruption ; and they 
 hold you responsible for the errors and idolatries against which 
 you do not protest. You will not be able to point out any in- 
 consistency in this. 
 
 But you come to the question of fact, and demand what evi- 
 dence there is that popular notions '^ go beyond a sound faith 
 *^resptecting our blessed Lady?" (p. 21.) I think you have 
 had evidence enough. Would you wish me to quote the popu- 
 lar formularies of devotion ? They are at hand, if there be any 
 further call for evidence. You describe to us the religious exer- 
 cises of an Italian peasant, (p. 22, 23,) and forget to state^ that 
 Indulgences are attached to the performance of them all. In the 
 authorized form of Christian instruction used at Rome, and 
 complied by Cardinal Bellarmine, the only religious exercises 
 recommended are the daily repetition of the '^ Pater" and "=* Ave/' 
 and the Rosary of the Virgin. The latter is thus mentioned. 
 "' M. TVhat exercise have you for keeping up devotion (Ch' 
 '^ esercizio avete per mantenere la divozione) ? D. 1 say the 
 ^' Rosary of our Lady, and 1 continually meditate on the fifteen 
 "• mysteries of the said Rosary^ in which is contained the Life 
 *■' of our Lord Jesus Christ." If^ as you say, (p. 24.) your 
 people do not think it sinful to '^ neglect their devotions to the 
 "'' blessed Virgin," of which I should be glad to have some evi- 
 dence beyond your mere assertion, it does not prove that they 
 do not offer idolatrous prayers and worship to her. 
 
 We do not pronounce that all who pay honours to images 
 '' have renounced their faith, and abjured their God." (p. 25.) 
 We have every reason, however, to fear, as well from doctrines 
 maintained by many of your theologians and never censured, as 
 from appearences (which you yourself allow to be against you, 
 p. 24.) that very many amongst you do give directly idolatrous 
 worship to images, and put their trust in them. We see no 
 attempts made to arrest the grossest superstitions. They are 
 acknowledged to be abuses, and there the matter rests. 
 
 You complain that the '^ devotional feelings^'' of Roman 
 Catholics with reference to images '' are taken as tests of their 
 " convictions and faiths (p. 25) I must confess that 
 there seems to me nothing unreasonable in this test. If the 
 
32 LETTER I. 
 
 ^* devotional feelings" of an Italian towards the Virgin are^ 
 greater then towards his God, 1 cannot but think that (what* 
 ever his faith may be in theory) the Virgin is practically his 
 God. It is idolatry to love, or confide in, or worship any crea- 
 ture above God, or instead of God, or equally with God. A 
 faith which brings forth no fruit of " devotional feelings," which 
 permits those feelings to fix on other objects than God, is a 
 dead faith. 
 
 You, who have talked so slightingly of travellers'' accounts 
 of religion in Romish countries, (p. 19,) should not have at- 
 tempted to furnish us with anecdotes of your own. You hold 
 up the conversation of a boy at Paestum, as a proof, that the 
 peasants of Italy have no exaggerated notions of the Virgin. 
 The final questian was well put, and well answered ; ''^ Could 
 ^^ she have redeemed you .^" '' Not unless her Son commanded 
 " her." (p. 26.) This seems to you conclusive as to the sound- 
 ness of the boy's faith. To me it does not. The boy may 
 have believed that the Virgin coidd redeem him by command of 
 the Son of God — that she was in fact his saviour, his patroness, 
 his only hope — that his duty was to place his trust and confi- 
 dence in her — and that devotion to her was sufficient for his 
 salvation. All this he may have believed, notwithstanding his 
 recognition of the superior Deity of Jesus Christ. 
 
 As you have favoured us with one anecdote, I shall add 
 another, in illustration of the opinions of the middling classes of 
 Irish Romanists. — A gentleman of strict veracity, with whom 
 I am intimately acquainted, and from whose lips I received the 
 following account, was one day conversing with a remarkably 
 intelligent and respectable farmer of the Romish persuasion, a 
 fifty pound freeholder in the county of Tipperary. The con- 
 versation turned on the Virgin Mary, when my friend enquired, 
 ^' What reason Roman Catholics had for worshipping the 
 ''^ blessed Virgin?" The reply was, ^'^ Because she is the 
 '^ Mother' of God." "Well, but that does not prove that she 
 •^Ms God, or that she ought to be worshipped!" Answer. 
 " She is the Mother of God, and therefore must be worshipped 
 -^ as well as God. If we worship the Son^ we must worship 
 the Mother also." "Well, but you do not mean to say that 
 the Virgin was the Mother of God as regards his JDivine 
 nature? She was surely a human being before she became 
 ^^ the Mother of our Lord, and could she then have become 
 " God .^" This seemed to stagger the man for a moment, but 
 he soon replied : '^ Oh she is the Mother of God, and therefore 
 "'' we must worship her. This is our belief." My friend found 
 
 a 
 
 i,e 
 
LETTER i S3 
 
 it impossible to dislodge him from this position, or to convince 
 him that the Virgin Mary was in any respect inferior to our 
 Lord himself. 
 
 As to the Roman Ritual for the Visitation of the Sick, to 
 which you refer us, (p. 27,) it may have received compara- 
 tively little of modern addition, and may therefore retain in 
 some degree the pure doctrines of Catholic antiquity. Is this 
 any proof that the Virgin and Saints are not idolatrously wor- 
 shipped on other occasions ? Your impression of the sentiments 
 of the lower orders of Roman Catholics during your experience 
 *' in the hospitals of the eternal city" is certainly favourable. 
 Perhaps others might have been able to give a somewhat dif- 
 ferent account. 
 
 To your personal appeal to Mr. Newman, (p. 30,) I have 
 nothing to say in particular. I suppose you would scarcely ask 
 him to refrain from expressing opinions in opposition to your 
 errors, which have been formed on a full examination of the 
 subject. You have no right to impute to him any haste or want 
 of consideration in what he has written. 1 have no doubt that 
 he is satisfied of the truth of what he has said against you, and 
 that he will be always prepared to maintain it. 
 
 In reply to Mr, N.'s remark, that ^'^ the only thing which can 
 ^^ stop this tendency [to practical idolatry] in the decrees of 
 '^ Rome [about Images and Relics] as things are, is its making 
 **'some formal declaration the other way;" you ask, ^'^ What 
 
 '^ extent of formal declaration would satisfy you ?" ^'^ In 
 
 '^ what manner would you have the Church of Rome draw up 
 '' and promulgate a declaration that should be more satisfactory 
 "^ than all those various declarations [at present existing] put 
 '^together?" (p. SI.) 
 
 I am glad. Sir, to have one point of agreement with you be- 
 fore I close this Letter. The difficulty you have suggested is 
 most perplexing. It would indeed be difficult to devise any 
 general disclaimer of superstitions which could not be evaded 
 by the ingenuity of your theologians, and which would leave no 
 loop-holes for idolatry and superstition. But, Sir, we v/ill be 
 content with a much simpler and easier mode of clearing your 
 Church from the imputations which now so justly rest on her. 
 Let her prelates, her clergy, and her theologians, no longer re- 
 main satisfied with assuring us that we misunderstand their re- 
 ligion. Let them no longer confine themselves to the attempt 
 to hoodwink us, by appealing to the Decrees of Trent, and 
 denying that any worship of the Virgin and Saints and any 
 notions of Purgatory which are not there expressed are binding 
 on them ; as if that very circumstance did not increase the guilt 
 
34 LETTER I. 
 
 of those who receive and those who sanction such abuses. Lei 
 them refrain from canonizing and publishing lives of Saints 
 crammed with the most scandalous idolatries and blasphemies. 
 Let them protest against authorized and sanctioned abuses — 
 prayers to Saints investing them with the attributes of Deity — 
 worship of images pushed to idolatrous excess — Indulgences 
 viewed as ends of Christian exertion — devotion to creatures in- 
 stead of the Creator — repeated sacrifices of Christ. Let them 
 proclaim the grand and simple sanctions of Christianity, and 
 exhort men to look far above human inventions and the inter- 
 cession of creatures, to Him, who as God and Man is alone able 
 to mediate with Almighty efficacy between the Creator and 
 sinful man. Let us see this, and we shall then indeed rejoice 
 to relieve your Church from those accusations, which we are 
 now, in deep sofrow, compelled by Christian truth to lay to its 
 charge. Let us see this, and there will be few if any obstacles 
 to the restoration of that peace, which we desire, if possible, 
 still more earnestly than yourselves. 
 
 I have the honour to remain. 
 Sir, 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 WILLL\M PALMER. 
 Oxford, dpril 12, 184L 
 
SECOND LETTEE 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D. D 
 
 ON THE 
 
 FOUNDATION OF THE ROMISH DOCTRINES 
 
 OF 
 
 SATISFACTIONS, INDULGENCES, PURGATORY, 
 
 AND 
 
 SUFFRAGES FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A 
 
 OF WORCESTER COLLEGE. OXFORD. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON 
 
 110 BAXTIMOBE BTREBT. 
 
 1843. 
 
A SECOND LETTER, &c. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 You have yourself commenced the present controversy^ and 
 can therefore have no reason to complain if I pursue the path 
 which you have opened. You have afforded an opportunity for 
 entering on a discussion and refutation of doctrines commonly 
 and authoritatively taught in your Communion ; an opportunity 
 which seems to bear the impress of a Providential design, and 
 of which I avail myself with the utmost joy, under the expec- 
 tation that, amidst the excitement which evidently pervades 
 the minds of Romanists in this country, and the spirit of en- 
 quiry which exists amongst them, and which cannot in all 
 instances be repressed, the doctrines of Scripture, of Tradition, 
 of the Roman Church herself (rightly understood,) may be 
 heard amongst you — heard, it may be, with rage and opposition 
 by some — but still heard, and felt to be unanswered — heard 
 perhaps with docility by others, and made the means of their 
 extrication from a mass of dangerous and pernicious error, if not 
 of their restoration to that way of salvation, the true Church of 
 Christ, from which they are at present, under the mysterious 
 will of God, severed. 
 
 In the name of Christian truth and sincerity I hope, that no 
 measures may be taken by those who are in authority amongst 
 Romanists, to check the spirit of discussion which has lately so 
 much distinguished them. If Romanism be the truth, it will 
 not, shrink from an examination into its merits. If it be con- 
 scious of strength, it will courageously meet its opponents in 
 the field of controversy. There will not be any attempt to 
 stifle discussion and enquiry, as was the case lately, when the 
 authorities of your Communion at Oscott, interfered to prevent 
 the continuance of private correspondence between a clergyman 
 in this University of the highest Church principles, and the 
 Hon, and Rev. Mr. Spencer, which was on the point of bring- 
 ing back the latter unhappy mdividual to the fold of Christ from 
 which he had strayed- This most valued convert of yours 
 came to this University brimfuU of expectation he that should 
 obtain some valuable accessions to your ranks — and he narrowly 
 escaped being converted himself to the very Church he came 
 to assail. 
 4 
 
4 LETTER II. 
 
 There cannot be any impropriety, any spirit of unprovoked 
 aggression, in continuing my comments on the errors and super- 
 stitions of your Church, when it is remembered, that the Press 
 has, for years, been teeming with the controversial publications 
 of Romanists, inviting attention to the pretended merits of their 
 religion, and assailing those of the Catholic Church in Eng- 
 land ; when Societies are instituted with the avowed intention 
 of perverting the faithful to your schism ; when you are loud 
 in your boastings of the success of your system of proselytism ; 
 when you seem to '^ live, and move, and have your being" in 
 assailing our Religion by every method temporal as well as spi- 
 ritual; and when no views, however moderate, however ortho- 
 dox, however harmonizing with those of Catholic Antiquity, can 
 protect their advocates from your interference, and from your 
 controversial attacks. May it not be justly enquired, '^ Is there 
 ^' not a cause ?" Is it not time to expose your sophistries, to 
 hold up your contradictions to the world, and to drag your 
 errors and superstitions forth into the face of day, and assail 
 them with the weapons of Truth ? 
 
 You have vainly imagined, that because the study of Catho- 
 lic Antiquity has recently acquired a new importance — because 
 men are no longer satisfied with superficial and popular systems 
 of divinity, but view Scripture in its own light, reflected in the 
 writings of the holy Martyrs and Saints of old ; and because 
 the primitive Church in all its parts has become the object of 
 admiration and the model for imitation — (not always with strict 
 judgment, I admit,") you have imagined, I say, that this move- 
 ment was destined to promote your objects, and to bring con- 
 verts to you. You have been buoying yourselves up with this 
 hope, not without occasional misgivings that it might prove 
 delusive in the end. You have indeed been compelled to assure 
 your people, that men who studied Christian Antiquity, with a 
 disposition to submit to its doctrines, could not fail to become 
 Romanists ; for had they been permitted to think any other 
 result possible — had they been made aware that the study of 
 Catholic Antiquity would only rivet men in their opposition to 
 Romish errors, they might have been led to doubt whether 
 those errors were really supported by Catholic tradition, as you 
 pertinaciously and loudly assert them to be. 
 
 But, Sir, Time will dissipate these vain prognostics, these 
 empty and baseless visions. If there has been in any instance, 
 what might seem to afford any countenance to your hopes — if 
 there has been, in any case, any seeming approximation to your 
 errors, it has arisen from incaution or indiscretion of mind — from 
 the hasty writing or thinking of men undisciplined in the crafty 
 
 I 
 
LETTER II. 5 
 
 and cautious language of Jesuitism — from any thing hut love of 
 the errors of Romanism. If I am not mistaken, (and I have 
 more opportunities of knowing the intentions of the writers 
 alluded to than you can have,) there has never been any inten- 
 tion to afford countenance to your errors and superstitions, but, 
 on the contrary, a hearty wish to adopt the very best and 
 soundest methods of refuting them. It may be, that the popu- 
 lar line of argurhent against you did not seem very judicious to 
 the persons alluded to, and that they have sought for other and 
 more convincing arguments. It may be, that their attention 
 has been directed chiefly to the strengthening and beautifying 
 of their own Church, and that they have not turned aside to 
 assail your errors. But this. Sir, however it may excite tran- 
 sitory hopes, cannot long mislead you. Already you are be- 
 ginning to open your eyes to the truth, and to assail those 
 whom you professed to regard as the friends of Romanism. A 
 little time will suffice to develop the truth more fully, and will 
 teach the world w^hat sort of reason you have to rejoice at the 
 spread of Church principles. 
 
 In my former Letter, your doctrine of Indulgences and Pur- 
 gatory was briefly noticed, with a view to shew, that the tenets 
 authorized in the Church of Rome had not been unfairly repre- 
 sented. I must now invite your attention to some further ob- 
 servations on the same subjects, and on some other branches of 
 your doctrines connected with them. 
 
 I need scarcely point out to your sagacity, that a vast body 
 of your doctrines and practices to which we object, depends 
 altogether on one principle, which is as it were the foundation- 
 stone, the very vital essence of the whole. I mean, your doc- 
 trine of a debt still remaining due to Divine Justice after the 
 remission of sin — the doctrine of temporal punishments to be 
 endured for sin after its eternal penalty has been remitted. It 
 is the doctrine of your Church, that by the Divine Law, tem- 
 poral as well as eternal penalties are due to sin ; that while 
 the latter, together with the guilt of sin, are remitted in the 
 Sacrament of Penance, the former still remain due to Divine 
 Justice ; and that they may be averted by works of satisfaction, 
 such as prayer, fasting, and alms deeds, and by the suffrages of 
 the Church, especially by the sacrifice of the holy Eucharist. 
 Let me, in order to make my meaning still clearer, extract 
 from your own writings a very clear and accurate exposition of 
 the doctrine in question — an exposition which is perfectly in 
 accordance with the tenets of all your divines on this subject. 
 ^' Now let us come to the remaining part of the Sacrament 
 ^^fof Penance]. We believe that upon this forgiveness of sins 
 
6 LETTER II. 
 
 "' [in it], that is, after the remission of that eternal debt, which 
 •^^ God in his justice awards to transgressions against his law, 
 «^ he has been pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior or 
 f^ temporary punishment, appropriate to the guilt which had 
 '-' been incurred ; and it is on this part of the punishment alone, 
 '^ that, according to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can be 
 ^'^ made to God. What the grounds of this belief are, I will 
 *"^ state just now. At present, I wish to lay down the doctrine 
 '^ clearly and intelligibly ; that it is only with regard to the re- 
 "^ served degree of temporal punishment that we believe the 
 ^^ Christian can satisfy the justice of God^." 
 
 I must also avail myself of your subsequent description of 
 the Romish doctrine on this subject. 
 
 '^ The doctrine' which is thus collected from the word of 
 '' God, is reducible to these heads: 1. That God, after the re- 
 *' mission of sin, retains a lesser chastisement in his power, to 
 " be inflicted on the sinner. 2. That penitential works, fast- 
 " ing, alms-deeds, contrite weeping, and fervent prayer, have 
 '' the power of averting that punishment. S. That this scheme 
 ^^ of God's justice was not a part of the imperfect law, but the 
 '*: unvarying ordinance of his dispensation, anterior to the 
 '^ Mosaic Ritual, and amply confirmed by Christ in the Gospel. 
 ^'^ 4. That it consequently becomes a part of all true repentance 
 '^ to try to satisfy this Divine justice, by the voluntary assump- 
 ^^ tion of such penitential works, as his revealed truth as&ures 
 ^^ us have efficacy before him." 
 
 '^ These propositions contain the Catholic doctrine concerning 
 « Satisfaction^." 
 
 This, Sir, is a very fair and correct statement of the doc- 
 trines taught in all parts of your Churchy and it is quite con- 
 sistent with the following decrees of the Council of Trent; 
 though in this, as in other cases, your authorized doctrines go 
 beyond the definitions of that Conventicle. 
 
 ^'^ If any one saith, that the whole punishment is always re- 
 " mitted with the guilt [of sin] by God, and that the satisfac- 
 '^ tion of penitents is nothing but the faith by which they lay 
 '^ hold on Christ's satisfaction for them ; Let him be Anathema. 
 
 i^ Lectures on principal doctrines and practices of the Catholic 
 Church, vol. ii. p. 41, 42. 
 
 bibid. p. 47. 
 
 f^ Vide Catechism. Concil Trident. Pars ii. De Poenitentise Sa- 
 cramento, c. xc ; Bellarmin. De Poenitentise, 1. iv. c ii. Tournely, 
 De Poenit. t. ii. p. 3; Bouvier, De Pcenit. p. 128, &c. 280; Trevern, 
 Discussion Amicale, t. ii. p. 205 : Milner, End of Controversy, Let- 
 ter xlii ; Hornyhold, Real Principles of Catholics (on Penance); 
 Faith of Catholics by Berrington and Kirk, p. 339. Walenburch. 
 Opera, t. ii. p. 19; &c. 
 
LETTER II. 7 
 
 ^f If an)' one saith, that no satisfaction is made to God for 
 " sins, as to their temporal punishment, through the merits of 
 '' Christ, by punishments inflicted by Him [God] and patiently 
 '' endured, or enjoined by the Priest (not spontaneously under- 
 *' taken), such as fasting, prayer, almsgiving, or other works 
 '^ of piety ; and therefore that the best penitence is only a new 
 '^ life ; Let him be Anathema. 
 
 '' If any one saith, that the keys of the Church are only 
 " given to lose and not to bind also, and therefore that Priests, 
 '' in imposing punishments on those who confess, act contrary 
 '' to the end of the keys and the ordinance of Christ, and that 
 '^ it is a fiction that in virtue of the keys, tempo^^al punishment 
 '^ remains, for the most part, to be discharged, after eternal 
 ''punishment has been removed; Let him be Anathema*^.'* 
 
 It might naturally be objected to this doctrine, that the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism also remits sin, and yet there is no reserve of 
 temporal punishment in this case ; so that it seems unreason- 
 able to suppose that when sins are remitted by the Sacrament 
 of Penance, their temporal penalties are made an exception to 
 the general amnesty. But the Council of Trent has its answer 
 to this objection in the following terms. 
 
 "^ The nature of Divine justice seems to require, that they 
 " who have sinned ignorantly before baptism, should be received 
 ^^ into favour in a different mode from those, who having been 
 '^ once delivered from the service of sin and of the Devil, and 
 " having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not feared 
 '^ knowingly to violate the temple of God, and to grieve the 
 '' Holy Ghost. And it befits the Divine clemency, not to par- 
 '^ don our sins without any satisfaction, lest we should take 
 '^ occasion to suppose our sins light, and committing injury and 
 '^ insult against the Holy Ghost, should fail into more grievous 
 ^' sins, laying up for ourselves wrath in the day of wrath*." 
 
 I trust. Sir, you will admit that I have endeavoured to give 
 the fullest and most authentic exposition of the doctrine of your 
 Church in reference to temporal penalties and satisfactions. 
 Your own statements on the subject are, as I can attest, entirely 
 in accordance with those of all your theologians, and they ex- 
 actly harmonize with the doctrines of the Council of Trent. 
 There can therefore be no mistake as to what the belief of 
 Romanists reall)' is on these points. 
 
 Now, Sir, I have already said, that a large body of your doc- 
 trines and practices to which we object, depends on the doctrine 
 
 d Concil. Trident. Sessio xiv. 
 e Sessio xiv. cap. viii. 
 
 4* 
 
8 LETTER II. 
 
 of temporal punishment, and the necessity of satisfying for it by 
 penitential works. This is stated correctly by one of your 
 titular bishops. Dr. Horny hold, as follows. 
 
 ''' The eternal pain is forgiven [in the Sacrament of Penance], 
 ^^ but the temporal pain commonly remains, as it appears both 
 ^* from the necessity of the thing, the instance of David, who 
 '' was punished by the death of his children after his sins were 
 " forgiven, 2 Kings xii ; and other instances of temporal calami- 
 '' ties inflicted for offences though pardoned. £.ad this method 
 '^ of temporal pain is the foundation of our faith as to sa- 
 '' cramental Satisfaction, Indulgences, Purgatory, and Prayer 
 ''for the dead^:' 
 
 It does not appear evident at first view, how your doctrine of 
 Satisfaction, Purgatory, Indulgences, Masses, and Suffrages or 
 Prayers for the dead, are connected together ; and how vitally 
 they all depend on the doctrine of temporal penalties above 
 mentioned. Bear with me then, while I trace the mutual con- 
 nexion and dependence of these doctrines and practices. 
 
 Your Church lays it down as a broad and general principle, 
 that temporal punishment is still due to the Divine justice for 
 sins, after their eternal punishment has been remitted in the 
 Sacrament of Penance. This is the first step. 
 
 Secondly, you maintain, that such temporal punishments may 
 be averted hj Satisfactions or works of Penance, such as fast- 
 ing, alms, and prayers, which according to you, satisfy, expiate, 
 or atone for the temporal punishments due to Divine justice. 
 
 Thirdly, you argue, that as temporal penalties are absolutely 
 due to Divine justice; if they are not redeemed or expiated in 
 this life by works of penance, they must be endured in the next 
 life, and this is your doctrinrO of Purgatory. 
 
 Fourthly, you believe, that the Church has the power of re- 
 mitting such temporal punishments in this life or in Purgatory 
 by Indulgences, in which the merits of Christ and (as many of 
 you hold) of the Saints, are applied to the supply of your defi- 
 ciency in works of Satisfaction. 
 
 Fifthly, you conceive, that as there may be doubts whether 
 the conditions on which Indulgences are given are really ful- 
 filled, and as there may be other reasons for questioning whe- 
 ther a real remissior> of temporal punishment has been obtained 
 by Indulgences in any particular case, it is necessary to con- 
 tinue works of Satisfaction, as if Indulgences had not been 
 granted, and to obtain the Suffrages or Prayers of the Chur€h> 
 
 fHornyhold, Real Principles of Catholics, p. 277, 278. Ed. LoQ- 
 don, 1749. 
 
LETTER IJ. 9 
 
 especially the sacrifice of the Mass, which you believe to have 
 great efficacy in remitting the temporal punishments of the 
 living and dead. 
 
 Sixthly^ you believe, that one person may perform satis- 
 factory works for another, and thus obtain the remission or 
 diminution of his temporal punishment in this life or in Purga- 
 tory, and that he may also acquire the remissions of temporal 
 punishment conveyed by Indulgences, and apply them to the 
 relief of the dead in the tortures of Purgatory, or even to their 
 delivery from those dreaded regions. 
 
 From this. Sir, it is evident, that your doctrine of Temporal 
 punishment is the very life-blood, the vital sap, the foundation, 
 the key-stone of your system on all these points. Take this 
 doctrine away, and the whole machinery of your Church is 
 broken asunder. Your Purgatory, your Satisfactions, your 
 Indulgences, your Masses for the dead. Confraternities, privi- 
 leged altars, scapularies, and beads, medals, and crucifixes, with 
 the whole paraphernalia of indulgenced rites, objects, and 
 prayers, are scattered to the winds. This, Sir, is the root from 
 which springs a huge and fearful mass of superstition, choking 
 and obscuring the pure faith which still lingers among you ; 
 and in assailing this error and its branches, which like serpents 
 have clung round your Catholic faith, and by their poisonous 
 breath have been destroying its children, I have no other object 
 than to restore the ancient Roman faith — the faith of the holy 
 Catholic Church — that faith which has always existed, and 
 which, by virtue of the Saviour's promise, shall prevail over 
 '' the gates of Hell," over all the machinations of the Powers 
 of Darkness. 
 
 Let us come then to the examination of the basis on which 
 this doctrine rests. Let us enquire what reasons you can fur- 
 nish for believing, that by a general law of God, temporal 
 penalties remain due to Divine justice after sin has been re- 
 mitted, and that such penalties can be averted. 
 
 1. You appeal in the first place to what passes within our 
 minds ; I quote from your own writings. 
 
 '^ Is it God's ordinance, that when he has forgiven sins, and 
 ^' so justified the sinner as to place him once more in a state of 
 '^ grace, he atill reserves the infliction of some degree of punish- 
 ^' ment for his transgressions ? We say, that undoubtedly it 
 ^' is ; and I would appeal, in the first instance, to the feelings of 
 *^any individual; and I do not believe there is any one, how- 
 ^' ever he may think himself in a state of favour before God — 
 
10 LETTER II. 
 
 " however he may flatter himself that his sins are taken away 
 t( — who will not answer the appeal. Why is it that, when 
 ^* calamity falls upon him, he receives it as a punishment for 
 " his sins? Why do our natural /eeZing-s prompt us to consider 
 ^^ our domestic and personal afflictions as sent by God for our 
 ^' transgressions, although, at the moment when affliction 
 *^ comes, we may not be conscious of lying under actual guilt ? 
 ^^ This is a feeling which pervades every form of religion, and 
 ^^ more naturally that of Christ ; because it is impossible to be 
 <^ familiar with the word of God, without receiving an impres- 
 ^^ sion that he does visit the sins of men on their heads, although 
 " they may have endeavoured, with reasonable hope, to obtain 
 '^ their forgiveness. ... It is imposible not, more or less, to con- 
 ^' nect the idea of suffering inflicted, with that of sin com- 
 " mitteds." 
 
 You will excuse me. Sir, if I cannot admit the propriety of 
 making any appeal, in the first instance, to our natural /eeZmgs, 
 where a grand principle of religion is in question. If our natu- 
 ral feelings be in accordance with the doctrines revealed by 
 God, and conveyed to us by the united voice of Scripture and 
 Catholic Tradition, we may indeed use them as an additional 
 argument in favour of the Truth ; but if they are adopted as 
 our guides and directors in the interpretation of the word of 
 God ; if they are put forward in the first instance to bias our 
 minds, you must permit me to say, that, considering our natu- 
 ral inclination to evil, and the temptations of the Devil by 
 which we are perpetually assailed, such a method seems emi- 
 nently calculated to involve us in all sorts of errors and heresies. 
 
 I must therefore protest against your appealing in the first 
 instance to our ^' natural feelings," when the real question is 
 whether a certain principle has been revealed by God. 
 
 But, Sir, 1 am ready and willing to meet you on the ground 
 you have selected. I fully admit that our natural feelings 
 prompt us to connect in some cases the notion of temporal 
 calamities suffered, with that of sin committed and unrepented 
 of We need not look to Scripture and contemplate the case 
 of a world destroyed by the flood for its sins, of Sodom perish- 
 ing in fire and brimstone, and of the Jews scattered amidst all 
 nations for their rejection of the Saviour; for we may see with 
 our own eyes, that Divine Providence does sometimes make 
 bare its arm, and visibly punish wicked individuals and nations. 
 But, Sir, if we do see this, we also frequently see Vice and 
 
 g Lectures on the Doctrines, &c. of the Catholic Church, vol. ii. p. 
 42. 
 
LETTER II. 11 
 
 Sin triumphant in this world, and we see Virtue and Religion 
 pining in misery and affliction^ persecuted, overwhelmed with 
 insults and torments, and lifting their eyes in meek resignation 
 and inward joy to the sublime rewards which are promised to 
 those that suffer for Christ. Need I call to your remembrance 
 the Saints of old, of whom the blessed Apostle Paul writes 
 thus: ^'^ They were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that 
 '^ they might obtain a better resurrection ; and others had trial 
 "^ of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and 
 ^^ imprisonment : they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, 
 " were tempted, were- slain with the sword : they wandered 
 " about in sheepskins and goatskins ; being destitute, afflicted, 
 ^^ tormented ; of whom the world was not worthy: they wan- 
 '^ dered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens, and caves of 
 ^' the earth." Heb. xi. 35 — 38. No one can venture to say 
 that these temporal afflictions were endured by the Saints for 
 their sins; they were trials of their faith, patience, love of 
 God. Listen again to the words of our Lord Himself: '^ Bless- 
 ^^ ed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you^ and 
 '^ shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. 
 " Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in 
 '^ heaven ; for so persecuted they the prophets which were be- 
 *^ fore you." And again, ^*^ These things have I spoken unto 
 ^^ you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall 
 " have tribulation ; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the 
 '^ world." Hear the words of St. Paul : " My son, despise not 
 '^ thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art re- 
 ^^ buked of Him : for ivhom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and 
 ^^ scoiirgeth every son whom he receiveth.^"* Attend also to the 
 language of St. Peter, the first of the Apostles, '' Now for a 
 '^ season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temp- 
 '' tations : that the trial of your faith, being much more pre« 
 ^' cious than of gold that perisheth though it be tried with firCj 
 ^^ might he found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the 
 ^^ appearing of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. i. 6, 7. 
 
 It is evident then, that temporal calamities are in many 
 cases, nay as a general rule, inflicted on the true disciples of 
 Christ, in order to try and strengthen their faith, and to pro- 
 cure for them a greater degree of glory, honour, and praise in 
 the eternal and heavenly king-dom of Christ. And, Sir, this 
 might have been anticipated from the life of Him whom we in 
 common adore, and whom we regard as the grand example to 
 whom our lives ought to be conformed. No being that ever 
 partook of human nature was so severely afflicted with temporal 
 as well as spiritual sorrows and calamities as He who redeemed 
 
12 LETTER 11. 
 
 the world ; and yet, none but Himself was ever free from the 
 taint of all sin, original as well as actual. This one example 
 is an irrefragable proof, that temporal calamities and torments 
 are not necessarily, in any way, the results of sin committed by 
 him who suffers them. 
 
 You cannot deny the truth of this principle without heresy. 
 You do not expressly deny it in your argument. But I have 
 brought it thus distinctly forward, because it seems to me that 
 Romanists generally, in their consideration of the afflictions of 
 good men, seem inclined to forget the reason assigned for them 
 by the word of God, and to suppose that they are all intended 
 as punishments of sin. Nothing can be more injurious to God 
 than such a notion. It represents Him in the attitude of a 
 severe Judge instead of a loving Parent — a Parent who edu- 
 cates his children for higher glory by a more rigid discipline. 
 In opposition to such errors, I lay down the following proposi- 
 tion as an Article of Catholic faith deduced directly from the 
 word of God: "^That temporal afflictions and calami- 
 
 ^* TIES ARE COMMONLY IMPOSED BY God'S MERCY ON THE 
 '^JUSTIFIED, IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY OBTAIN A GREATER 
 '^ AND MORE GLORIOUS REWARD." 
 
 Now, Sir, I come to your arguments from our ''feelings^ 
 You imagine, '^ that when calamity falls upon^"* any one who 
 thinks himself in a state of favour before God, '^ he receives it 
 " as a punishment for his sins." — You assert, that '^ our natural 
 *' feelings prompt us to consider our domestic and personal 
 '' afflictions, as sent by God for our transgressions^'' — that '^ it 
 '^ is impossible not, more or less, to connect the idea of suffering 
 '^ inflicted, with that of sm committed.''^ I have no doubt, Sir, 
 that yourself and other Romanists are in the habit of regarding 
 such temporal afflictions of the justified as punishments for their 
 past sins ; but I must say, that any one who enters into the 
 spirit of the word of God ; any one who can appreciate the 
 glorious and merciful objects of a Heavenly Father in those 
 afflictions, will view them in a widely different light. The 
 carnal and ignorant may see in them nothing but exactions of 
 Divine justice, penalties for sin partially forgiven. But the 
 spiritual mind will trace in them the discipline of Love, not 
 inflicting penalties for the past, but preparing the way for a 
 more glorious futurity. 
 
 Such afflictions therefore are to be regarded as signs of love, 
 not of vengeance. They are to be desired more than dreaded. 
 They are to be endured, not expiated. If they are not endured, 
 the Christian suffers loss. If they are removed, his reward is 
 less. If you fast, and pray, and with many tears beseech God 
 
LETTER II. IS 
 
 to remove from you these temporal calamities/ you may indeed 
 prevail, though one might almost doubt whether any prayer 
 like this, proceeding from a heart unable to appeciate the 
 Diyme mercy, would be heard. The case of the inhabitants of 
 Gadara however shews, that God will hear the prayers of those 
 who intreat Him to " depart out of their coasts;" and it may be 
 apprehended that He will also hear the prayers of those who 
 ignorantly pray that his grace of afflictive dispensations may be 
 removed from them — of Those who regard his graces as calami- 
 ties, his works of love as punishments. 
 
 You spend j^our lives in endeavouring to avert these temporal 
 afflictions, which you regard as so many exactions of God's jus- 
 tice. It is very true that you regard them as punishments for 
 sin, and that they therefore appear to you in a most formidable 
 light. But still you really are endeavouring to avert what is 
 aot a punishment for sin, but a mark of God's favour. The 
 temporal afflictions of the righteous are seen by you in a false 
 light. You think them judgments, while thay are really 
 mercies. 
 
 But you will answer, when thus pressed, that you do admit 
 that temporal evils are frequently intended for spiritual bless- 
 ings, though you hold that they are also often intended as pun- 
 ishments of sin remitted ; and that it is not your design to avert 
 them in the former sense, but in the latter. 
 
 I would enquire then, first, (admitting your doctrine for the 
 sake of argument,) what means you have of determining that 
 such temporal evils may not be, at once, punishments for sins 
 past, and means of future improvement and reward ? If they 
 be so, you inflict an injury on yourselves by seeking to avert 
 them, and yet you cannot deny that the case is possible. 
 
 Secondly, I ask, whether such temporal evils, if they are (as 
 you imagine) inflicted for the punishment of sin remitted as re- 
 , gards its greater penalties, may not be necessary to preserve 
 ourselves from falling again into sin, or necessary for the in- 
 struction of others ? And here again is a reason why we should 
 not earnestly labour to avert such temporal evils ; because in so 
 doing we may be only interfering with our own salvation or 
 that of the brethren, and counteracting the designs of God. 
 
 So much for your appeal to our '' feelings," and to the sup- 
 posed connexion between temporal suffering and sin. If you 
 persist in asserting that temporal afflictions have a necessary 
 connexion with sin, you accuse our Saviour himself of sin, and 
 fall into damnable heresy. 
 
 II. I now turn to the proofs which you adduce from Scrip- 
 ture in support of your doctrine. And here let me be permitted 
 to state the question more clearly. 
 
 \ 
 
14 LETTER II. 
 
 It is not in question then, whether temporal penalties are, in 
 the order of God's providence, (especially under the former dis- 
 pensations,) due to, and inflicted on, sin; but whether they 
 are, under the Gospel, due to sin remilled and pardoned. 
 
 Hence you will at once admit, that it would be the merest 
 sophistry and folly to attempt to prove your doctrine from the 
 simple fact, that temporal penalties for sin have been inflicted 
 on sinners under the old or new dispensations, while the ques- 
 tion is whether they have been inflicted on pardoned sinners. 
 
 In considering the testimonies which have been advanced in 
 support of your view, I must here turn from your scanty collec- 
 tion of scriptural examples, to the fuller and more systematic 
 argument of Tournely. He collects '' those places of Scripture 
 ',' which signify that God, after the pardon of sin^ still requires 
 '' an avenging temporal punishment (ultricem poenam tempora- 
 ^' lera) from the penitent." 
 
 "The example of David (2 Kings [Samuel] xii,) is especially 
 '^' remarkable. For although Nathan had heard from the pro- 
 " phet (verse 13,) ^ The Lord also hath put away thy sin ; 
 ^^ thou shalt not die,' he immediately adds, *^Howbeit, because 
 " by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of 
 '''' the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee 
 "shall surely die ;' and verse 10, ^ Now therefore the sword 
 " shall never depart from thine house ; because thou hast de- 
 '' spised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be 
 " thy wife.' God remits on one side the guilt and eternal pun- 
 '^ ishment ; but on the other he requires temporal punishment 
 " as well from the son as the father himself, not merely for the 
 " discipline and amendment of David, and the example of 
 '^ others, as the Innovators and especially Daille commonly re- 
 " ply, but also for the punishment and chastisement of pardoned 
 " sin. ' Because by this deed thou hast given occasion to the 
 
 '^ enemies of the Lord to blaspheme Because thou hast 
 
 " despised me,' saith the holy context, which particle ' Because' 
 ^' denotes that the sin of David was the real cause of all the 
 ^^ evils which he suffered, and not merely their occasion, as 
 " Daille cavils : for with what more significant terms could 
 " Scripture have expressed the cause?^^ (Tournely, De Pcenit. 
 t. ii. p. 4.) 
 
 You will admit. Sir, that this is as clear and cogent an argu- 
 ment as can well be deduced from this passage in favour of 
 your view. Let us now consider it more closely. It is obvi- 
 ous, therefore, that God by Nathan remitted the extreme pun- 
 ishment which was due to David's sin, " Thou shalt not die," 
 and that at the same time He imposed a lesser temporal punish- 
 
LETTER 11. 15 
 
 ment which was due to David's sin, *^ Thou shalt not die," and 
 that at the same time He imposed a lesser temporal punishment 
 for his sin, ^'^The child that is born unto thee shall surely die." 
 But, Sir, I must deny that this example furnishes any necessary 
 proof that a similar mode of proceeding- characterizes the pre- 
 sent dealings of God with us. A temporal penalty of some sort 
 was necessary when God visibly interfered in the affairs of 
 men. But now that his guidance is entirely spiritual and in- 
 visible, temporal penalties are no longer necessary in the same 
 way ; and had David lived under the Christian dispensation, 
 his crime might not have involved such consequences when 
 truly repented of. Under the former dispensation the case was 
 widely different. Had the favoured servant of God, the chosen 
 pastor of God's people, been permitted to commit most grievous 
 and scandalous sins, without any visible signs of God's in^ligna- 
 tion, the most fatal results must have followed. The justice of 
 God would have been impugned. Sin would have been en- 
 couraged. 
 
 From all this it is plain, that no inference can be deduced 
 from the above passage in proof of your tenets. But, Sir, there 
 is a doctrine clearly taught by this example, and by the subse- 
 quent conduct of David, which is fatal to your view. We 
 learn from it, that such temporal penalties inflicted for sin can- 
 not he averted. Was the threatened punishment of David 
 averted by his prayers, fastings, tears, prostrations, and other 
 works of '^ satisfaction?^'' No! The child died. How vain 
 therefore is it for you to imagine that such temporal penalties 
 of sin can be averted ! Observe too, that when temporal pun- 
 ishments were afterwards sent to David in the case of Absalom, 
 and of the numbering of the people, he did not attempt to avert 
 them by any works of satisfaction. He submitted to the Divine 
 will, and his example is meant to teach us the duty of submis- 
 sion to all similar dispensations of God. 
 Tournely continues thus : 
 
 ^* In the same II Book of Kings [Samuel] c. xxiv, although 
 ^^ God had pardoned David's sin, which he had committed in 
 ^^ numbering the people, yet in verse 12, a remaining punish- 
 ^' ment is set forth to be discharged, and h^ is given the option 
 ^^ of war, famine, or the plague." (Tournely, ibid.) 
 
 On this argument I must observe, first, that there is no evi- 
 dence whatever that God had pardoned David's sin. It is true 
 indeed that David " said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly 
 ^^ in that I have done; and now, I beseech thee, Lord, take 
 " away the iniquity of thy servant : for I have done very fool- 
 ^' ishly." But all we know of the result is, that God offered 
 5 
 
16 LETTER II. 
 
 him the choice of three grievous penalties. There is not any 
 allusion to God's having pardoned his sin when the penalty 
 was inflicted. Consequently this passage does not relate to the 
 question before us. If it did^ however, if David's sin had been 
 pardoned when the Prophet offered him the choice of war, pes- 
 tilence, or famine, the conclusion would be fatal to your doc- 
 trine. Tlie punishment ivas inflicted, and David instructed by 
 the case of Uriah, that such punishments coidd not be averted 
 by any works of satisfaction or penance, submitted himself to 
 the Divine will. 
 
 Tournely continues : ^^ In the 32d chapter of Exodus, when 
 ^^ Moses interceded with God not to destroy the whole people 
 " on account of their crime in adoring the golden calf, God is 
 ^^said to have been appeased verse 14, yet in verse 34 God 
 ^'^saith, ^Nevertheless, in the day when I visit I will visit 
 '' their sin upon them.' " (Ibid.) 
 
 In this case God evidently did not forgive the sin of the 
 children of Israel, He only commuted the sentence of utter 
 destruction which He had pronounced against that people for 
 their idolatry, into chastisements of a different character, at the 
 prayer and intercession of Moses. There is no evidence that 
 the people repented and were forgiven their sin. On the con- 
 trary, the Lord said unto Moses, in reply to his entreaties for 
 their forgiveness, ^'^ Whosoever hath sinned against me, him 
 ^' will I blot out of my book.^'' (verse 33.) And in sign of his 
 wrath we find, that '^ the Lord plagued the people, because 
 '^ they made the calf, which Aaron made." (verse 35.) What 
 advantage then can you derive from this passage ? It is 
 adduced to prove that sins pardoned are subject to temporal 
 punishment. But the sin of the children of Israel here men- 
 tioned was not pardoned. 
 
 I return to Tournely. ^^ In the 14th chapter of Numbers, 
 '^ the Lord was angry at the murmuring of the people, and was 
 '' so appeased by the prayer of Moses as to say, (ver. 20.) ^ 1 
 "have pardoned according to thy word;' yet adds, (ver. 22.) 
 " ' All those men which have seen my glory and my miracles 
 '^ which I did ... . shall not see the land.' " (Ibid.) 
 
 In this case it is obvious, that the " pardon" granted by God 
 did not imply the forgiveness of the sin committed, and the 
 justification of those who had committed it, for He speaks of 
 the congregation as those that ^'^ have tempted me now these 
 *^ ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice," (ver. 22.) ; 
 " them that provoked me," (ver. 23.) ; " this evil congregation 
 "which murmur against me," (ver. 27.) He says, "Your 
 " little ones .... shall know the land which ye have despised,'''' 
 
LETTER II. 17 
 
 (ver. 31.) ^^Each day for a year shall ye bear your iniquities,^'' 
 (ver. 34.) '^^I the Lord have said, I will surely do it unto all 
 '' this evil congregation that are gathered together against me/^ 
 (ver. 35.) Such is the language of God to the/congregation of 
 Israel after he had "pardoned" them, (ver. 20.) And it is 
 plain therefore that this pardon was not a remission of their sin, 
 but a remission of the immediate destruction by pestilence, and 
 the disinhentance which God had threatened, (ver. 12.) The 
 temporal punishments then with which they were visited, were 
 not punishments of sin j-emi^fecZ— punishments of the justified. 
 They were chastisements of unbelieving and impenitent sinners. 
 Is this the interpretation of unaided human reason ? Is it 
 not the interpretation of St. Paul in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, where speaking of those that fell in the wilderness 
 in consequence of this Divine decree, he says, '"^To whom 
 " sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them 
 ^' that believed not ? So we see that they could not enter in 
 ^^ because of their unbelief,^'' (Hebr. iii. 18, 19.) And is it 
 this unbelieving, this impenitent, this evil congregation, that 
 you would hold up as a proof that temporal penalties are in- 
 flicted on the believing and justified penitent. 
 
 I return to your proofs. "Add to these those places of 
 " Scripture in w^hich just and holy men declare that they are 
 '' punished and afflicted in this life for their sins, — doubtless 
 "past and already pardoned by God. Thus Tobias, c. iii. v. 
 "4. said, ^Because we have not obeyed thy commandments, 
 " therefore we have been delivered for a spoil, and unto cap- 
 " tivity, and unto death, and for a proverb of reproach to all the 
 " nations among which we are dispersed. Deal not with me 
 ^' according to ray sins and my father's, &c.' " (Tournely, Ibid.) 
 There is no evidence whatever that Tobias, in oifering this 
 praj^er, believed that his sins had been pardoned. On the con- 
 trar}", his prayer infers throughout, that he believed himself 
 still subject to God's displeasure for sin, and to the punishment 
 which resulted from it. He prays God " not to punish him 
 '^ for his sins and ignorances," (ver. 3.) evidently supposing 
 that he was still liable to the fidl measure of penalty due to 
 them. This passage therefore cannot aiford any support to 
 your doctrine of a portion of the punishment due to sin remain- 
 ing after the greater part of its penalties have been remitted, 
 and after the sin has been remitted, and the sinner justified by 
 the Sacrament of Penance. 
 
 " In the third chapter of Daniel, v. 28. the three children 
 •^ placed in the furnace say, ' In truth and in judgment thou 
 " hast brought on us all these things, because of our sins,' " fyc. 
 (Tournely, ibid.) 
 
1^8 LETTER II 
 
 1 might object to this passage at once, as an interpolation, and 
 as forming no part of the word, of God, because it is not found 
 in the Hebrew original of the Book of Daniel. But it is need- 
 less for my purpose to do so ; because it is evident from these 
 words and from the whole context, that the three children be- 
 lieved that their sins had not been remitted, and consequently 
 the case has nothing to do with your doctrine. 
 
 '^'^The wise man pronounces generally (Proverbs iii. 12.) that 
 " ' whom the Lord loveth he correcteth ; even as a father the 
 ^*' son whom he delig-hteth.' The same is said, Hebr. xii. 6. 
 '' and Rev. iii. 19." (Tournely, ibid.) 
 
 Certainl}^ the Lord does intend temporal afflictions as marks 
 of love to the justified. This is exactly what we contend for. 
 We view them as a discipline of love, intended to promote the 
 glory and happiness of believers. You regard them as modes 
 of Divine vengeance for sin already pardoned. Which of these 
 two doctrines is the most consistent with the passages just 
 quoted ? Which is most calculated to sw^eeten the afflictions 
 of the world ? Which is most conducive to the glory of God ? 
 Which is most calculated to cause love of God and dependence 
 on Him r I am content to leave this to the conscience of my 
 readers, and of yourself^ 
 
 But I must now endeavour to collect j'our remaining arg-a- 
 ments from Scripture, for the purpose of seeing the utmost ex- 
 tent of what can be said in maintenance of your principle. I 
 turn then to Bellarmine, and glean from his pages what follows. 
 He argues, '^'^that death itself is often inflicted as the penalty 
 '-' of sin, even after its guilt has been remitted," from Genesis 
 ii. '^ In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die ;' 
 and Rom. v. ^By one man sin entered into the world, and 
 ^ death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all 
 ^ have sinned.' Death then is the punishment of original sin, 
 and yet the guilt and eternal penalty of original sin is remitted 
 by baptism. Thus all men suffer temporal penalties for sin re- 
 mitted^'. 
 
 In reply to this we may most fully admit, that death is the 
 penalty ot original sin; but we deny that any argument can be 
 drawn from this to prove that temporal penalties are inflicted 
 on actual sins after they have been pardoned. For if all men 
 suffer death for original sin, it is for the sin of Mam imputed 
 to them, and not for any sin committed by themselves. So that 
 sins which we ourselves commit, may be free from any temporal 
 penalties after their remission. All then that can be collected 
 
 1' Bellarmine. De Poenitentia, lib. iv. c ii. 
 
LETTER II. 19 
 
 from the fact alleged by Bellarmine iS;, that God might, if he 
 pleased, inflict temporal penalties on our actual sins after they 
 were remitted. This we fully concede in the abstract^ though 
 we do not conceive it consistent with the actual scheme of re- 
 demption. But the question is^ whether He has really made 
 such a regulation, and there is no proof here that He has 
 done so. 
 
 Another argument is deduced from the penalty awarded to 
 Moses and Aaron for their sin at the water of Meribah^ when 
 God declared to them that they should not enter the promised 
 land. (Numbers xx. 12.) And accordingly Aaron died in 
 Mount Hor^ (ver. 28.) and Moses in Mount Nebo, (Deut. 
 xxxiv. 5.) Yet no one will deny that Moses and Aaron were 
 restored to the favour of God after their sin at Meribah^ 
 
 To this it may be replied, that as Moses and Aaron had not 
 believed God '^ to sanctify Him in the eyes of the children of 
 " Israel," (Numb. xx. 12.) and had thus pnhlicly offended 
 against God, it was essentially necessary that some mark of 
 Divine displeasure against their sin should be inflicted ; because 
 God at that time ruled his people by a system of temporal re- 
 wards and punishments, and guided them in a direct and visible 
 manner. But under the Christian dispensation He no longer 
 does so and therefore sins equal to that of Moses need not 
 necessarily be visited by temporal penalties. The justice and 
 sanctity of his government no longer demand any such dispen- 
 sations. The conduct of Moses and Aaron however concur to 
 prove what is fatal to your view, for they did not seek to avert 
 the threatened penalty in any way, and the penalty itself was 
 strictly and literally exacted. 
 
 The only other argument which seems worthy of notice is 
 from 1 Kings xiii. — the case of the Prophet who was slain by 
 a lion on account of his sins ; and yet, as Bellarmine argues, 
 " it cannot be doubtful that he requested and obtained pardon 
 " from the Lord ; for in proof of the sanctity in which he had 
 "^ died, the lion stood near the body without eating it, and did 
 '^ not dare even to touch the prophet's ass^" 
 
 i Bellarmine, ibid. 
 
 kibid. Bouvier, Bishop of Maus, adds one other argument, from 
 the circumstance of Adam's suff"ering- death for his sin, though that 
 sin had doubtless been pardoned (De Pcenit p. 128.) But it must 
 be remembered, that in this case God was bound by his own positive 
 promise, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,'* 
 God is not bound by any similar promise under the Gospel to inflict 
 temporary penalties or death for our sins. Consequently the pun- 
 ishment of Adam proves nothing*. 
 
 5* 
 
20 LET 1 KR ti. 
 
 This is just as good a proof of the sanctity of the ass as of the 
 prophet. The lion touched neither : therefore the one and the 
 othes died in sanctity ! What folly is this ! The plain reason 
 of the miracle was to shew that this penalty was distinctly the 
 work of God — to furnish an undeniable proof of his punish- 
 ment of disobedience. 
 
 These, Sir, are your proofs from Scripture. They are the 
 proofs adduced by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, by 
 Bellarmine, Tournely, Delahogue, Bouvier, Milner, Hornyhold, 
 yourself, and all your writers. And now what can they avail 
 you ? The passages which all your most eminent theologians 
 have brought from Scripture either subvert your doctrine, or 
 utterly fail to prove its truth. They either speak of the tem- 
 poral penalties of sin not pardoned, or they relate to circum- 
 stances when temporal and visible penalties were necessary in 
 the Divine economy ; or they shew that temporal afflictions are 
 not penalties of sin. Produce if you can any other and better 
 proofs from Scripture, and I shall be ready to discuss them ; but 
 do not weary us by the repetition of refuted arguments. 
 
 III. I would here gladly enter on the discussion of certain 
 passages from the Fathers which have been adduced in favour 
 of your doctrine, and demonstrate from them the falsity of that 
 very doctrine ; but space fails me at present ;. and this discus- 
 sion is not, strictly speaking, necessary, because if you are 
 manifestly devoid of any scriptural proofs for your doctrine, it 
 cannot, according to the doctrine laid down by Veron^, Bossuet, 
 and many of youi most eminent theologians, (in accordance with 
 the whole body of the Fathers"',) be any article of faith ; and 
 consequently your doctrines of Satisfactions, Purgatory, and In- 
 dulgences, built upon it, cannot be articles of faith ; and the 
 Council of Trent must have erred in declaring them articles of 
 faith. 
 
 But, Sir, I have not yet concluded my task, which, would be 
 incomplete if it were limited merely to a refutation of your 
 
 1 Veron, in his Reg-ula Fidel, cap. i. sect. 2. says, that ** tioo 
 things must be united in order that any doctrine should be an article 
 of the Catholic faith : one, that it be revealed of God by the prophets, 
 apostles, or canonical authors; the other, that it be proposed by the 
 Church." 
 
 I" See Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 10—17. Newman on 
 Romanism, Lect. xiii. Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, c. ii. Taylor's 
 Dissuasive, p. ii. b. i. s. ii. And the Norrisian prize Essay for this 
 year, by the Rev. D. A. Beaufort, M. A. (Parker, London.) 
 
LETTER II 21 
 
 arguments in defence of the doctrine of temporal penalties. 
 There -are specific objections to that doctrine^ which must now 
 be offered to your notice. 
 
 Your belief then is^, that Divine justice exacts the debt of 
 temporal punishment for sin, after its eternal punishment has 
 been remitted. You do not imagine that the mercy or love of 
 God demands these penalties. No : — it is (as all your writers 
 say) the justice of God which is to be satisfied by temporal 
 penalties. 
 
 Let me establish this by some citations from your own writ- 
 ings. You say, " It is only with regard to the reserved degree 
 ^* of temporal punishment that we believe the Christian can 
 " satisfy the justice of God°.". . . . *^ This scheme of God's jw5- 
 '^ tice was not a part of the imperfect law^ but the unvarying 
 ''■ ordinance of his dispensation anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and 
 ^' amply confirmed by Christ in the Gospel.". . . ''^ It conse- 
 " sequently becomes a part of true repentance to try to satisfy 
 "this Divine justice by the voluntary assumption of such peni- 
 '' tential works." ..." These propositions contain the Catholic 
 " doctrine concerning Satisfaction^." I need scarcely say, that 
 the language of all writers of your Communion is exactly simi- 
 lar ; and it is obviously necessary that it should be so, for if 
 temporal punishments are due for remitted sin, they can only 
 be due to T>Wme justice . 
 
 Now if Divine justice still remains to be satisfied after the 
 remission of sin, it must require what is in justice due to sin, 
 that is, eternal punishment, and consequently the remission of 
 sin is, according to your doctrine, a mere name. So that your 
 doctrine is absolutely subversive of its own foundation, and of 
 the foundation of the Christian's hopes. 
 
 And besides this. Divine justice which demands an infinite 
 punishment for sin, cannot receive any finite or limited punish- 
 ments in part payment of the debt due to it. It demands an 
 infinite punishment — a punishment not made up of parts — a 
 punishment infinitely greater than all that human imagination 
 could even conceive. To imagine therefore that the punish- 
 ment due to Divine and Infinite justice for sin can be divided 
 or separated into eternal and temporal; and that temporal and 
 eternal punishments together satisfy the justice of God; is as 
 absurd as it would be to imagine, that a grain of sand, together 
 with the universe, make up Infinity. It is to suppose that In- 
 finite justice can require what is, in comparison, less than the 
 least of things, in addition to an infinite penalty. 
 
 n Lectures on the principal doctrines, &c. of the Catholic Church, 
 vol. ii. p. 42. ^ Ibid. p. 47. 
 
^2 LETTER 11. 
 
 Bat Divine justice has received an adequate sacrifice. The 
 merits of our Saviour Christy both God and man^ were equal to 
 the demands of Divine justice, and they were accepted. 
 Henceforth the justice of God was appeased ; and it has no 
 claims on those to whom the infinite merits of Christ have been 
 applied by true repentance. They may rest in confidence on 
 the mercy of God^ knowing- indeed that many temporal calami- 
 ties will befal them, according to the promise of Christ; but 
 not regarding those calamities as exactions of God's justice par- 
 tially satisfied. They know that unrepented sin may again 
 make them liable to God's judgments in this world and in eter- 
 nity. But they firmly believe that an infinite atonement has 
 been made for sins which demanded an infinite punishment, and 
 as they believe that'Divine justice has been fully and entirely 
 satisfied, they also believe that it can have no further claims^ 
 Consequently the doctrine that temporal punishment can be 
 due to the justice of God for sin remitted through Christ, is to 
 them an impossibility. Did they reckon themselves still liable, 
 when justified, to demands from God's justice, the very founda- 
 tion of their hope of salvation would be shattered to pieces. 
 
 But, Sir, dangerous and pernicious as your doctrine on this 
 point has been proved, I have not yet disclosed its crowning 
 absurdity and wickedness. It is the doctrine of the Council of 
 Trent itself, that ^'^Justification is not remission of sin merely, 
 ^^ but also santification, and the renewal of the inner man by 
 " the voluntary reception of g^'ace and divine gifts ; so that he 
 " who was unrighteous is made righteous, and the enemy be- 
 '^ comes a friend, and an heir according to the hope of eternal 
 '^ life . . . when a man is justified, and united to Jesus Christ, 
 '^ he receives, together with the remission of sins, the following- 
 " gifts bestowed upon him at the same time, namely, faith, 
 '^ hope, and charity^,'''' 
 
 Justification is then something more than the mere remission 
 of sins — it is the restoration of the sinner to a state of grace, to 
 union with his God, to all th6 glorious privileges of a **^ child 
 " of God." 
 
 And yet, Sir, in the face of this most undoubted truth — in 
 the face of tbcir own belief, and the belief of the Roman Church 
 — your writers have the almost incredible folly and wicked- 
 ness to assert, that the justified and beloved children of God are 
 liable to the Divine wrath and vengeance! Yes. It is their 
 doctrine, that temporal punishments are exacted from a justified 
 believer by the vengeance of God. Let me produce the follow- 
 
 p Concil. Trid. Sess- vi. cap. vii. 
 
LETTER II. 23 
 
 ing proofs. Your celebrated controversialislSj, Bishops Adrian 
 and Peter de Walenburch, write thus : "= Since holy Scripture 
 '' shews by many examples^ that God after remitting the guilt 
 ''^ and eternal punishment of sins^ chastises sinners with tempo- 
 " ral punishments. Catholics think that voluntary afflictions 
 -'^ undertaken from the love of God and faith working by love 
 '* appease the wrath of God (placare iram Deii)." Tournely 
 says. '^Mhat God after the pardon of sin still exacts ^.revenging 
 " temporal punishment from the penitent^ (idtricem pcenam 
 " temporalem a pcenitente adhuc reposcere^) .'^'' Your own ex- 
 pressions are equally strong. In arguing for the necessity of 
 Satisfaction you say, '' Even so^ when God remits a weight of 
 "^ eternal punishment, it seems but fair that the outrage done to 
 '^ his divine Majesty should be repaired by outward acts, ex- 
 '^ pressive of sorrow, and directed to appease his icrath, and aver^t 
 " those scourges which he still reserves in his hand,'^'* You 
 afterwards state your belief ^^ that the sinner may, by punishing 
 '^ himself, by performing certain works propitiatory before God, 
 ^^ avert his anger. ^^ (Lectures, ii. 48, 51.) And these. Sir, 
 are not mere incautious expressions ; they are the natural and 
 necessary result of your doctrine, that remitted sins are still 
 liable to the demands of Divine justice. For the Scripture 
 teaches us, that sin is the object of God's wrath and vengeance, 
 and if any sin be still subject to the demands of his justice, it is 
 equally subject to those of his wrath and vengeance. So that, 
 according to your doctrine, the justified and pardoned believer 
 is still liable to God's wrath ! The adopted, beloved, and sanc- 
 tified child, is still subject to God's vengeance ! God loves and 
 hates, saves and destroys, at the same moment ; and the same 
 beings are at once reckoned with the elect and the reprobate, 
 with angels and with devils ! Can it be possible for absurdity, 
 contradiction, and impiety to go beyond this ? And yet this is 
 the necessary, the inevitable consequence to which your doc- 
 trine leads. 
 
 Such, Sir, is your doctrine of temporal penalties for remitted 
 sins — a doctrine unsupported by reason and experience, rejected 
 by Scripture, contradictory to itself, and subversive of the 
 Christian's hope of salvation. And yet it is on this doctrine 
 that your whole body of doctrine concerning Satisfactions, Pur- 
 gatory, and Indulgences vitally depend. Doubt that temporal 
 penalties are by any Divine law now inflicted on sin repented 
 of, and what need can there be for all the Satisfactions prescribed 
 
 q Walenburch, Opera, t. iii. p. 19. 
 r Tournely, De Pcenit. t. ii. p. 3. 
 
24 LETTER II. 
 
 by you for the remission of temporal penalties ^ What neces- 
 sity is there for Purgatory to complete those penalties not dis- 
 charged in this life ? What need for Indulgences to remit 
 them ? What need for Suffrages and Masses for the dead^ to 
 relieve souls from the fiery torments of Purgatory ? These 
 questions I leave for the present to your consideration, and beg 
 to subscribe myself. 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER 
 
 Oxford, ^pril, ^4, 1841. 
 
THIHD LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D.D 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ROMISH DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 SATISFACTIONS 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A 
 
 OF WORCESTEB COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
k THIRD LETTER, &c. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 In my last Letter I demonstrated, that according to the doc- 
 trines grenerally taucrht in the Church of Rome, a justified and 
 sanctified person still remains subject to the wrath of God; that 
 a beloved child of God has to dread His anger and His ven- 
 geance ; that the same persons are at the same moment loved 
 and haled by their Creator and Saviour. These conclusions are 
 intimately and indissolubly connected vi^ith your belief, that 
 temporal punishments remain to be endured after sin has been 
 pardoned. They lie at the foundation of your doctrine of Satis- 
 faction, Purgatory, and Indulgences. It is my intention to pur- 
 sue this error into all its ramifications, and to expose the mass 
 of dangerous errors and superstitions, and of absurd contradic- 
 tions to which it leads, and in which it actually involves all 
 your theologians. 
 
 On the present occasion, your doctrine of Satisfaction shall 
 become the subject of discussion ; and with this view we must 
 in the first instance proceed to ascertain what your tenets really 
 are on this point, and to what practices they give rise. 
 
 1. It is your belief then, that after sin has been remitted as 
 far as regards its guilt and eternal penalties, by the merits of 
 Christ's sacrifice applied in the sacrament of Penance, a tempo- 
 ral penalty still remains due to the justice of an offended and 
 angry God ; and that this wrath and anger of avenging justice 
 may be appeased, and your sin expiated and atoned for as re- 
 gards its temporal penalty, by Satisfactions, that is, peniten- 
 tial works, such as prayer, alms giving, fasting, mortifications, 
 &c. 
 
 2. You also believe, that Indulgences validly and effectually 
 received, remit a portion or the whole of the temporal penalty 
 due to remitted sin, and partially or wholly remove the neces- 
 sity for satisfactions ; but as it is impossible, generally speak- 
 ing, to know whether the conditions on which alone Indul- 
 gences are valid, have been fulfilled in any particular case, you 
 therefore hold that penitents ought to continue in the perfor- 
 mance of works of satisfaction to the end of their lives, and 
 never believe themselves relieved from the necessity of expiat- 
 ing and atoning for sin, although that sin may have been re- 
 
 6 
 
4 LETTER III. 
 
 mitted and pardoned long before in the sacrament of Penance. 
 
 Such is your belief on this point, as I shall now shew by re 
 ferences to your own writings, and to those of other enainent 
 theologians of the Roman Communion. 
 
 I. With reference then to the first point, you say, 
 
 *^ 1. That God, after the remission of sin, retains a lesser 
 ** chastisement in his power, to be inflicted on the sinner. 2. 
 '^That penitential works [i. e. satisfactions], fasting, alms 
 ^^ deeds, contrite weeping, and fervent prayer, have the power 
 *^of averting that punishment. 3. That this scheme of God'8 
 '^justice was not a part of the imperfect law, but the unvary- 
 ** ing ordinance of his dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic ritual, 
 *' and amply confirmed by Christ in the Gospel. 4. That it 
 '* consequently becomes a part of all true repentance to try to 
 '' satisfy this divine justice, by the voluntary assumption of 
 *^ such penitential works, as his revealed truth assures us have 
 '^ efficacy before Him. These propositions contain the Catholic 
 '^ doctrine concerning Satisfaction^." Again : *' When God 
 " remits a weight of eternal punishment, it seems but fair that 
 *^ the outrage done to his Divine Majesty should be repaired by 
 '^ outward acts, expressive of sorrow, and directed to appease 
 " his wrath, and avert those scourges which he still reserves in 
 f* his hand. Hence in the sacrament of Penance, that third 
 '^ part which we call satisfaction^ y Your doctrine is after- 
 wards described to be, " that sin is forgiven, but punishment 
 '^ still inflicted ; that God will chastise in his justice, but that 
 '^ the sinner may, by punishing himself, by performing certain 
 *^ works propitiatory before God, avert his anger, and obtain 
 '^ remission of this lesser chastisement^." 
 
 Tournely lays down the following formal proposition. 
 
 *^ Penal satisfaction is necessarily to be exacted of penitents, 
 " not merely to preserve them in newness of life, to heal their 
 " infirmity, and to afford an example to others, as the Innova- 
 '^ tors imagine; but also in order to punish and chastise past 
 ^^ sins, or to make real satisfaction, not only to the Church but 
 '^ to God; as well to repair the injury done to Him by sin, as 
 '* to redeem the temporal punishment , which after the guilt and 
 '^eternal punishment has been forgiven, remains to be dis- 
 **^ charged by us, either in this life, or another^." 
 
 Thus then it is plain, as I have said, that you believe satis- 
 factory or penitential works necessary for the remission of the 
 temporal penalty exacted by the justice of a wrathful and angry 
 
 •Wiseman's Lectures on the Doctrines, &c. of the Catholic 
 Church, vol. ii. p. 47. 
 bibid. p. 48. cibid. p. 61. d Tournely, De Pcsnit. t. ii. p. 4. 
 
LETTER in. 5 
 
 God, after the guilt and eternal punishment of sin have been 
 remitted, and after the penitent has been placed in a state of 
 grace. 
 
 II. I now proceed to the second point — the necessity of con- 
 tinual penance, or of works of satisfaction during the remainder 
 of life. 
 
 '' We can never be certain," says Bouvier bishop of Mans, 
 " that we have obtained by many (even most plenary) indul- 
 ^^ gences, the complete remission of all the temporal punishment 
 ^' due to our sins ; for a plenary indulgence often becomes par- 
 *' tial [i. e. remits only a part of the temporal punishment] 
 " either through want of a sufficient cause, or through want of 
 '' a work proportioned to the end designed, or through defect of 
 " dispositions in the agent Hence, first, an indulgence does not 
 " exempt from the obligation of doing penance [by satisfactions] ; 
 "■ and a fortiori, a believer cannot, of his own authority, omit a 
 ''^ sacramental penance [satisfaction] enjoined to him, under pre- 
 "text that he has gained or is about to gain an indulgence®." 
 " Indulgences of a hundred years or more, if there are such, 
 ^^ may be insufficient to compensate the whole temporal pun- 
 " ishment which a sinner is bound to pay . . . Hence, thirdly, 
 ^^ sinners truly converted ought to endeavour daily by good 
 ^^ works [satisfactions] and indulgences, whether partial or 
 ^' plenary, to diminish the debts which they owe to Divine 
 '^jufstice, and to compensate for them entirely in this life, lest 
 " they be sent to the prisons of purgatory, and do not come out 
 ^^ thence till they have paid the last farthing^." Dr. Milner, 
 one of your nominal bishops, says, ^* We do not believe an in- 
 " dulgence to imply any exemption from repentance . . . nor 
 *^ from the works of penance, or other good works, because our 
 "Church teaches, that ^the life of a Christian ought to be a 
 '' perpetual penance.^ " '^ (Concil. Trid. de Extr. Unct.) * No 
 '^ one can ever be sure that he has gained the entire benefit of 
 "an indulgence, though he has performed all the conditions 
 " appointed for this creed.' " 
 
 Thuss it appears that even Indulgences and the execution of 
 the works of satisfaction enjoined by your priests in confession, 
 do not render you secure that sin has been remitted ; and hence 
 you recommend in addition, voluntary works of satisfaction, 
 over and above those prescribed by the priest. To these the 
 Council of Trent alludes in the expressions above cited by Dr. 
 Milner; and the Catechism of the Council speaks thus of them, 
 
 e Bouvier, De Pcenit. p. 300. 
 
 f Bouvier, ibid. p. 301 ; See also Tournely, De Pcenit. t. ii. p. 299, 
 
 s Milner, End of Controversy, Lett. xiii. 
 
6 LETTER III. 
 
 " Under the same name [satisfaction] is signified also any sort 
 ^^■of punishment which we endure for our sins, not imposed by 
 *^ the priest, but undertaken of our own accord, and repeated 
 "^ by ourselves. This does not by any means belonof to Peni- 
 *^ tence as a sacrament^\" The use and necessity of such vol- 
 untary penances is thus stated in Dr. James Butler's Catechism 
 sanctioned by the authorities of your schism in Ireland: " Q« 
 '^ Will the penance enjoined in confession always satisfy for 
 '^ our sins ? A. No ; but whatever else is wanting may be sup- 
 ^^ plied by Indulgences, and our ovm penitential endeavours^. ^^ 
 And well indeed may you advise your penitents not to re- 
 main satisfied with the satisfactions or penances which are im- 
 posed on them at Confession, when it is remembered, that 
 according to your most approved writers, the amount of penance 
 assigned in the Confessional is to be measured by the wishes of 
 the penitent ; that it is considered better to impose so slight a 
 penance as the repetition of a single Pater JVoster, or even no 
 penance at all, rather then send the penitent away unabsolved'^ ;. 
 
 h Eodem vero nominje quodlibet etiam pcense genus significatur, 
 quam pro peccatis non quidem a sacerdote constltutam, sed sponte 
 nostra susceptam, atque a nobis ipsis repctitam, sustincmus. JSota, 
 Verum hsec ad poenitentiam, ut sacramentum est, minime pertinet. 
 Cat. ConCc Trid. Pars ii. de pcenit. c. 8&. 
 
 i««The most Rev. Dr. James Butler's Catechism^ &c. approved 
 ** and recommended by the four R. C. Archbishops of Ireland as a 
 " general Catechism for the kingdom." Eleventh Edition, Coyne, 
 Dublin. 
 
 t" Rituale Parisiense dicit. ' Confessarius poenitentcm interroget, 
 ** an possit poet.itentiam sibi injunctam pcrag"ere, alioquin earn pro 
 **8ua prudentia immutct, aut rninuat.' . . . unde Gersonin rcgula 
 '* mor. p. 2. c. de pc&niientia, dicit :* Totius est cum parva po&nitentia^ 
 ** quae sponte suscipitur, et verosirnilitor adimpletur, ducere confes- 
 **sos ad purgatoriurn, quam c«m mag-nia. nen imptenda praecipitar© 
 "in infernum.' . . . item Scotns d 15 q. 1. art. 5. loquens de pceni- 
 " tente qui animo est infirmus, ait, * Si adeo est delicatus, quod non 
 ** velit jejunium adirnplere, imo si nullam pcenitcntiam vult reci- 
 ** pere, absolvendus est, et noa rospuondus, ne cadet in desperatior 
 ** nem,* et sic demum concludit: ' Illud sibi imponendum quod 
 "libentius recipit, et quod creditur imp)cturus ' . . . .^ddiique idem 
 ** S. archjepiscopus (S. Carolus BorromtBiis ) ' Talem imponat pceni- 
 "tentiam, qualem a poenitente prser^tari posse judicct, Proinde 
 ** aliquando, si ita expediro vide-it, ilium interro«-et, an possit, anve. 
 ** dubitet poenitentiam sibi injunctam pcrag-qre; alioquin eam mu- 
 
 ** tabit aut minuet * Itaque (ut inquit Host.) confessor nulla 
 
 '* modo debet permittere pecratorem desperatum rccedere a se, sed 
 ** potius imponat ei ununi Pater noHer vel aliud Icve, ci quod alia^ 
 ** Dona qua) feccrit, et mala quae foleraveril, sint ei in poenitentia^ 
 "concordante S. Thoma* &c." Be^ti A. M do Lig-orio, Theologia^ 
 Molaris, t. vi. p. 126—123. Ed. Ycauutio. 1831; sqealap HQUvierr<J^ 
 Pcenit. p. U7« 
 
LETTER III. 7 
 
 and that the penance, if inconvenient, may be commuted for 
 another'. This system of course makes the imposition of Satis- 
 faction at Confession a mere mockery ; although that Satisfac- 
 tion is, all the lime, loudly asserted to be a part of the sacra- 
 ment of Penance; so that we need not wonder to find you re- 
 commendinor penitents not to put their whole confidence in such 
 sacramental Satisfactions. 
 
 From all this then it is evident^ that you are not certain that 
 the temporal penalty due to divine justice for sin remitted, is 
 removed by the performance of the satisfaction enjoined in Con- 
 fession, or by the subsequent acquisition of Indulgences. No: 
 you will urge tlie penitent to undertake voluntary works of 
 penance; and as no human wisdom can determine what amount 
 of such acts may be sufficient to satisfy the demands of Divine 
 Justice, it f dlows that, according to the doctrine of the Council 
 of Trent, "the life of a Christian ought to be a perpelual 
 penance,''^ 
 
 But, Sir, painful as such a thought must be, and dispiriting 
 to Christians, your doctrine goes much further than this, if it 
 be examined. For what do you mean, when you say that a 
 person owes a debt to Divine justice, and is bound to satisfy for 
 the temporal punishment due to his remitted sin ? You mean, 
 that he is still subject to the ivrath and vengearice of an offended 
 God. What is your own language, when describing the ob- 
 ject of satisfactions, or penitential works ? " When God remits 
 *'■ a v.'eight of eternal punishment, it seems, but fair, that the 
 '^ outrage done to his Divine Majesty should be repaired by 
 ^■' outward acts, expressive of sorrow, and directed to appease 
 *^ his wrath, and avert those scourges which he still reserves in 
 '^ his hand." (Lectures, ii. 48.) You believe, as you say, 
 " that the sinner may, by punishing himself, by performing 
 ^■' certain works propitiatory before God, avert his anger, and 
 " obtain a remission even of this lesser chastisement." (Lec- 
 tures, ii. 5L) Tournely, again, speaks of the temporal pun- 
 ishment due to remitted sin, as " a revenging punishment," 
 (De Pcen. ii. 4); and the language of all your writers is just 
 the same. You all maintain, that Satisfactions are intended to 
 appease the '' wrath," to mitigate the '^ anger," to avert the 
 ^^ punishments" and " vengeance" of an offended God. Such 
 is the view which you take of God after he has pardoned your 
 sins. You believe that notwithstanding that pardon, his wrath 
 burns against you, and is so fierce, that if you are not suffi- 
 ciently tormented in this life, you must go into Purgatory and 
 
 iLigorio, Theol. Mor. t. vi. p. 144 ; Bouvier. p. 158. 
 6* 
 
8 LETTER HI. 
 
 iuffer the torments of Hell ! Yes : you believe that God con- 
 signs those whom he has justified and sanctified, those whom 
 he loves with a Father's love, those whom he has endowed, 
 with the rich and glorious gilts of faith, hope, and charity, 
 those who are themselves full of filial love and affection to Him 
 — to the torments of Hell! " The constant doctrine of the 
 *^ Latines^^^ says Bouvier, bishop of Mans, " is, that in Purga- 
 ^^ tory there is a material fire like the infernal fire, and there- 
 ^' fore that the Church, in praying for the souls of the faithful, 
 ^^asks not only for a place of light and peace, but also of cool- 
 *^ ing (refrigerii) ; that is to say, against the ardour of the fire™." 
 Bellarmine teaches the same doctrine in the following terms. 
 *^ As Cardinal Cajetan rightly explains, the punishment which 
 '^remains to be e'xpiated after the remission of guilt is that very 
 *^^same sensible punishment which the sinner ought to have 
 '^suffered in Hell; its eternity only being removed'^." 
 
 This, Sir, is the view which you uniformly take of the dis- 
 position of God towards penitent and pardoned sinners: you 
 teach them still to tremble under the apprehension of his wrath. 
 And when is this fear to be removed ? when is the sinner to be 
 at peace with God ? when is he to look with joy and love to 
 God as a reconciled and loving Father ? never in this life. 
 You tell him that Absolution cannot appease the anger of God 
 — that sacramental satisfaction cannot do it — that Indulgences 
 even are uncertain — that he must spend the remainder of his 
 life in works of voluntary penance — and at last, that he may 
 and probably will go into the torments of Hell for a time. 
 He is then to spend his whole life under the apprehension that 
 he is still subject to God's wrath and vengeance, and still liable 
 to the demands of his justice. 
 
 And is this the peace and consolation which you offer to 
 burdened consciences .'' Are these the blessings which are to flow 
 on those who qro to you to heal their wounds, and soothe their 
 afflictions ? Let me contrast with this dark and melancholy 
 system, the consoling and joyful words of encouragement offered 
 to penitents by Jesus Christ. '^ Come unto me, all ye that la- 
 *^ hour and are heavy laden, and Itoilt give you rest. Take my 
 
 m Constans Latinorum sententia est in purg-atorio esse ignem ma- 
 terialcm sirnilem ig-ni infernali, et ideo Kcclesiam pro animabufl 
 fidelium orantem, non peterc tantum locum lucis et pacis, sed et 
 refrig-erii, videlicet contra ig-nis ardorem. Bouvier, De Pcenit p. 2S5. 
 
 °Nam (ut rccte explicat Card. Cajetan in tract, de coniritione, 
 queest. 4.) poena ilia quse luenda restat post culpse remissionsm, est 
 ilia ipsa poena sensus, quam in Gehenna pati debuisset peccator, 
 remota solum seternitate. Bellarmin. De Peenitenlia, lib. iv. c. i. 
 
t 
 
 LETTER HI. 9 
 
 ^* yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek an4 lowly ia 
 ^' heart : and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke 
 " is easy, and my burden is light ''^ (Malt, xi 28 — 30.) Does 
 your system afford rest to souls ? Is your yoke easy, and your 
 burden light f I put this question solemnly to your conscience,. 
 Whether a system so inconsistent with that of Jesus Christ 
 can be true ? You give no " rest" to the souls of penitents,, 
 when you tell them that they are still subject to the wrath of 
 an offended God. You impose on them no *^easy yoke," no 
 '' light burden," in enjoining laborious works of satisfaction 
 during life, under an uncertain hope that they may deliver them, 
 from the excruciating tortures of Purgatory. Can your doctrine 
 then be true ? Can it be the doctrine of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Let me again draw your attention to the words of St. Paul 
 in describing the state of justification. " Therefore being justi- 
 " fied by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord 
 ^^ Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access by faith into 
 *^ this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the 
 " glory of God And not only so, but we glory in trihu- 
 ^^ lations also : knowing that tribulation worketh patience ; 
 ^^ and patience, experience ; and experience, hope ; and hope 
 ''^ maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed 
 ^^ abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, vi^hich is given 
 " unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due 
 ^' time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righte- 
 ^' ous man will one die ; yet peradventure for a good man some 
 ^■^ would even dare to die. But God commendeih his love 
 " towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died 
 ^' for us. Much more then, being nou} justified by his blood, 
 ^* we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when 
 ^' we w^ere enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of 
 ^* his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by 
 '' his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through 
 " our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the 
 "atonement." (Rom. v 1 — \l) 
 
 Would to God that these words of the Apostle might sink 
 down into the heart of every one of our separated brethren of 
 the Romish pursuasion! It would almost seem as if the Apos- 
 tle had written them, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, 
 for the very purpose of refuting the errors against which I am 
 contending. What is your view of the condition of the justi- 
 fied ? You believe that, after their sins are pardoned, they still 
 remain subject to the wrath and vengeance of God Is this to 
 have ^' peace with Godf* You believe that they are to look 
 fprward to painful afflictions from God's anger in this world or 
 
liO LETTER III. 
 
 the next; to ^' the scourges^'' of his wrath; to the tortures of 
 his revenge in purgatory Is this io '' rejoice in hope of the 
 '^ glory of God ?*' You look with fear and terror on temporal 
 afflictions, believing them to be punishments for your sins. Is 
 this to ''^ glory in tribulations, also ?" You look on God as an 
 angry and vindictive judge, exacting payment to the last far- 
 thing, either in this world or in purgatory. Is this to have 
 ^* the love of God shed abroad in your hearts by the Holy 
 ^^ Ghost ?" You think that after you have been justified by the 
 blood of Christ applied in the sacrament of Penance, you are 
 still subject to '• the wrath" of God. Is this to believe that 
 ^^ being now justified by Christ's blood, '^ we shall be saved 
 ^^ FROM WRATH through him ?" Let this one passage of Scrip- 
 ture be fully and calmly considered, and compared with your 
 doctrines; and there can be no doubt of the result. 
 
 I would again solicit your attention to the words of the Apos- 
 tle John. '^ There is no fear in love ; but perfect love casteth 
 *^ out fear ; because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not 
 "made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved 
 '^ us." (I John iv. 18, 19.) The Apostle does not mean to for- 
 bid that godly fear of future transgressions, which is necessary 
 to preserve a Christian from sin ; but he does most certainly assert, 
 that the perfect love of God casts. out all slavish fear, all dread 
 of God's lurath and vengeance for remitted sin, all uneasiness, 
 misery, anxiety under a sense of the Divine anger. In this 
 sense ''' perfect love casteth out fear, bucause fear hath torment." 
 The man who trembles under a sense of God's wrath, cannot 
 perfectly love him ; and thus. Sir, your doctrine renders it im- 
 possible for those who receive it to love their Creator *^ per- 
 " fectly." 
 
 How melancholy is it to see professing Christians so blind to 
 the real character of God ! Listen to the Apostle John ; ^' God 
 ^^ IS LOVE. In this was manifested the love of God toward 
 '^ us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the 
 '^ world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not 
 " that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son 
 **^ to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John iv. 8 — 10.) We 
 have the testimony of our Lord himself to the same consolatory 
 truth: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only- 
 " begotten Son." (John iii. 16.) " At that day ye shall ask 
 " in my name ; and I say not unto you, that I will pray the 
 " Father for you ; fur the Father himself loveth you, 
 " because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out 
 " from God." (John xvi. 26, 27.) This most blessed truth is writ- 
 ten in evey page of the Gospel. What but the most exceeding 
 
LETTER m. 11 
 
 and infinite love and mercy could have induced the Father to con- 
 sign his only -begot ton Son to the death <»f the Cross, for those 
 who were alienated from him, and dead in trespasses and sins? 
 What but love and mercy could have devised such an awful sa- 
 crifice to bring back sinners into the way of salvation, — a salva- 
 tion which no human merits coi:ld ever have obtained ? It is this 
 love and mercy which induces the Lord to bear with ihe sins and 
 offences of his creatures, and which alone leads them to repen- 
 tance. ^' Despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbear- 
 " ance, and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of 
 '' God leadeth thee to repentance ?' (Rom. ii. 4 ) And is it this 
 good, this merciful, this loving Beino, whom you regard as a 
 God of wrath and vengeance towards the objects nf his love? 
 What deep ingratitude is this ? what an injury to that eternal 
 LOVE, which regards the justified and sanctified members of 
 Christ with an affection beyond all human imagination! 
 
 In what light does our Saviour represent God in his dealings 
 with repentant sinners ? He describes him as a Father re- 
 joicing to receive an ungrateful and prodigal son : " When he 
 ^^ was yet a great way off, his f:Uher saw him, and had comfas- 
 '^ sion on him, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 
 '^And the son said unto him, Faiher, I have sinned against 
 ^^ Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no mnre worthy to be cal- 
 " led thy son. But the father s-?id to his servants. Bring forth 
 "the best robe, and put it on hirn ; and put a ring on his hand, 
 ^' and shoes on his feet ; and bring hither the fatted calf, and 
 ^^ kill it; and let us eat, and be nserry : for lb s my son was 
 "dead, and is alive again ; he was lost, and is fiund." (Luke 
 XV. 20 — 24.) Can any images more forcibly express the love of 
 Grod towards repentant sinners? Here is no *' wrath " — na 
 "vengeance'' — no '• anger''— but all is joy, and exultation. 
 Here is no " reserve of punishment" — no ptir Hid forgiveness — 
 no exceptions out of the general amnesty — no store of bitter and 
 infernal '^ tortures" to be rigidly exacted even to the last farth- 
 "ing." And yet this is the point of view in which our Lord 
 wishes us to recrard the dispositions and de^ilinfrs of God with 
 real penitents. Do not say to me, that the contrition of the 
 prodigal son was so iulcnse, that it remitted all temporal pun- 
 ishment ; but that his constitutes a peculiar case, and on^ht not 
 to lead penitents generally to expect an equal degree of Divine 
 love and mercy. For if we examine this case, there was noth- 
 ing to take it out of the ordinary rules. The prodigal son waa. 
 reduced to distress by his own vic<^s ; " and when he came ta 
 " himself," he resolved to arise and gfo to his father We da 
 aot read of any signs of exlreme contrition or anguish of souL 
 
12 LETTER III. 
 
 We read of no tears, no fastings, no sackcloth, no mortifications ; 
 but he merely '' arose and came to his father." This then is 
 the description of every one who is really penitent, and the con- 
 duct of God here described is sufficient to shew the error and 
 unsoundness of your doctrine. 
 
 I will not weary the reader by accumulating additional proofs 
 from Scripture of what is so plain and evident; but shall pro- 
 ceed next to consider the burdens which your doctrine of Sat* 
 isfactions imposes on Christians — burdens wholly useless and 
 ineffective for the end for which they are imposed — the expia- 
 tion of remitted sin. 
 
 Be it remembeped then, that according to your doctrine, penal 
 works of Satisfaction are due to the justice of an angry God, 
 after sin has been pardoned ; and that such works must be con- 
 tinued through life, not withstanding the performance of the works 
 of Satisfaction assigned in confession, and notwithstanding the 
 execution of all works necessary to gain Indulgences. Now let 
 us consider what these Satisfactions are, which you thus re- 
 commend your people to continue through life. 
 
 Amongst other penal Satsfactions for sin, the following are 
 mentioned by Amort.° Concealing one's self for a time in some 
 Monastery or other secluded place, and living in penitence there. 
 Abstaining from meat and wine. Fasting on certain days, espe- 
 cially on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or feeding only on 
 bread and water. Praying with bended knees, or with the arms 
 extended in the figure of the Cross for a certain time, and at an 
 appointed hour, before the Cross, or some other sacred image in 
 the church. Lying on the ground for some time, or on a hard 
 couch. Applying the scourge to one's self on certain days. 
 Putting on sackcloth. Undertaking some religious pilgrimage. 
 Reciting the penitential psalms and other penitential prayers. 
 Visiting certain churches where there are stations, or some other 
 great devotion. Weekly fastings during life. Monthly con- 
 fessions. Prayers every hour or half hour. The office of the 
 Rosary on Sundays and Holy days. 
 
 Amongst penances mentioned by Alphonsus Liguori are, enter- 
 ing a Monastic order, Acts of grief every evening, '* to visit 
 '• every day the holy Sacrament, and also the image of St. Mary, 
 '' beseeching from them (!) the grace of perseverance ; to recite 
 " at least the third part of the Rosary, and the Angelical saluta- 
 " tion three times, every morning and evening, saying, ' My 
 
 o Eusebii Annort, Theolog-ia B>.lectica Moralis et Schoiastica sub 
 auspiciis SS. D. N. Bcnedicti xiv, &c. t. xiv. p. 4Q5. Ed. August. 
 Vind. 1752 
 
LETTER III. 13 
 
 " mother assist me to-day, that f sin not against God ;' which 
 " penance," says Liguori, "of thrice reciting the Angelical sal- 
 ^' utation with the aforesaid supplication, it was my custom gen- 
 " erally to enjoin, or at least to recommend to those who did not 
 '' use them." Another penitential work is, " unremitting reci- 
 " tation of the Angelical salutation in honour of the purity of 
 *^the most blessed Virgin, morning and evening, repeating 
 " always before her image the resolution not to commit sin."P 
 Another is, " to make the sign of the cross nine or five times 
 " on the ground with the tongue^y Other penances may be 
 assigned at the particular desire of the penitent, though at first 
 with moderation : " It will be enouorh to allow them at the 
 "begmning some small mortification, but seldom; such as 
 ^' scourging, an iron chain, abstinence, rather to inspire a wish 
 '^ for mortifications, than to mortify them as is fitting ; and 
 " afterwards he [the Confessor] may deal more liberally J''^ 
 Liguori adds, that ordinary works of Christian piety may be 
 openly performed, such as " frequenting the Sacraments, mental 
 ^^ prayer, visitation of the Sacrament, hearing mass with bended 
 ^« knees and recollection of spirit," &c. ^' But works of 
 **^ extraordinary supererogation, and which savour of singular- 
 " ity, such as the above-mentioned external penances of sacfe- 
 " cloth, scourges, prayer with expanded arms, eating hitter 
 '' herbs, sighings, weeping at time of prayer, ought to be con- 
 " concealed as far as possible^" 
 
 Bouvier Bishop of Mans, in his Treatise on Penance, recom- 
 mends the following penances. Fasting on bread and water; 
 abstinence from meat, wine, and fermented liquors; flagellations 
 and sackcloth ; holy pilgrimages, especially those made on foot ; 
 watchings at night, and lying on the ground or on a hard bed ; 
 genuflexions ; extensions of the arms ; or other painful postures 
 of the body ; abstinence from pleasures, entertainments, games, 
 hunting, riding, rich dress, &c ; pecuniary payments; recita- 
 
 p Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, t. ix. p. 14. 
 
 q ** lUi, qui solitus fuit blasphemias proferre, insinuatur ut novies 
 vcl quinquies lingua signet crucem super terram." lb. p. 15. 
 
 >• Satis erit ab initio eis concedere aliquani tenuem sed raram 
 mortificationem, ut disciplinam, catenulam fer ream, abstinentiam, 
 potius ad ingerendum in eorum aninriis mortificationis desiderium, 
 quam ad eos ut convenit mortificandos, Ligorio, Theol. Mor. t. ix. 
 p. 123. (Praxis Confessarii, n. 146.) 
 
 s Opera autem quse sapiunt singularitatem, ut supra enarratae 
 poenitentise externse ciliciorum, fla<rellorum, orationis cum brachiis 
 in crucem expansis, comestionis herbarum amariorum, suspiriorum, 
 fletus tempore orationis, &c. occultari debent quantum possibile est. 
 Ibid. p. 124. (n. 147.) 
 
14 ' Letter iii. 
 
 tion of the psalms. Rosary, Sec; meditation and mental prayer; 
 a certain number of repel itions of forms, called Acts of Faith, 
 Hope, Charity, Humility, Contrition, &c. ; visitation of 
 Churches; adoration of the holy Sacrament; exercises of reli- 
 gion ; acts of piety towards our Lord, or towards the blessed 
 Virgin, or towards the Saints^ 
 
 Morinus mentions the following penahceS. Walking with 
 bare feet, or without shoes; Wearing painful garments; using 
 no carriage or horse; scourging or discipline; repetition of psal- 
 ters; wearing iron hoops round the body; imprisonment; genu- 
 flexions; prostrations on the ground; alms-giving; voluntary 
 exile ; entering a monastery, i<ic. Slc.'^ According to Trevern, 
 Bishop of Sirasburg ; *' true penitents, whether under the Law 
 " or the Gosp&l, taking in hand the interests of Heaven, have 
 '* taken vengeance on themselves, by voluntary punishments, 
 *^ for the sins they have committed . . . witness those innumer- 
 " able penitents in all ages, who have peopled deserts and mon- 
 " asteries, and lived there in privations, and austerities, to 605- 
 '^ 'giait faults pardoned long before^ y So that, according to 
 your view, the mortifications of the Saints in all ages are to be 
 regarded as so matiy penances voluntarily imposed for the ex- 
 piation of their sins. These are the mvjdels which are held up 
 for the instruction of those who wish to obtain remission of th© 
 temporal penalties supposed to be due to their remitted sins. 
 And what then are the penances which such examples teach 
 you to inflict on yourselves ? 
 
 I shall not bring my readers to the Lives of the Saints con- 
 tained in your Breviary, and point out the penances there held 
 up to the admiration and imitation of the faithful; such as. 
 Continued abstinence from food for many weeks; fasting on 
 bread and water; living for years in holes excavated in the 
 rocks; the use of lacerating bandages, and iron chains continually 
 worn round the body; immersions in freezing water; the ap- 
 plication of nettles and scourges; rolling one's self among 
 thorns; the use of belts set with needles; of hair shirts; of 
 iron crowns filled with points inside ; of beds made of rough 
 trunks of trees, and the interstices filled up with pottery. No, 
 these, and many other self inflicted torments for the expiation 
 of sin already pardoned, are well known to all who have inves- 
 tigated this subject, and I therefore need not dwell on them 
 here at any length. 
 
 tBouvier, De Poenitentia, p. 150. (Do operibus injung-endis.) 
 "Morinus, Tract dc Pcenitcntia, lib. vii c. 13, 14, 15. 
 xTrevern, Discussion Ainicaie, torn. ii. p. 206. 
 
LETTER III. 15 
 
 But, Sir^ I have to produce evidence as to the penances re- 
 commended or allowed amongst you at the present day, from a 
 work to which I have already referred, and which will have 
 additional weight as being known to proceed from your own 
 pen : I mean, " The Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, &c."'" — a 
 work published only two years ago, immediately after the 
 Canonization of the distinguished individuals whose lives it con- 
 tains. Suffer me then to make some extracts from this very 
 authentic work, in illustration of the system which prevails, 
 and of the species of penances which are authorized, in the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 St. Alphonsus Liguori. — His mode of life with the So- 
 ciety he instituted was as follows. " Their house was small 
 ^ and inconvenient, their beds a mere sack of straw resting on 
 ^ the floor; and their only food, in general, was a dish of soup, 
 *^ which was both insipid and disagreeable, with a small quan- 
 ^' tity of fruit. The bread was black and not even leavened, 
 ^' through the inexperience of the lay-brother who made it, and 
 '^ so hard that it was necessary to pound it in a mortar before 
 ^ they could eat it. This miserable food, which they ate 
 '' kneeling or stretched upon the ground, they rendered still 
 ^' more nauseous, by sprinkling it over with some bitter stuff, 
 ^' and many of them, before eating, licked the floor with 
 '^ their tongue. They disciplined themselves three times in 
 ''' each week." (p. 15.) '' He surpassed all his companions in 
 '^ the exactness with which he observed all the rules and obliga- 
 '' tions of the order; but seeing the severity with which he dis- 
 '■' ciplined himself, and the austerity of his fasts and mortifica- 
 '^ tions, it was a source of wonder how he could live. He was 
 *^ content with a small quantity of soup and bread with some 
 '^ fruit, although he never touched the latter upon Saturday, 
 '' and the Vigils of our Lady. He wore continually rough 
 ^' hair-shirts, with small iron chains and a girdle of camel's 
 '' hair." (p. 20.) 
 
 '^ Every morning and evening, the missionaries preached' to 
 '^ the adults and catechised the children. For the first three 
 ^' evenings, they went round the most populous streets with a 
 •'^^ crucifix, calling upon the inhabitants to remember the last 
 '^ things, and to come to hear the words of God. Alphonsus, 
 ^' who delivered the principal sermon in the evening, was ac- 
 *' customed to discipline himself with a thick rope three times 
 
 yThe Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Francis de Girolamo, 
 St. John Joseph of the Cross, St. Pacificus of San Severino, and St. 
 Veronica Giuliani, whose canonization took place on Trinity Sun- 
 day, 26th of May, 1839. London, 1839. 
 
 7 
 
16 LETTER Hi. 
 
 '^^ during the mission ; oncd during the sermon upon sin ; a se- 
 '^^ cond time during that upon hell; and a third during that 
 ^^ upon scandal ; and when the women had left the church, 
 '^ after the evening sermon^ and the men alone remained^ a ser- 
 *^^ mon upon compunction was addressed to them, to excite 
 ''them to discipline themselves.''^ (p. 24.) "His food was of 
 '' the most inferior kind, and even this he sprinkled with worm- 
 '' wood and other bitter herbs, so that the poor, who flocked to 
 *^ him, refused to eat of what he had left of it. His attendants 
 '' were few in number, and he treated them on every occasion 
 '' with the greatest kindness and sweetness. His mortifications 
 '' seemed to increase both in severity and frequency, and one 
 '' day his secretary had to burst open his door, and snatch the 
 '' discipline out of his hands, fearing lest the violence where- 
 ^^ with he scourged himself might cause his death." (p. 31.) 
 
 St. Francis di Girolamo. "When the Sunday came, 
 " he first spent two hours in mental prayer, after which he 
 " scourged himself long and severely with the discipline (a 
 '' practice he observed daily at the hour of rising), then said 
 "mass." (p. 72.) "After the discourse on his knees at the 
 " foot of the Cross, he scourged his shoulders with the disci- 
 '' pline, and then once more^betook himself to the Confessional." 
 (p. 73.) " A youth of disordered life was so moved by another 
 " sermon of I-f'rancis, that in public, overcoming every human 
 " respect, he cast himself at the foot of the crucifix, exclaiming, 
 '' ' Father, I am lost ; for nearly twenty years I have not been 
 " a confessor,' and so sayings wept bitterly, and lashed him- 
 " self with the discipline." (p. 93.) 
 
 St. John Joseph of the Cross. " He early manifested 
 '' his attachment to the Cross, sleeping upon a narrow hard bed, 
 " and fasting on appointed days during the week ; and as he 
 " mortified the flesh betimes, so also he checked all pride, by 
 " constantly wearing mean clothes." (p. 121.) "Once he had 
 " to perform a journey of considerable distance, and set out with 
 " alacrity, although his limbs were afflicted with grievous ul- 
 '^ cers. . . . He had not gone far, when, slipping on the ice, he 
 '' fell, and cruelly lacerated his wounded limbs, so that he 
 " could hardly stand upright ; still with heroic fortitude and 
 
 '' perseverance, he prosecuted and accomplished his task 
 
 '' A rough seat and a table, a bed consisting of two narrow 
 " planks, with two sheep-skins and a wretched woollen cover- 
 " let, a stool to rest his wounded legs upon — these, with his 
 " breviary, formed the whole furniture of his cell." (p. 143.) 
 
 " We come now to speak of his extraordinary mortifications. 
 '' To the numerous penitential austerities enjoined by his order. 
 
iC 
 
 LETTER III. 17 
 
 he added as many more as an ingenious self-denial could de- 
 vise. He guarded his senses most particularly ; even in his 
 '' youth he would not permit himself the liberty of lifting his 
 **^eyes to the roof of his cell; and when he was a priest^ he 
 '' made it a rule to look no one whomsoever in the face. His 
 **■ ears he mortified by denying them the gratification of music. 
 ^^ He would not even smell a flower. Silent as long as possi- 
 *^ ble, when he spoke^ it was in a low voice. Bareheaded in 
 "^^ all seasons, he wore under his rough and heavy habit divers 
 ^^ hair-shirts and chains,, which he was careful to vary to keep 
 '^ the sense of torment ever fresh. Besides, he used the dis- 
 " cipline to a severe degree; and when at the age of forty, his 
 "' superior obliged him to wear sandals, he placed between them 
 ^^ and his feet a quantity of small nails ; but the most tremend- 
 "^ ous instrument of torture which he devised against himself, 
 '' was a cross about a foot in length, set with rows of sharp 
 '' nails, which he fastened tight over his shoulders, so as to 
 '' open there a wound which never after closed . Another simi- 
 ^^ lar but smaller cross he wore attached to his breast. But his 
 *^ abridgment of sleep was truly wonderful, and he never took 
 '' it, save seated on the ground, or cramped up in his little bed, 
 ^' often with his head leaning against a piece of wood jutting 
 "*^ from the wall. No less singular was his abstinence. For 
 "^ the last thirty years of his life, he entirely overcame that 
 *^ most insatiable of wants, thirst, absolutely abstaining not 
 ^' merely from wine and water^ hut from every liquid whatso- 
 ^^ever.'Xp. 147, 143.) 
 
 St. Pacificus of San Severing. ^^As about the middle 
 -^ of his life he hecame deaf, his brethren heard the prayers 
 ^« which he uttered almost without interruption, for he took 
 ^^ only three or four hours of sleep on a bed, so rough and un- 
 ^^ comfortable, that it seemed made for mortification and tor- 
 ^^ ment, rather than ease and repose. Upon the vigils preced- 
 *^ ing the festivals of the Church, especially those dedicated to 
 ^^ our blessed Lady, he fasted on water and a small piece of 
 ^^ bread, which he had kept for the week before exposed to the 
 ^^ scorching heat of the sun. He went almost barefoot and 
 ^' without any covering on his legs, although the ulcers before 
 '^ mentioned inspired compassion and horror in all who chanced 
 ^^ to see them." (p. 181.) "Pacificus felt a particular devotion 
 ^^ towards his good angel, the chaste spouse of Mary, St. Joseph, 
 ^^ and St. Francis of Asisium, whose custom of keeping seven 
 ^^ lents during the year he faithfully followed, even in his old 
 "'^ age, until his superiors commanded him to abandon it." (p. 
 13B^) "Trusting in the certainty of divine retribution, he sub- 
 
18 LETTER III. 
 
 -ejected his body to vigorous fasts, and severe disciplines, to 
 *^ take which, besides the three times each week prescribed by 
 ^^ the rule, he was often watched retiring to the belfry, or some 
 ^^ other secret place, that he might not be seen by men." (p. 
 191.) 
 
 ^^ He used every artifice to hide his mortifications and cruel 
 •^ disciplines from others, and anxiously sought to conceal the 
 ^^ supernatural powers which God had imparted to him. Who 
 "'^ can say with what severe mortifications and fasts he subdued 
 '' his body ? Besides fasting, as we have seen, three times in 
 '^ the week, until his superiors restricted him to Friday and 
 '^ Saturday, whereon he sometimes did not even taste a morsel 
 '^ of bread or a drop of water, and the Lents of St. Francis, he 
 ^^ made the little that he did eat a means of additional mortifi- 
 '^ cation, by mixing his food with ashes, as was attested by many 
 "^ who observed him attentively. And another more remark- 
 '^ able example will confirm what we have just said. On occa- 
 *^ sion of the pardon of Asisium, a fair used in his time to be held 
 ^^ in a square, near the convent of Forano, Facificus passing 
 '•^ through it, and smelling the flesh of roasted pork, said sev- 
 '^ eral times to his companion, ^ Do you perceive this smell i*' 
 ^^ The other, supposing that he had a desire of tasting some of 
 •'- the flesh, told the superior, who immediately ordered a piece 
 "''^ of it to be brought and placed before him at table. He did 
 "^ not touch it, but requested the brother who served at taMe to 
 ^'^ gratify him by placing it before him until he should have 
 "•^ eaten it. His request was complied with, and each day it 
 "'• was brought to table, until at last, when it was putrid he eat 
 *' it, saying to himself, ^ Eat vile body ; it is not pork now as 
 '' it was at first.' " (p. 207, 208.) 
 
 '' Besides the regular disciplines prescribed by rule three 
 '' times in the week, he cruelly scourged himself thrice each 
 '' day, with chains or cords, so as to fill all with horror, who 
 " heard the whistling of the lash, or saw the abundance of 
 '' blood which he shed during the flagellation. Covered with 
 '' hair-shirts, he undertook long journeys over thorns and sharp 
 " stones, slept little, never approached the fire, and kept the 
 '' window and door of his cell open, in the most rigorous 
 ^^ winters, in order to hear the bell summoning him to the 
 " duties of the community." (p. 208.) " Not being aware, 
 '' through his defect in sight and hearing, of the presence of 
 " any one in his room, he rose from his bed, and placing him- 
 '' self devoutly on his knees, recited three ^ve Marias, saying 
 ^^ at the end, with singular earnestness, ' Let these be, O my 
 '' God, in satisfaction for my sins.^ He would have prayed 
 
LETTER IIL 19 
 
 ^^ much longer^ but his illness prevented him ; and as it became 
 ^^ every moment more and more violent^ the holy Sacrament of 
 *'*■ Extreme Uunction was administered." (p. 217.) 
 
 St. Veronica Giuliani. '^ When she was about three 
 ^^ years old,, she heard an account of the sufferings of the saints, 
 '* and especially of the martyrs, — when she instantly ran and 
 ^' placed her hands in a fire, whence she did not draw them out 
 ^^ until the whole family had been brought by the smell into the 
 *^room." (p. 226.) "A desire," she said, '^came into my 
 '^ head of asking my confessor for some mortification, but I did 
 "' not yield to it. Still I made sufferings for myself^ but all 
 "^ without my confessor's leave; such as the discipline, walking 
 •^ on my bare knees, pricking myself with a pin, kissing some 
 '^ filthy spot, and beating myself with thistles. If I heard of 
 '^ the works of penance performed by others, I went to the image 
 '' of my Saviour, and said, ^ Lord, if I had their instruments of 
 "' mortification, I would do the same ; but since I have them not, 
 ^*^ I offer thee my desire.' He has often let me know and re- 
 •^ member that he made me (at that age) affectionate invita- 
 **^ tions." (p. 227, 228.) *^*^ One of the commands given to 
 ^^ Veronica after her espousals [with our Saviour!], was, that 
 '^'^she should encrease her fasting; and about a year after that 
 ^'^ event, she received a direct injunction from God to fast for 
 '^ three whole years upon nothing but bread and water." 
 (p. 257.) 
 
 I shall not further pursue this branch of the subject. What 
 has been now adduced is quite enough for my purpose, which 
 is, to afford some general notion of the consequences which 
 naturally flow from your doctrine of Temporal penalties, and 
 Satisfactions for them. If it be true, as you imagine, that God 
 reserves awful ^^ scourges" in his hands, when he receives the 
 pardoned sinner into his favour ; if God is still in ^^ wrath" and 
 '^ anger" with justified believers , if they are still liable to the 
 demands of his "justice" and of his ^^ vengeance ;" if the tem- 
 poral punishments which he '^ reserves" are, while they last, of 
 the same sort as those of Hell ; and if the wrath of God and 
 the infernal tortures which he designs to inflict on his justified 
 and sanctified children, may be averted by their inflicting on 
 themselves torments in this life ; I most fully admit, that it is 
 the duty of every Christian to live in a state of fear and of tor- 
 ment. No amount of bodily suffering can be considered exces- 
 sive, if it can appease the wrath of God and avert his vengeance. 
 A soul bowed down beneath the miserable thought that it is 
 
20 LETTER HI. 
 
 not at peace with God^ will act naturall}^ and even piously in 
 seeking for the greatest amount of afflictions and mortifications 
 that can be obtained during life. Who that believes in God, 
 and leopards him as the Fountain of all o-ood, — who that feels 
 the reality of his existence^ his promises;, and his threatenings^ 
 would hesitate to do any works^ or submit to any sufferings, in 
 order to gain his favour ? Faith would oblige him to stretch 
 forth both his hands for this bitter cup, and drain it to the very 
 dregs. 
 
 You therefore act only consistently , when your lives are spent 
 in the most dreadful mortifications and penances for remitted 
 sins. You hold that Contrition does not generally remit all the 
 '^ scourges" due to your sins, or restore you to peace with God ; 
 that Confession 'and Absolution still leave you in the same state 
 of uncertainty ; that Satisfaction enjoined by the Confessor 
 does not render you secure ; that Indulgences may fail : and, 
 in fine, that voluntary Satisfactions , voluntary penances during 
 life, are the only remedy which you can adopt in this world. 
 If therefore a Romanist understands the system taught by au- 
 thority in his Church, and be earnest in his religious views, he 
 must spend a life of self-infiicted torment. 
 
 Nor is this all. If Contrition, and Confession, ana Absolu- 
 tion j if imposed Satisfactions, and Indulgences aiford no assur- 
 ance of the remission of God's -'• scourges ;• ' what assurance 
 can there be, that a life of torment will avert them ? What 
 reasonable assurance can there be, that self-imposed obligations 
 can succeed, when the Divine method of obtaining remission of 
 sin, — ^when true Kepentance, that " second plank," as St. 
 Jerome calls it, has failed ? For let us consider a moment, that 
 according to your doctrine, a temporal punishment e^ual to 
 THAT OF HELL is duc to your remitted sins. Now is it to be 
 imagined for a moment, that any penances which we may suf- 
 fer in this short life, can be an equivalent for torments resem- 
 bling those of Hell ? Remember that you know not how long 
 the pains of Purgatory may continue ; you know nothing more 
 about them, than that they are superior to any sufferings en- 
 dured in this life, that they resemble those of Hell. If then 
 Divine justice is to be satisfied even " to the last farthing" as 
 you allege ; what reasonable ground is there for believing, that 
 even a life of self-imposed penances can appease the wrath of 
 God, and save you from the dread scourges of his vengeance in 
 Purgatory ? 
 
 The necessary result then of your doctrine of Temporal punish- 
 ments and Satisfactions is, that the contrite and justified child 
 of God, the chosen vessel of his grace, the sanctified instrument 
 
LETTER III. 21 
 
 of his will J is bound to spend his life in penal labours and self- 
 inflicted tormentSj without any well founded hope of appeasing 
 the wrath of God. He is to look on his God as still frowning 
 in anger upon him ; to think with anguish of the scourges and 
 tortures of the damned, which God is preparing to shower upon 
 him. This is to be his feeling through life ; and even in death 
 he is to look on God as still probably unreconciled ; and as only 
 awaiting the moment of his departure from this life^ to hurry 
 his soul into that fire which is prepared for the Devil and his 
 angels ! 
 
 And is this the hope^ is this the peace^ the joy, the consolation, 
 w^hich you offer to Christians ? You are loud in your assuran- 
 ces that the sacrament of Penance brings peace and consolation to 
 the wounded conscience. According to the Council of Trent, 
 ^^ the substance and effect of the sacrament of Penance, as far 
 '- as relates to its power and efficacy, is reconciliation with Gody 
 ^' which sometimes produces in pious persons, and those who 
 " receive this sacrament with devotion, peace and tranquillity 
 ^' of conscience, with vehement consolation of spirit. ^^"^ In the 
 same manner, the Catechism of the Council of Trent observes, 
 that " the w^hole efficacy of Penitence consists in its restoring 
 ^'^ us to the favour of God, and uniting us in the utmost friend- 
 "^'^ ship with Him ; and this reconciliation is sometimes followed 
 '^ in the case of pious men who receive this sacrament in a holy 
 '* and religious manner, by the greatest peace and tranquillity 
 '^ of conscience, with exceeding joyfidness of spirit. '^^^ Dr. 
 Milner, one of your nominal bishops, apostrophizes the sacra- 
 ment of Penance thus : '^ O sweet halm of the wounded spirit ! 
 " O sovereign restorative of the souPs life and vigour!"^ and 
 observes, that Romanists continually find persons who are desi- 
 rous '' of laying the sins of their youth and their ignorances at 
 '^ the feet of some one or other of" the Romish ministers, " con- 
 '' vinced that thereby they would procure ease to their afflicted 
 "^ sot(/s."*2 Trevern, Bishop of Strasburg, in describing the 
 penitence of a Roman Catholic, says, that his spiritual director, 
 "^ when he judges him sufficiently disposed, exhorts him to 
 " employ redoubled fervour in his approaches to reconciliation, 
 '^ in order to obtain by humble prayers God's ratification of the 
 '^ sentence of pardon which will be pronounced to him on earth : 
 '^ when the moment has arrived, he pronounces solemnly this 
 " wished for Absolution ; then consolation, calm, and ease, 
 '^ enter the conscience of the penitent, in place of the burden 
 
 zConc. Trid Sessio xvi c. ill. '« End of Controversy, Lett. xx. 
 
 a Catechismus, Pars ii. c. xxxiii. c ib. Lett. xli. 
 
2<2 LETTER III. 
 
 ^'^ which had before oppressed him. He feels himself altogether 
 '' different from what he was ; he is no more the same many^ 
 
 Such are the delights which you promise in the sacrament 
 of Penance ; but how delusively ! Is it consolation, to know 
 that we are still, after the remission of sins, liable to the de- 
 mands of '^ Divine justice ?" Is it peace, to feel that we are 
 still subject to God's '^ wrath ?" Is it joy to think that we are 
 subject to his ^' vengeance ;" to the '' scourges which he still 
 *^ retains in his hands ?" Is it rest, to feel that a life of torment 
 will not suffice to appease the '' anger" of God, and that even 
 beyond the grave his '^ vengeance" will pursue us amidst the 
 torments of the damned r Is this peace, consolation, reconcili- 
 ation, calmness, tranquillity of conscience, hope in this world 
 and. in the next ?, Nay, is this remission of sins ? 
 
 What is Remission of sins, if it be not remission of their 
 penalties, and of the anger of God so justly due to them ? If 
 the penalties of sin were retained, sin would not be remitted. 
 When we say that a sin is pardoned, we mean that God for- 
 gives its guilt and its penalties, that He is reconciled to the 
 penitent sinner, and that his anger is appeased. If then, as you 
 maintain, God is still unreconciled to the sinner, still in wrath, 
 still seeking for punishment, still reserving some of the scourges 
 due to sin; it cannot be that sin has been remitted — the sinner 
 must still be alienated from God; unless you would maintain 
 that God is reconciled and unreconciled, forgiving and unfor- 
 giving, appeased and unappeased, angry and well-pleased at the 
 same moment towards the same person. 
 
 Your doctrine. Sir, needs only to be known, to secure its re- 
 jection by every one who can (even imperfectly) feel the love 
 and mercy of God, the consistency of his dealings with his 
 creatures, the nature of the remission of sins, and the privileges 
 of a state of justification and grace. To state your doctrine is 
 to refute it. This is all I have been able to do in this Letter ; 
 I have not entered on any refutation of the arguments you ad- 
 vance in its favour, nor have I brought the weight of Scripture 
 and of Catholic Tradition to its overthrow. This must form 
 the subject of another Letter ; but before I close the present, I 
 must make some further observations on the subject of satisfac- 
 tions and mortifications, with a view to prevent misrepresenta- 
 tions. 
 
 Do not imagine then, that in condemning the load of obser- 
 vances, of servile works, and of self-inflicted tortures, which 
 your system imposes on its votaries, with a view to obtain re- 
 mission of the temporal penalties of their sins, we mean in any 
 degree to remove the obligation of self denial, and the expe- 
 
 d Discuss. Amic. t. ii. p. 201. 
 
^ 
 
 LETTER III. 2S 
 
 diency of a reasonable degree of mortification. We have no 
 intention to speak with any thing except reverence of the aus- 
 terities of the ancient saints^ though they may appear to us in 
 several instances excessive, and not to be imitated. But the 
 reason for which we distinguish between these austerities and 
 those which you recommend is, because they are performed on 
 totally different motives. The saints of old mortified their 
 senses; underwent many afilictions; sat in sackcloth and 
 ashes ; wept and mourned ; spent their lives in self denial ; 
 were abundant in fruits of penitence : but what was their mo- 
 tive ? It was either to obtain remission of sin not yet remitted, 
 or else to mortify the passions and wishes of the natural man, 
 and to conform themselves to the image of their Divine Master, 
 Their motive then was what we cannot but approve ; though 
 we may not think it necessary for Christians to undertake such 
 severe exercises of self-denial as many holy men have practised. 
 But what is your motive in recommending such painful 
 works ? It is to obtain remission of a portion of the penalties 
 of sin already remitted : it is to appease the anger of a God, 
 whose anger is already appeased. Mortifications have with 
 you taken a new character : they are no longer merely what 
 they were to the saints, means of subduing evil habits and in- 
 clinations, and of detaching the soul from sublunary concerns. 
 No : they are expiations for sins remitted — atonements made to 
 an offended God for sins which he has pardoned. Such morti- 
 fications and penances are worse than useless. They are mis- 
 taken ; injurious to God ; inconsistent with the spirit of the 
 Gospel, and with the belief and practice of Catholic Antiquity. 
 It is to such satisfactions that we do most strongly object, and 
 against which we shall always contend to the utmost of our 
 power. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER. 
 
 Oxford, May 3, I84L 
 
A FOURTH LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D. D 
 
FOUETH LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D. D. 
 
 ON THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 SATISFACTIONS, 
 
 (concluded.) 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A. 
 
 OF WOBCESTER COLLEGE, OsrORD. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, 
 
 110 BAITIMOBE STBEET. 
 
 1843. 
 
A FOURTH LETTER, &c. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 In my last Letter little more was clone than to state your 
 doctrine of Satisfaction^ and to point out a few of its conse- 
 quences. I am persuaded that a candid examination of those 
 consequences, and of the contrasts (also noticed) between the 
 Gospel and your doctrines on this subject,, ought to suffice for 
 the satisfaction of any reasonable mind ; but in order to prevent 
 any possibility of escape, it may be advisable to examine in 
 detail the various arguments which yourself and other Romish 
 controversialists have advanced^ in support of your view of 
 Satisfactions^ and to establish the Catholic doctrine opposed to 
 yours by the authority of Scripture and of Catholic Tradition. 
 
 Let me then again state your doctrine of Satisfaction, 
 Accordino^ to the Catechism of Trent^ '^ Satisfaction is com- 
 '^ pensation for the injury done to another,"^ and more particu- 
 larly ^^ that compensation, when man pays somewhat to God 
 '^for the sins which he has committed.^^^ Tournely says^ that 
 Satisfaction is '^the payment of a debt which was contracted 
 " by sin or by oifending God."^ You yourself and other Ro- 
 man theologians always employ the term as equivalent to the 
 payment of a debt due to Divine Justice. 
 
 With reference to the particular debt which is to be dis- 
 charged by Satisfaction^ you speak thus : ^^ We believe that 
 ^^ upon this forgiveness of sins^ [in the Sacrament of Penance,! 
 *^*^ that is, after the remission of that eternal debt^ which God in 
 ^* his justice awards to transgressions against his law^ he has 
 ^^ been pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior or tem- 
 " porary punishment^ appropriate to the guilt which had been 
 ^^ incurred ; and it is on this part of the punishment alone, that, 
 ^^ according to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can be made 
 '' to God." (Lectures ii. 41.) 
 
 a Ita satisfactio nihil aliud est quam injurise alteri illatse compen- 
 satio. Pars ii. c. 85. 
 
 b Cum homo pro peccatis commissis Deo aliquid persolvit Ibid. 
 
 c Sulutio est debiti quod contractum est ex delicto seu offensa Dei. 
 De Pcenit. t. ii. p. 2. 
 
4 LETTER IV. 
 
 What are your arguments in support of this doctrine ? 
 
 I. You appeal to our '' natural feelings" in proof that calami- 
 ties and sufferings in this world are intended as punishments 
 for our sins pardoned, (p. 42.) That appeal I have already 
 answered^ and have proved, that this attempt to connect suffer- 
 ing with the sin of him who commits it, leads to the inference 
 that our Lord himself was sinful, which is a damnable heresy. 
 I have also shewn, that it is an article of faith that calamities 
 and sufferings are sent to the justified, in order in purify their 
 hearts, and to procure for them a higher degree of glory at the 
 appearing of Jesus Christ. 
 
 II. Your next appeal is to the holy Scripture. "The very 
 '^ first principles of moral conduct, whether in the Old or the 
 '' New Law, seeln connected with the necessity of purifications 
 '^ and works, painful or disagreeable, or with sufferings sent by 
 " Divine Providence, as inflictions justly deserved. Thus, we 
 " remark constantly in the Old Law visible demonstrations of 
 " repentance and sorrow, after sin has been forgiven.'''* (Lec- 
 tures ii. 43.) 
 
 In proof of this, we are referred (p. 43.) to the case of David's 
 punishment for his conduct to Uriah (2 Kings xii. 14.) ; to the 
 chastisement inflicted for numbering the people (2 Kings xxiv. 
 IL); and to the penalty suffered by Moses and Aaron for their 
 sin, (Numb. xx. 12, 24. Deut. xxxiv. 4.) These passages have 
 been examined in my Second Letter, in which it has been 
 shewn, that God's mode of dealing with mankind in those ages 
 required the infliction of such punishments, but that under the 
 Gospel they are no longer requisite. In the second case men- 
 tioned, the chastisement was not inflicted for 'pardoned sin, and 
 therefore it cannot assist you. 
 
 Your next proofs are as follows : '^^ We see Job, after he had 
 ^^ transgressed in words, or rather exceeded in speech, therefore 
 ^^ humbling himself, and declaring that he did penance in dust 
 ^' and ashes (Job xlii. 6.) ; when the men of Nineveh had their 
 ^' destruction proclaimed to them by the Prophet, the most obvi- 
 " ous and natural expiation of their sins, appeared to them the 
 ^' publication of a general fast ; and all from the king on his 
 ^' throne to the very animals in their stalls, were commanded 
 ^^ to fast for three days, saying, ' Who can tell if God will turn 
 '^ and forgive, and will turn away from his fierce anger, and 
 " we shall not perish.' (Jonas iii. 9.)" 
 
 Nothing, Sir, can more plainly demonstrate the difficulty 
 under which you labour in the attempt to procure the support 
 of Scripture for your doctrine, than this most unhappy appeal 
 to the cases of Job, and of the men of Nineveh. It is perfectly 
 
LETTER IV. 5 
 
 clear, that penitential works in both these instances were in- 
 tended to obtain remission of the guilt and punishment of sin 
 not yet pardoned, and that there is not the remotest ground for 
 imaginings that they were designed to avert the temporal 
 penalties of remitted sin. Job declares his '^ repentance in dust 
 ^^ and ashes" immediately after he had been rebuked by God, 
 (chapter xl. xli.) The inhabitants of !Nineveh repented with 
 fasting, immediately after it had been said to them by Jonas, 
 *^ Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." (Jonah 
 iii. 4.) It was only after their " fasting" and "turning from 
 '■^ their evil waj^s," that God '^^ repented of the evil that he had 
 " said that he would do unto them ; and he did it not," (verse 
 10.) Their sin, in short, was only foigiven after they had per- 
 formed penitential works, whereas j^our doctrine is, that sin is 
 forgiven before such works are offered, and that the latter only 
 avert its temporal penalties. I shall hereafter prove to you, 
 that works of repentance are necessary to the forgiveness of sin 
 — a truth which your theologians deny, notwithstanding all their 
 pretended advocacy of that branch of Repentance. The exam- 
 ples of Job and of the men of Nineveh establish this doctrine, 
 while they are wholly opposed to your view. 
 
 You observe, that " our first parents' sin was forgiven, and 
 yet the most bitter consequences were entailed on them and 
 their posterity on its account (p. 44.);" but you forget that the 
 sin of Adam, which has passed on all men, can be no measure 
 of the effects of other sins; and that a sin^ which God was 
 bound by his own special promise to punish with temporal death, 
 is widely different from our sins, which are under no such 
 threat. 
 
 You next proceed to argue, that " if we find God, from the 
 ^^ beginning, forgiving sins with the reservation of some smaller 
 ^^ punishment, and at the same time, his chosen servants, in- 
 ^^ structed by him, acting under the conviction, that by peniten- 
 *^ tial acts that punishment could be averted or mitigated, we 
 *^ have equal reason to maintain, so long as there is nothing 
 ^^ positively defined to the contrary, that the punishment and 
 ^' its expiation are continued in the New Testament." (Lec- 
 tures ii. 44.) 
 
 I deny that the reserve of temporal punishments in some in- 
 stances under the former dispensations, after sin has been re- 
 mitted, implies any similar mode of dealing under the New 
 Testament; because under former dispensations, God visibly 
 ruled the world by a system of temporal rewards and punish- 
 ments ; and had notorious sin escaped without any penalty, 
 (except in cases where God himself prescribed a way of remis- 
 
 8* 
 
6. LETTER IV. 
 
 sioOj such as the offering of sacrifice^) the economy of the Divine 
 government would have been disturbed^ sin would have been 
 encouraged^ and its penalties no longer feared. But under the^ 
 New Testament^ God does not visibly govern the world by 
 temporal rewards an-d punishments^ therefore it is not necessary 
 under the Gospel that remitted sin should be temporally 
 punished ; and no argument can be brought from God's conduct 
 in this respect under former dispensations. 
 
 But besides this, I deny that there is any thing in the Old 
 Testament, to lead us to suppose that temporal penalties 
 threatened to remitted sins can be averted. Did David succeed 
 in averting them by all his satisfactions or penitential works ? 
 Did Adam and EJve try to avert them ? Did Moses and Aaron ? 
 As to the penitential works of Job, and of the men of Nineveh, 
 they were intended to procure remission of sin, not merely re- 
 mission of its temporal penalties after sin had been pardoned. 
 I admit that penitential works are continued under the New 
 Testament, but they are continued for something more than the 
 remission of the tem'poral 'penalties of sin. 
 
 As to the objection to human satisfaction, arising ^^ from its 
 '' being considered essentially derogating to Christ's infinite 
 " merits," (Lectures ii. 45.) I am not disposed to maintain 
 the validity of this objection here ; because it would lead to a 
 lengthened discussion, and the objection may in one sense be 
 valid, and in another invalid. I shall therefore proceed to other 
 matters. 
 
 Let us come then to your proofs from the New Testament. 
 ^' Does our Saviour ever tell us, that from thenceforth fasting, 
 ^^ one of the most usual methods for afflicting the soul for sin 
 «^ committed, shall cease under his law ? Does he not, on the 
 ^^ contrary, assure us, that the moment he, the bridegroom, 
 ^'should be taken away, his children should fast.'" (p. 46.) 
 
 Certainly, he does so; but at the same moment he does not 
 give the slightest hint that we are to fast for the purpose of pro- 
 curing remission of the temporal penalties of our pardoned sins 
 —which is exactly the point you have to establish. 
 
 '^ Did he reprove those who had believed that penance in 
 *^ sackcloth and ashes was efficacious for the forgiveness of sin; 
 ^' and not rather propose them as an example, and say that the 
 '^ men of Nineveh shall arise in judgment against that genera- 
 " tion, because at the preaching of Jonas, they did penance in 
 "that way?" (Ibid.) 
 
 All very true, and at the same time destructive of your doc- 
 trine. For if our Saviour proposed as an example, those who 
 ^^ believed that penance in sackcloth and ashes was efficacious 
 
LETTER IV. 7 
 
 '^ for the forgiveness of si?ij" he censured those who believe 
 that "'^ upon the forgiveness of sins^ that is, after the remission 
 of that eternal debt," God reserves a temporal punishment, and 
 that ^' it is on this part of the punishment alone," that ^' sat- 
 ^^^isfaction can be made to God." (p. 41.) I ask you therefore 
 in your own words ; ^^ Does he, on any single occasion, limit 
 " the efficacy of these practices, and tell his disciples, that if 
 ^^ hitherto they have been considered of value towards the 
 ^^ REMISSION OF SIN, they had from that moment lost that worth, 
 ^'^ and were to be employed in future upon different principles, 
 '' and for different motives ?" (p. 46.) How can you answer 
 this question of your own ? You do not admit that Satisfactions 
 remit sin, though Jonah and the men of Nineveh, and our Lord 
 himself, as you allow, teach that they do remit sin. You believe 
 that sin is remitted before satisfactions are undertaken ; that 
 satisfactions are not necessary for the remission of sin, but only 
 for the remission of its temporal penalties. What have you to 
 say then ^ 
 
 Your concluding argument is as follows : 
 
 ^^ But what shall we say of the language of St. Paul, when 
 " he declares, writing to the Colossians, ' I now rejoice in my 
 " sufferings for you, and fill up those things which are wanting 
 ^' of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which 
 '' is the Church ?' (Coloss. i. 24.) What is wanting of 
 ^* Christ's sufferings ! And this to be supplied by man, and in 
 ^^ his flesh ! What sort of doctrine call we this .'* Is it in fa- 
 ^' vour of the completeness of Christ's sufferings, as to their 
 '^^application? Or rather does it not suppose that much is to 
 " be done by man, towards possessing himself of the treasures 
 ^^ laid up in our Saviour's redemption ^ And that suffering is 
 ^^ the means whereby this application is made?" (p. 47.) 
 
 Well : suppose all this true, and how does it prove your doc- 
 trine ? Suppose if you please, that *^* much is to be done by 
 ^' man," and '^ that suffering is the [a] means whereby this ap- 
 '' plication is made." Does this prove that suffering is the 
 means of obtaining remission of the temporal penalties of par- 
 doned sins ? I see no connexion whatever between such a con- 
 clusion, and those to which you have actually come. Suppose 
 that sufferings inflicted by God (of which the Apostle speaks) 
 conform the Christian to his Divine Master, and obtain a greater 
 degree of glory; surely it does not follow, that sufferings, 
 whether voluntarily undertaken, or imposed by God, remit the 
 temporal penalties of forgiven sin. This may pass for good 
 reasoning in the ^^ Roman schools,'^'' but it is really quite beyond 
 QUI dull northern understandings. 
 
S LETTER IV. 
 
 Iir. I now come to your proofs from Tradition, omitting va- 
 rious explanations which you afford as to the practice of your 
 Church in the matter of Satisfaction. 
 
 ''^ If what I have stated be the doctrine of the Gospel, we 
 *^^must naturally expect to find some institution in the Church, 
 ^^from its earliest times, for the faithful practice of so essential 
 ^' a part of God's dispensations. And accordingly from the begin- 
 ^^ning, we find nothing so prominently inculcated, either in the 
 ^^ writings of the early Fathers, or in the discipline of the uni- 
 '^versal Church, as this necessity of doing penance and making 
 '^ satisfacfion to God. It is the basis of the system, known by 
 ^^ the name of the penitential canons, in w^hlch those who had 
 '^ transgressed were condemned to different punishments, accor- 
 '^ ding to the measure of their offences .... This system surely 
 *^^ must have had its root in the strong conviction of the early 
 ^^ Church, that such practices were meritorious in the sight of 
 '' God ; that they brought down his mercy on the sinner, and 
 "^^ propitiated his wrath. And what is all this but the belief of 
 ^^ the doctrine of Satisfaction ?" (p. 49 ) 
 
 Excuse me, sir ; this is indeed a doctrine of Satisfaction ; but 
 it is not yours. The primitive Church did, as you say, believe 
 that penitential works '^^ brought down God's mercy on sinners, 
 ^^ and propitiated his wrath," but they never believed that after 
 the sinner was placed in a state of grace by the remission of his 
 sins, he was still bound to perform penitential works with a 
 view to appease the ^' wrath" of God. No, Sir, the Satisfactions 
 required by the primitive Church were, as you doubtless know 
 perfectly well, performed before Absolution was given, or the 
 penitent restored to Communion.^ *Rfter that restoration, no 
 one ever dreamt of exacting penance from those who were thus 
 reconciled, except when they had been admitted to Communion 
 under the immediate apprehension of death. Thus then the 
 whole practice of the primitive Church with reference to 
 penances is w^holly subversive of your doctrine. The primitive 
 Church required penitential works before the remission of sin, 
 therefore she believed them necessary to obtain the remission of 
 sin ('^ culpa" as well as *^ poena") ; and she exacted no such 
 works after sin was remitted, therefore she either did not be- 
 lieve them necessary for the remission of temporal penalties, or 
 else >held that they were unavaihng. Be assured. Sir, that you 
 will not find me amongst those modern ^^ writers" to whom you 
 
 d See Morinus de Poenitentia, lib. ix. c. 3, 15, 17, wher6 he proves, 
 that except in very peculiar and extreme cases, Absolution was 
 given after Satisfaction had been performed, even up to the twelfth 
 century. 
 
LETTER IV. 9 
 
 allude^ *^fwho have treated of the practice of the Catholic 
 " Church upon this pointy as derived from the Fathers/' and 
 who^ as you say, ^'fairly give it upV (p. 49.) 
 
 The passages vsrhich you proceed to quote from the Fathers 
 are all condemnatory of your doctrine and practice/ and directly 
 establish that which I shall presently maintain in opposition to 
 yours. 
 
 St. Cyprian, you say, v^rites thus : "^ Do entire penance ; 
 ^^ evince the contrition of a sorrowing and grieving mind. That 
 ^^ penance which may satisfy, remains alone to be done ; but 
 '^ they shut the door to satisfaction, who deny the necessity of 
 '' penance. Whoso shall thus have made satisfaction to God, 
 ^'^and, by penance for his sin, have acquired more courage and 
 ^' confidence from the very circumstance of his fall, he whom 
 ^^ the Lord has heard and aided, shall give joy to the Church ; 
 *^^ he shall deserve not pardon only, but a crown." On this your 
 own remark is, '' whoever then does this penance, can merit not 
 ^'^ only 'pardon, but a crown of eternal rewards (p. 50.) 
 
 I do not offer any remarks on the inaccurate and garbled na- 
 ture of this quotation from St. Cyprian, though they are richly 
 merited ; but shall merely observe, that this holy Father, even 
 according to your own interpretation, regarded penitential works 
 or satisfactions as means of obtaining " pardon" of sins, and ^' a 
 " crown of eternal reward." His notions of the value of satis- 
 factions were therefore widely different from yours. You be- 
 lieve that sin and its eternal punishment are remitted hefore 
 penitential works are performed. St. Cyprian believed such 
 works necessary to the remission of sin ; and in the Treatise 
 from which the above passage is taken, condemns most vehe- 
 mently those who admitted penitents to Communion, without 
 any previous satisfaction. 
 
 ^''In the following and in succeeding centuries," you say, 
 ^' we have innumerable passages from the Fathers who wrote re- 
 ^^ garding the penitential canons ; we have them laying it down 
 " as the principle of those laws, that satisfaction was necessary 
 ^^ to expiate offences committed.^'' (p. 50.) 
 
 Certainly, Sir, they held penitential works necessary for the 
 remission of sins in general, not merely for the remission of its 
 temporal penalties, which is, you assure us, '^ the Catholic doc- 
 trine." (p. 41.) Therefore, by your own shewing, the Fathers 
 are opposed to your doctrines. I pass on to your citations from 
 St. Augustine, which are equally apposite for my purpose. 
 The first is as follows : 
 
 " It is not enough that the sinner change his ways, and de- 
 *^ part from his evil works, unless by penitential sorrow, by 
 
10 LETTER IV. 
 
 ^^ humble tears, by the sacrifice of a contrite heart, and by 
 ^^ alms-deeds, he make satisfaction to God for ivhat he has com- 
 '' mined:' (p. 50.) 
 
 Here is not a single word of Satisfaction as remitting only 
 the temporal penalties of sin. The penitential works here re- 
 commended as necessary, were for the purpose of obtaining par- 
 don of '^ what the sinner has committed," i. e. of his sin, his 
 whole sin, guilt as well as 'punishment, eternal as well as tem- 
 poral punishment. 
 
 '^ In the following words we have our doctrine clearly laid 
 ^^ down, that God, after he has pardoned sin, still punishes it 
 ^^ in his justice, ' Wash me from my sin,' said David. — Im- 
 "^^ plore mercy, but lose not sight of justice. In his mercy God 
 ^'^ pardons sin : he punishes it in his justice. But what ? Dost 
 ^'^ thou seek for mercy, and shall sin remain unpunished ? Let 
 '^'^ David, let other sinners answer ; let them answer with David, 
 " that with him they may find mercy, and say, ^ Lord my sin 
 ^'^ shall not remain unpunished: I know his justice, whose 
 ^' mercy I seek. It shall not remain unpunished : but that thou 
 '^'' may est not punish it, I myself will.' Is not this precisely^ 
 '^ word for word, the Catholic doctrine at this time ?" (p. 50.) 
 
 Undoubtedly, Sir, it is the Catholic doctrine, but it is not the 
 Romish. St. Augustine is not speaking of pardoned sin. He 
 does not recommend punishments for pardoned sin. He warns 
 sinners not to depend on the mercy of God for the pardon of 
 their sins, v/hile His justice requires their punishment ; and in 
 order to avert the latter — the fidl punishment of sin, not merely 
 its temporal punishment^ — he advises them to punish them- 
 selves by penitential works. These works were intended to 
 procure the pardon of sin, not to procure the remission of the 
 temporal penalties of sin already pardoned. Therefore St. 
 Augustine subverts your doctrine. 
 
 Such, Sir, are your citations from the Fathers ! Such is the 
 result of your appeal to Catholic tradition ! You will presently 
 find that Tradition is stored with arguments against your doc- 
 trine. The only embarrassment indeed is to know what to 
 select from the vast and multitudinous body of evidence which 
 may be brought to bear against you. 
 
 Having thus examined and proved the inconclusiveness of all 
 your arguments in favour of the Romish doctrine of Satisfac- 
 tion, I proceed to establish the Catholic doctrine on this subject. 
 
I 
 
 LETTER IV. 11 
 
 taught by Scripture^ and received by the Catholic Fathers, the 
 Church of England, and the Reformation, and even admitted 
 by the Council of Trent, and by some of your most eminent 
 divines. 
 
 The position then which I shall maintain against you is, that 
 ^^ penitential works, such as fasting, almsgiving, weeping, and 
 ^^ works of piety, are together with contrition and confession to 
 ^^ God, means of obtaining the remission of sin, and not 
 '' merely the remission of its temporal penalties." 
 
 It is not meant, that every sort of penitential work is requi- 
 site in every case of repentance, but in general, that so7ne fruits 
 or works of repentance are always parts of true repentance. 
 
 The reason for which such works are expected from him who 
 desires to return into the favour of God is, because Repentance, 
 unaccompanied by any fruits of a changed mind, would be dead 
 and unprofitable. Our Lord himself lays it down as a princi- 
 ple, " Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather 
 ^^ grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so every good 
 ^^ tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth 
 ^^ evil fruit." Matt. vii. 16. If Repentance then brings forth 
 no fruits of repentance, no signs of contrition, of humiliation, of 
 charity towards God and man ; it is not a genuine repentance. 
 The Apostle teaches us to judge of the reality of Faith by its 
 fruits : '^ Faith without works is dead.^'' James ii. 20. And 
 so likewise is Repentance, without its works, dead ; for what 
 is Repentance, but Faith mourning over sin, and stimulated by 
 love to newness of life ^ 
 
 Repentance then, without works of repentance, or external 
 signs of a changed heart, (which the Fathers often call Satis- 
 factions,)® is a dead and unprofitable repentance, and does not 
 procure the remission of sins. I speak here of the ordinary 
 course of God's dealings with man ; for as I do not deny, that 
 God has in some cases saved believers without the actual per- 
 formance of good works ; so there is no difficulty in supposing 
 that He also reserves the power of saving penitents (in some 
 
 e When the Fathers speak of " Satisfactions" and of " satisfying' 
 God," they did not mean that man can 'pay the debt which is due for 
 Ms sin, and which the merits of Christ alone can discharg-e : their 
 meaning was, that man may, through Divine grace, do works ex- 
 pressive of contrition, and thus tending to propitiate God's favour. 
 We still retain in some degree the ancient meaning- of the term, 
 when we say, that ** we are satisfied with such a person," i. e. con- 
 tented at his conduct. *' Satisfaction" also was often used to express 
 the Canonical penance, the right performance of which was supposed 
 to restore the penitent to the Divine favour. Dallseus, de Poenis, 1. 
 vii. c. 4. furnishes many examples. 
 
12 LETTER IV. 
 
 peculiar cases) without works of penitence. But these ar^ 
 special exceptions from the ordinary course of his government. 
 
 The doctrine which I have just stated^ is in accordance with 
 that of the Church of England^ as will appear by the following 
 extracts from the Homilies. 
 
 '' When the whole multitude of men^ women, and children, 
 ^^ in a township or city, yea through a whole country, do fastj, 
 ^^ it is called a public fast. Such was that fast which the 
 ^^ whole multitude of the children of Israel were commanded to 
 '' keep the tenth day of the seventh month, because Almighty 
 " God appointed that day to be a cleansing day, a day of atone- 
 ^^ ment, a time of re conciliation , a day wherein the people 
 ^' were cleansed from their sins. The order and manner how 
 '^ it was done is written in the sixteenth and twenty-third 
 '' chapter of Leviticus. That day the people did lament, 
 '' mourn, weep, and bewail their former sins. And whosoever 
 ^^ upon that day did not humble his soul, bewail his sins, as is 
 '^ said, abstaining from all bodily food until the evening, 'that 
 ^^ soul/ saith Almighty God, ^ should be destroyed from among 
 '^ his people' .... Upon the ordinance of the general fast, good 
 '^ men took occasion to appoint to themselves private fasts, at 
 ^^ such times as they did either earnestly lament their sinful 
 '^ lives, or did addict themselves to more fervent prayer, that it 
 ^^ might please God to turn his wrath from them, when either 
 '^ they were admonished and brought to the consideration there- 
 '^ of by the preaching of the Prophets, or otherwise when they 
 '' saw present danger hung over their heads. This sorrowful' 
 '^ ness of heart joined with fasting, they uttered sometimes by 
 '^ their outward behaviour and gesture of body, putting on sack- 
 ^^ cloth, sprinkling themselves with ashes and dust, and sitting 
 " or lying upon the earth, 
 
 ^^ For when good men feel in themselves the heavy burden 
 ^*^of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, and behold with 
 ^' the eye of their mind the horror of hell, they tremble, they 
 '^ quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart 
 ^^ for their offences, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open 
 ^^ this their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for 
 '^ mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, 
 '^ partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest de- 
 '^ sire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, 
 '^ that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loath. 
 " someness of all worldly things and pleasures cometh in place ; 
 ^^ so that nothing then liketh them more, than to weep, to la^ 
 '' ment, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body, 
 '^ to shew themselves weary of this life. Thus did David fast 
 
LETTER IV. \% 
 
 ''when he made intercession to Almighty God for the child's 
 " life .... King Ahab fasted after this sort, when it repented 
 '' him of murdering of Naboth, bewailing his own sinful doings. 
 ^^ Such was the Ninevites' fast, brought to repentance by Jonas's 
 ^^ preaching. When forty thousand of the Israelites were slain 
 ^^in battle against the Benjamites, the Scripture saith, ' All the 
 '^ children of Israel, and the whole multitude of the people, 
 ^' went to Bethel, and sat there weeping before the Lord, and 
 " fasted all that day till night.' So did Daniel, Esther, Nehe- 
 '^ miah, and many others in the Old Testament, fast."^ 
 
 " It is our part to rend our hearts and not our garments, as 
 ^' we are advertised by the Prophet Joel ; that is, our sorrow 
 '^ and mourning must be inward in the heart, and not in out- 
 ^^ ward show only." .... Amongst the ends of fasting the fol- 
 lowing is mentioned : '^ That our fast be a testimony and wit- 
 '^ ness with us before God, of our humble submission to his high 
 '^ Majesty, when we confess and acknowledge our sins unto him, 
 '^'and are inw^ardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, bewail- 
 " ing the same in the affliction of our bodies.^^ (Ibid.) 
 
 In allusion to the case of the people of Nineveh the Homily 
 says, *' And upon this their hearty repentance, thus declared 
 ^' outwardly with fasting, renting of their clothes, pxitting on 
 ^^ sackcloth, and sprinkling themselves with dust and ashes, the 
 *' Scripture saith, ' God saw their works, that they turned from 
 '^ their evil ways ; and God repented of the evil, &c.' "s 
 
 Thus far we have seen fasting and mortifications considered 
 as parts of true Repentance. We now come to almsgiving. 
 
 '^ *^ Give alms,' saith he (our Lord;, *^ and behold all things 
 ^'^ are clean unto you.' He teacheth them, that to be merciful 
 ^* and charitable in helping the poor, is the means to keep the 
 '^ soul pure and clean in the sight of God. We are taught there- 
 '^ fore by this, that merciful alms-dealing is profitable to purge 
 '*■ the soul from the infection and filthy spots of sin. The same 
 '^lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of the 
 ^' Scripture, saying, ' Mercifulness and almsgiving purgeth from 
 "all sins, and delivereth from death, and suffereth not the soul 
 " to come into darkness.' A great confidence may they have 
 *' before the high God that shew mercy and compassion to them 
 ''^Ihat are afflicted. The wise preacher, the Son of Sirach, 
 *^^ confirmeth the same, when he saith, ' that as water quencheth 
 ^^ burning fire, even so mercy and alms resisteth and reconcileth 
 
 *^ sins.' Wherefore that holy Father Cyprian taketh 
 
 *^good occasion to exhort earnestly . . . to relieve the needy 
 
 ^Sermon of Fasting", Part, I. g Sermon of Fasting*, Part Ih 
 9 
 
ee 
 
 14 LETTER IV. 
 
 " and help the afflicted, by the which we may purge our sins 
 ^^and heal our wounded souls."^ 
 
 In the Homily which treats particularly of Repentance^ it is 
 stated^ that God requires in real penitents not only to forsake 
 their sins, but to give their hearts, souls, and bodies to the ser- 
 vice of God. '^ And because that we are letted by the natural 
 ^^ corruption of our own flesh, and the wicked affections of the 
 ^^ same, he doth bid us also return whh fasting .... whereunto 
 ^^ he doth ?idd, weeping and mournings which do contain an 
 '^ outward profession of repentance, which is very needful and 
 '' necessary."^ 
 
 *^ If we will have the wrath of God pacified, we must in no 
 <^ wise dissemble, but turn unto him agrain with a true and sound 
 
 repentance, which may be known and declared by good fruits, 
 
 as by most sure and infallible signs thereof. They that do 
 " from the bottom of their hearts acknowledge their sins, and 
 
 '^ are unfeigned ly sorry for their offences will from hence- 
 
 ^^ forwards with all diligence give themselves to innocency, 
 ^^ pureness of life, and true godliness. We have the Ninevites 
 
 "for our example But above all other, the history of 
 
 ^^ Zaccheus is most notable : for being come unto our Saviour 
 ^' Jesus Christ, he did say, ^ Behold, Lord, the half of my goods 
 ^^ 1 give to the poor ; and if I have defrauded any man, or 
 '^ taken aught away by extortion or fraud, I do restore him 
 "fourfold."'^ 
 
 The same doctrine was taught by the Confession of Augs- 
 burgh,^ and by the Apology of the Confession in the following 
 terms, '' Although we think that Repentance ought to produce 
 " good fruits on account of the glory and the command of God, 
 ^^ and good fruits are commanded by God, such as real fasting, 
 '^ real prayer, real alms, Src; yet we no where find in holy 
 " Scripture that eternal punishments are not remitted except 
 *^ on account of the punishment of purgatory or canonical satis- 
 ^' factions,™ &,c." So that fasting, prayers, and alms, are here 
 admitted to be fruits, signs, or points of real repentance. 
 
 In these various passages we may observe, that the peniten- 
 tial works of fasting, alms giving, and prayer, are all regarded 
 
 ii Sermon of Alms-deeds, Part II. i Sermon of Repentance, Part I. 
 
 k Part II. 
 
 iDeinde sequi debent opera, quae sunt fructus poenitentiae. Conf. 
 Aug-ust. c. xii. 
 
 m Quanquam igitur seniimus, quod poenitentia debcat bones fruc- 
 tus parere propter g-loriarn et mandaturn Dei, et boni fructus habent 
 mandata Dei. vera jejunia, verse orationes, verse cleemoeynse, &c. 
 Apol. Conf. August, vi. (De Confessione etSatislactione.) See also 
 the Confessio Helvetica, cap. xiv. 
 
LETTER IV. 15 
 
 as parts of true repentance, as fruits which testify its reality, 
 and as conducive directly to the remission of sin. This is the 
 doctrine which I am about to maintain against you. 
 
 I. From Scripture. 
 
 All the passages which you and other Romish theologians 
 have cited in support of your doctrine of Satisfactions, go direct- 
 ly to prove, that snch penitential works are means of obtaining 
 remission of the whole sin, (culpa and poena ) 
 
 '' Turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, 
 *^ and with weeping, and with mourning: and turn unto the 
 ^^ Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to 
 ^^ anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." 
 (Joel ii. 12.) This was obviously designed for the purpose of 
 obtaining remission of sin. 
 
 '' God saw their works that they turned from their evil 
 ^•' ways ; and God repented of the evil that he had said he 
 ^^ would do unto them ; and he did it not." (Jonah iii. 10.) 
 That is, he forgave their sin, not merely its temporal penalties. 
 
 '^ Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." 
 (Job xlii. 6.) Job did then penitential works to obtain pardon 
 of his sin, (see ch. xl. xli.) ; not of its temporal penalties alone. 
 
 '^ If the mighty works which were done in you had been 
 ^' done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago 
 ^'in sackcloth and ashes." (Matt. xi. 21.) In these words our 
 Saviour recognises external works of repentance, as a part of 
 true repentance, and therefore as conducive to the remission of 
 sin, not of its temporal penalties. 
 
 '^ O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from 
 *^ the wrath to come. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for re- 
 " pentance." (Matt. iii. 7.) In this case, '' fruits of repentance" 
 are mentioned as the means of escaping " the wrath to come," 
 that is, of obtaining remission of the guilt and eternal punish- 
 ment of sin. 
 
 '^ I keep under my body and bring it into subjection ; lest 
 ^' that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself 
 ^^ should be a castaway." (1 Cor. ix. 27.) This passage obvi- 
 ously does not speak of Satisfactions for sins, but of mortifica- 
 tion of the senses and self denial, with a view to prevent the 
 occurrence of sin. But if it did relate to Satisfactions, it would 
 only prove that they are necessary to the remission of the guilt 
 of sin : '^ Lest I myself should be a castaway .'''^ 
 
 '^ Wherefore O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, 
 ^^ and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities 
 "by shewing mercy ^to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of 
 ^' thy tranquillity." (Daniel iv. %1.) '' By mercy and truth 
 
^e LETTER IV. 
 
 ''■ iniquity is purged^ ( P^-ov. xvi. 6.) '' Alms do deVwerfrom 
 *^ death, and suffereth not to come into darkness-^'' (Tobias iv. 
 11.) '' Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold aU 
 things are clean unto you?'* (Luke xi. 41.) 
 
 In these passages, penitential works are spoken of as means 
 of obtaining the remission of sins, not merely the temporal 
 penalties of remitted sin. Your doctrine of Satisfactions is 
 therefore not Catholic ; it is not the doctrine of the word of God, 
 
 II I shall nou^ prove from Catholic Tradition^, that your view 
 is altogether erroneous. It is the doctrine of all the Fathers, 
 that penitential works, such as fasting, weeping, alms-giving, 
 and mortifications, are conducive to the remission of the whole 
 siny 1. e. both the guilt and the punishment of sin. And here 
 I inean to avaij myself of the proofs collected by your own 
 writers to establish your doctrine of Satisfaction, all of which 
 directly refute your error, and establish the truth for which I 
 am contending. In citing the following passages from the 
 '^ Faith of Catholics," by the popish priests Berington and 
 Kirk/ I am far from pledging myself to their accuracy ; but 
 they will be quite sufficient in arguing with you, si-nce you ac- 
 knowledge your own obligations to the work in question,^ which 
 in fact furnishes all your writers with their whole stock of cita- 
 tions from the Fathers. 
 
 Tertullian, A.D. 200. Having spoken of the public con^ 
 fession of sin before the Church, he thus proceeds, '' I admit it 
 ^' is hard to make this confession ; but sufferincr is the conse- 
 ^*^quence of sin. This suffering ends, and spiritual health be- 
 *^^gins^ when penance. has been performed. But it may be that 
 ^' besides the shame of confession, the severe discipline of 
 ^*^ penance (some acts of which he enumerates) is likewise 
 ^^ feared." . . . ^' Should any one enquire why you are thus en- 
 " gaged .^ say: I have sinned against Gorf, and am in danger 
 ^^ cf perishing everlastingly : wherefore, that I may obtain for- 
 '^ giveness, 1 thus punish myself. "^ Can any words be more 
 decisively opposed to your doctrine than these .'* You believe 
 that penances do not remit sin or its everlasting punishment. 
 You hold that they only remit the temporal penalties of for- 
 given sin, 
 
 St. Cyprian, A. D. 250. ^^ Let us turn with our whole 
 '^ mind to the Lord, and, expressing our repentance with true 
 
 n Faith of Catholics, &c. London, 1830. 
 
 o"The useful conripilation of Messrs. Kirk and Bering-ton, from 
 which 1 have in general drawn my quotations of the "Fathers." 
 Wiseman's Lectures, vol. i. p. ix. 
 
 p TertuUian, De Poenitentia, c. x. xi. 
 
LETTER IV. IT 
 
 *' sorrow, implore his mercy. Before him let the soul bow 
 " down : to him let our sorrow make satisfaction : on him let 
 ^^ all our hope rest. By fasting, by tears, and by moaning, let 
 ''us appease, as he himself admonishes, his indignation.^'"^ 
 
 Council of Nice, A. D. 325. '^ In all cases the disposi- 
 '' tion and character of repentance must be considered. For 
 '' they who by fear, by tears, by patience, and by good works, 
 " manifest a sincere conversion, when they shall have passed 
 '' over a certain time, and begun to communicate in prayer with 
 '' the faithful, to these the bishop may shew more indulgence;'"^ 
 (i. e. by shortening the time of their penance, and admitting 
 them at an early period to absolution.) Observe in this case, 
 that penitential works are necessary to manifest a sincere con- 
 version, and therefore that sin cannot be remitted without them. 
 
 St. Paciaxus, A.D. 370. ''^ Be not slow in having re- 
 '^^ course to the means of saZva^io/i ; lower th(| mind, ^by grief : 
 '' clothe the body in sackcloth ; strew ashes on the head ; fast ; 
 '^ implore the prayers of the faithful. As you spare not your- 
 '' selves, God will spare you. He is gentle, and patient, and 
 '' full of mercy, and will reverse his sentence. I promise : I am 
 '' surety for you ; if you return by true satisfaction to your 
 '' Father, going astray no more, adding nothing to your former 
 " sins, uttering the humble and plaintive words. Father, we 
 " have sinned before thee, we are not worthy to be called thy 
 '^ sons, he will again receive you, who says, / will not the 
 '' death of the sinnery^ Satisfaction then is a mean of obtain- 
 ing remission of sins, and of avoiding eternal death. 
 
 St. Ambrose, A.D. 390. '^' Let the Church weep for thee, 
 '- and by her tears wash away thy sin : may Christ see thee 
 '^ weeping, that he may say. Blessed are they that mourn, for 
 ''Mhey shall be comforted .... Therefore did he pardon Peter, 
 '' because he wept bitterly. And if thou weep in like manner, 
 '• Christ will look on thee, and thy sin will he cancelled .^^^ 
 
 St. Augustine, A.D. 400. ''^To no one has he (God) 
 '' granted the liberty of sinning, although in mercy he may for- 
 '' give past sins if due satisfaction he not neglected?''^ 
 
 St. Leo, A.D. 450. '''As for those Christians, who are 
 '' said to have polluted themselves by food offered to idols, my 
 '' answer is, that they he purified by penitential satisfactions, 
 " which should be measured rather by the sorrow of the heart, 
 '■' than by the length of the time."^' 
 
 q Cyprian. De Lapsis, p. 191. r Can. xii. Cone. Gen, ti. ii. p. 35. 
 sparsen. ad Poenit. Bibl. Patr. iv. 317. tDe Poenit. l.ii. ex. 
 
 wEnchirid. c. Ixx. ^ Ep. cxxix. al. l;cxix. ad Nicet. AquiL 
 
 9* 
 
18 LETTER IV. 
 
 Such, Sir, are the passages which your writers have culled 
 from Antiquity, in proof that penitential works or satisfactions 
 only remit Ihe temporal punishment of sin ; and I now ask you 
 to produce, if you can, one single passage from any Christian 
 writer for a thousand years after Christ, in which your doctrine 
 is maintained. All the '* dicta" of the Fathers which you have 
 hitherto adduced, are condemnatory of your doctrine. Those 
 Fathers exclaimed against the impiety of imagining, that sin 
 can be remitted without any fruits of repentance, when &ach a 
 dogma was first advanced. Hear the language of St. Cyprian, 
 when some sinners had been admitted to absolution without any 
 previous works of satisfaction. 
 
 '^ A new sort of destruction hath arisen, beloved brethren ; 
 ^^ and as if the storm of persecution had raged but a little, a de- 
 ^' ceitful evil, a gentle ruin, under the name of mercy, has been 
 *^* accumulated on us. Contiary to the firmness of the Gospel, 
 ^^ contrary to that of our Lord towards the Law of God, some 
 ^' persons rashly extend communion to heedless men ; a vain 
 ^^ and false peace, perilous to those who give, and unavailing to 
 ^' those who receive. They require no patience in recovering, 
 ^' no real medicine by satisfaction. Repentance is driven from 
 ^^ their bosoms, the memory of the most grievous and extreme 
 ^'^ sin is removed. . . Before sins are expiated; before confession 
 *' of the crime is made ; before conscience is cleansed by the 
 '' sacrifice and the absolution of the priest ; before the offence of 
 ^^ an indignant and threatening God is appeased, they suppose 
 ^''that there is peace; which indeed they vaunt with deceitful 
 '^ words. . . . This is another persecution, another temptation, 
 ^^ by which the subtle Enemy secretly assails and destroys the 
 '^ lapsed, that their lamentation may cease, grief be silent, the 
 '^ memory of sin vanish, the groaning of hearts be repressed, 
 ^' the weeping of eyes be stopped, and the grievously offended 
 ^^ God be not deprecated by a long and full repentance.''^ 
 
 The whole Treatise from which the above passages are taken 
 is sufficient to shew, that works of repentance were considered 
 necessary for the pardon of sin ; that it was unlawful to admit 
 penitents to absolution without the previous performance of such 
 works; and that there was not the remotest idea in those ages, 
 that they remitted the temporal penalties due to pardoned sin. 
 
 But, Sir, it is not merely the whole body of ancient catholic 
 tradition which is opposed to your doctrine of Satisfactions ; I 
 have to produce evidence from a quarter which you little ex- 
 pect, even from the Council of Trent itself. 
 
 y Cyprianus, De Lapsis. 
 
LETTER IV. 19 
 
 It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that Satisfaction is 
 necessary for the remission of si?is— necessary to a real repent- 
 ance. Hear its words: *^ The acts of the penitent himself, 
 '' that is. Contrition, Confession and Satisfiiction, are as it were 
 ^' the matter of this sacrament; which, inasmuch as they are re- 
 '' quired by the Divine institution to the completeness of the 
 ^^ sacrament, and the full and perfect remission of sins, are for 
 ^^tliis reason called paints of repentance.'"'' Thus, you see, 
 Satisfaction is requisite to the remission of sin itself— -not merely 
 to the remission of the temporal penalties of sm already remitted, 
 In^ another place the Council teaches the same doctrine ; ^' It 
 ^' is agreeable to the Divine goodness that our sins should not he 
 (f forgiven without Satisfaction, lest taking occasion therefrom, 
 " we should think lightly of them, &c."^ In fine, we have the 
 following canon, ^'If any one deny, that in order to the full and 
 '^perfect remission of sins, three acts are requisite in the peni- 
 " tent, (constituting as it were the matter of the sacrament of 
 '' Penitence,) that is to say. Contrition, Confession, and Satis- 
 ^^ faction, which are called the three parts of Repentance. . . . 
 ^^ Let him he Anathema!''^ Here, Sir your doctrine is anathe- 
 matized by the Council of Trent ! j^ou maintain that sin is_pttr- 
 doned, remitted, forgiven, by Confession and Absolution; and 
 that Satisfaction, which comes afterwards, only remits its tem- 
 poral penalties. So that you are in this dilemma. If sin is not 
 perfectly forgiven by Confession and Absolution as you believe it 
 to be, and if Satisfaction remits more than temporal penalties, 
 then your whole doctrine of Satisfaction is based on a false 
 foundation ; but if sin is perfectly forgiven without Satisfaction, 
 you must maintain that the Council of Trent is in error. Either 
 alternative is quite sufficient for me 
 
 In fact. Sir, why do you, notwithstanding the opinions gene- 
 rally current in your communion, always exact from penitents 
 in Confession an undertaking to do some works of Satisfaction — 
 to perform some penance or other ? You would think it unlaw- 
 ful to give Absolution without having previously imposed some 
 such penances, and you believe that the penitent must have the 
 
 zSessio xiv. cap. iii. ajb c. viii. 
 
 b Si quis negaverit, ad integram et perfectam peccatorum remiss- 
 ionem requiri tres actus in pcenitente, quasi materiam Sacramenti 
 poenitentiae, videlicet, Contritionem,Confcsjionem,etSatisfactionemj 
 quae tres poenitentise partes dicuntur : aut dixerit, duas tantum 
 esse poenitentise partes, terrors scilicet incussos conscientise, agnito 
 peccato, et fidem conceptam ex Evangelic vel absolutione, qua 
 credit quis sibi per Christum remissa peccata; anathema sit, Sess= 
 xiv. can. 4. 
 
20 LETTER IV. 
 
 intention of executing that penance, in order to obtain remission 
 of his sins by Absolution. What is this after all, but a tacit 
 confession, that Satisfaction is in some way essential to the full 
 effect of the sacrament of Penance — that it is essential to the 
 remission of sin f You accept indeed a quasi satisfaction, an 
 intention of doing penance, where the Scriptures and Catholic 
 Tradition require a real satisfaction; but still, you do require a 
 sort of virtual satisfaction in order to the remission of sin. So 
 that your ovvn practice condemns your doctrine of Satisfaction. 
 
 But your doctrine of Satisfaction is not only condemned by 
 Scripture, by Tradition, by the Council of Trent, and by your 
 own practice : it is actually rejected by some of your own the- 
 ologians. Morinus, in his celebrated work on Penance, remarks, 
 that the following '^ axiom was introduced into the minds of all 
 ^^ Christians by the Fathers, ^ That Satisfactions imposed by 
 ^^the Church and strenuously performed, not only satisfied and 
 '' expunged temporal punishments, hut eternal ; that they drew 
 ^' down the mercy of God on sinners, and obtained pardon of 
 '^ their crimes.' "^ Morinus observes, that it was the hope of 
 obtaining remission oi sins, that induced penitents in those ages 
 to undergo such long and severe penances; and that this doc- 
 trine formed the basis of all the exhortations of the Fathers to 
 repentance. He cites Maldonatus, one of your most eminent 
 Jesuits, as saying, ^^ I do not doubt that all the ancient Authors 
 " acknowledged that Satisfaction was for the guilt {culpa'). 
 ^' For they did not suppose that God remitted the guilt of sins, 
 ^*^ before the penitent had appeased Him by external penances: 
 ^' nor did the priests believe that they could give Absolution to 
 '^ the penitent before, as interpreters of the Divine will, they 
 '^ had seen the sinner perform such a penance, that it was credi- 
 ^^ ble that God was already reconciled ta him."*^ Morinus 
 
 c AUerum disciplinse penitentialis fundainentum, quod nobis hu- 
 jus libri initio explicandum proposuirnus, hoc est axioma Christia- 
 norum omnium animis a Patribus insinuatum, Satisfactiones ab 
 Ecclesia impositas diligenter et &trenue peractas non tantum pcense 
 temporarise sed etiam seterna; satisfactorias esse, et expunctrices, 
 animam purg-are et emacalare, Dei misericordiam in peccatores 
 allicere, et scelerum veniam ab eo impetrare.' INIorinus, De dis- 
 cipl. Sacramenti Poenitcntiaj, lib. iii. c. xi. p. 159. Ed. Bruxellis 
 1685. 
 
 dNon dubito, inquit Joannes Maldonatus, quin omnes veteres 
 Authores satisfactionem ag-noverint pro culpa. Nam non putabant 
 Deum culpam remitterc peccatorum, priusquam externis pceniten- 
 tiis Deum placassent : Neque sacerdotes putabant dare posse poeni- 
 tenti Absolutionem, priusquam, quasi interpretes Divinie volunta- 
 tis, viderent earn poenitcntiam egisse peccatorem, ut credibile esset 
 Deum jam illi esse placatum. Morinus, ibid. 
 
I 
 
 LETTER ly. <fl 
 
 afterwards refers to Estius and Sylvius^ as making the same 
 admissions ; and to Lensaeus, an eminent theologian of Louvain, 
 whose work was approved by that University. The latter, 
 according to Morinus, maintained, that Satisfactions were im- 
 posed, '^ to appease the anger of an indignant God, and that a 
 '^ complete abolition of sins might, in that manner, be obtained ;" 
 and that by Satisfactions, " a man is relieved, cleansed, ex- 
 '' cused, absolved ; a remedy applied for the recovery of salva- 
 '' vation ; eternal punishments expunged ; the fire of Hell ex- 
 " tinguishedy^ The same author proves his doctrine at great 
 length from the Fathers. Morinus also quotes Albaspinaeus, 
 the learned bishop of Orleans, as maintaining that Satisfactions 
 remit sin ; a position which he establishes in many ways. 
 
 In fine, Morinus himself, having spoken of those theologians 
 whose doctrines lead to the conclusion, that ^^ all satisfaction 
 '' relates only to temporal punishments,^^ says, ^^ Whether this 
 '^ opinion can agree with the most undeniable discipline of the 
 '^ ancients, let others judge." 
 
 Thus you see, that what you adduce as '^ the Catholic doc?- 
 " trine of Satisfaction," is so far from being so, that it has not 
 even been approved by all your own theologians. I admit in- 
 deed, that it is now universally received amongst you, however 
 inconsistent it be with Catholic antiquity, and with the Council 
 of Trent. All your modern approved writers agree, that Satis- 
 faction obtains only the remission of temporal punishments ; the 
 sin itself hdiVing been previously remitted. This is the doctrine 
 which you yourself maintain^ as I have shewn at the beginning 
 of this Letter, 
 
 Having now completed the refutation of your doctrine of 
 Satisfaction, and having established the Catholic doctrine in 
 opposition to it, I shall submit to your consideration certain con- 
 clusions which follow from a review of the whole discussion. 
 
 I. In my former Letter it was proved, that your doctrine of 
 Satisfactions or Penances necessarily leads to the conclusion, 
 that after sin has been pardoned, God's anger and wrath still 
 remain to be appeased, and consequently that the remission of 
 sin is merely nominal. 
 
 e Verum eo proprie relatas fuisse (satisfactiones) ut Deo satisfie- 
 ret, ejusque indignantis ira placaretur, plenaque ista ratione percipi 
 posset abolitio peccatorum .... Per hoc idcirco studium satisfac- 
 tionis hominem relevari, mundari^excusari, absolvi, ad salutem re- 
 cuperandam remedium adhiberi, seterna supplicia expungi, g'che^* 
 nse ig"aem extingui," &c. Moriuas, ibid. 
 
22 LETTER IV. 
 
 If. It was also proved, that according to your doctrine, God 
 is actuated by contradictory dispositions towards tiie justified; 
 that he is at once satisfied and dissatisfied, pleased and dis- 
 pleased ; that he loves and hates the same persons at the same 
 moment. 
 
 III. It was farther proved^ that, according to your doctrine^ 
 a Christian is bound to pass his whole life in enduring self-in- 
 flicted torments and laborious works^ under an uncertain hope 
 of appeasing the wrath of God. 
 
 lY. It was also shewn, that you are not satisfied with im- 
 posing this grievous burden on Christians, but that you teach 
 them to consider themselves alienated from God, exposed to his 
 wrath, vengeance, and hatred^ during their whole lives, and 
 even at the hour of death. 
 
 V. It has been shewn, that your doctrine renders it impossi- 
 ble for those who receive it, ever perfectly to love God. 
 
 VI. In the present Letter, I have proved that your doctrine 
 of Satisfaction is without any proof from Scripture or Tradition. 
 Consequently it cannot be Catholic. 
 
 VII. It has been also proved, that Scripture, Tradition, the 
 Council of Trent, and some of your own most eminent Divines, 
 concur in establishing the truth taught by the Church of Eng- 
 land, that penitential works are a part of true Repentance, and 
 as such, remit sin both as to its guilt and its punishment (culpa 
 and paena). Consequently your doctrine of Satisfaction, which 
 asserts that penitential works are only useful for the remission 
 of temporal penalties^ is directly erroneous, and approximates 
 to heresy. 
 
 VIII. Scripture and Catholic Tradition teach, that remission 
 of sins is not obtained without penitential works. Therefore 
 you are in error in pronouncing the Absolution of sins, without 
 any previous fruits of repentance ; and your Absolutions are, 
 generally speaking, invalid. 
 
 IX. Scripture and Tradition teach, that penitential works 
 are necessary to obtain pardon of sin ; but all your modern 
 divines maintain, that they are not an essential part of the 
 Sacrament of Penitence,^ and on this principle give Absolution 
 
 f Satisfactio, seu poenitcntia a Confcssario data, est necessaria ne- 
 cessitate non sacrarnenti sed pra^cepti est pars sacramenti 
 
 non essentialis, scd intergralis tantum. Lig"orio, Theol. Mor. t. vi. 
 p. 122. Communis theolog-orum sententia post Concilium Tridenti- 
 num assignat Ires actus poenitentis, ncmpe contritionem, confessio- 
 nem, et sati.-factioncm pro ina^ria proxima Sacramenti Poeniten- 
 tiaj ; duos> quidem priores pro m *eria essentiali; tcrtium vcro, nempe 
 satisfactionem, pro materia integrante. Tournely, Do Poenit. 
 t. i. p. lOS. Sine ilia (satisfactionc) valet absolutio data poenitenti 
 CQntrito et confcsso, ut osteademus suo loco iuferius. lb. p. 118. 
 
LETTER IV. 23 
 
 before Satisfaction. Therefore your received doctrine is opposed 
 to the word of God. 
 
 X. These errors are universally received amongst you. 
 They are taught by all your theologians in modern times^ and 
 are believed by all your people. From vv^hich we learn, that 
 some errors at least are received by all members of the Roman 
 Obedience; and if some errors are universally received amongst 
 you, there may be many more. You may be in error on all the 
 points in which you differ from the Catholic and Apostolic 
 Churches established amongst us. 
 
 And is it then for you and your co-religionists to assume the 
 office of dictating to us what we are to believe ? Can those 
 who are in such gross errors themselves be fit monitors to 
 others? Can those who quote passages from the Scriptures 
 and the Fathers in favour of doctrines which they utterly sub- 
 vert_, be qualified either by learning or by intelligence to guide 
 our opinions ? Where is that boasted infallibility of received 
 doctrines amongst you ; when it has been shewn^ that Scrip- 
 ture, Tradition, and the Council of Trent itself condemn your 
 belief? Supposing that you could prove our Church in error 
 on some points, (which however I utterly deny that you can 
 do,) would there be any inducement to us to forsake the com- 
 munion of our Church for the purpose of uniting ourselves to a 
 community which is itself in error ? But when the error is on 
 your side; and when, by your own admission. Catholic princi' 
 pies may be maintained by those who are members of the 
 Church of England ; when, in short, our Churches are essen- 
 tially Catholic, and your own separation from our Catholic and 
 Apostolic Churches is consequently without excuse ; how ex- 
 treme would be the insanity, how desperate the wickedness, of 
 that man, who should plunge his soul into eternal perdition, by 
 forsaking the Communion of the Catholic Church in England, 
 to unite himself to your corrupt and schismatical community ! 
 
 I remain. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER. 
 
 Oxford, May 11, 1841. 
 
FIETH LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D. D. 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 TO HIS 
 
 REMARKS ON LETTER I. 
 
 WITH ADDITIONAL PROOFS OF THE 
 
 IDOLATRY AND SUPERSTITION OF ROMANISM. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 -REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A, 
 
 O? WOBCESTEH. COLLEGE. OXFOBD. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, 
 
 110 EALTIMOES STREET. 
 
 1843. 
 
A FIFTH LETTER, &c. 
 
 §.1. Introductory Remarks. 
 
 Sir,, 
 
 When you thought it necessary to call publicly on a clergy- 
 man of the English Church for proofs of charges which he had 
 made years before against the doctrines and practice of Romanists, 
 and which has been just repeated without any peculiar reference 
 to yourself, or any other circumstance which particularly obliged 
 you at this time to make such a demand : and when you availed 
 yourself of this opportunity to present the doctrines of your 
 Communion to the notice of the English public ; it does not 
 seem to me that you have any reason to complain^ if another 
 clergyman uses the same liberty which you have yourself taken, 
 and proceeds with a discussion to which you have led the way. 
 
 The question which formed the principal subject of my first 
 Letter was one, which most deeply and even vitally affects the 
 religious character of Romanism. It was no less than this : 
 Whether in the Church of Rome, created beings receive honours 
 which are only due to God ; whether tHis idolatrous worship is 
 sanctioned and encouraged by authority amongst you, and is 
 allowed generally by the members. of the Roman communion 
 without any protests or expressions of dissent. 
 
 In maintaining that such an idolatrous worship exists and is 
 authorized amongst you ; it was, at the same time, most readily 
 admitted, that every Romanist is not necessarily an idolater ;* 
 because idolatry is only allowed and sanctioned in the Roman 
 Church : it is not enjoined or imposed on all its members. 
 This is a distinction which you are still unwilling to recognise,, 
 and by losing sight of it, you easily involve my statements in 
 apparent contradiction.^ Could time be spared for the discus^- 
 
 a Letter I. p. 10, 30. 
 
 b Wiseman, Remarks, p. 6, 10 — 13. I shall only observe, that you 
 are mistaken in supposing that I admit ** an immense aggregate of 
 idolatrous Churches into a portion ? with Christ's true Church." (p. 
 13.) To speak of the Koman as an idolatrous Church, would seem to 
 imply that all its members must be idolaters, which I am not pre- 
 pared to afl&rm. Romanism, however, i. e. the more popular system 
 of relig"ion in the Roman Church, is superstitious and idolatrgus. 
 
4 LETTER V. 
 
 sion, it might easily be shewn, that there is no contradiction 
 in those statements. An intelligent reader will easily disen- 
 tangle them for himself^ by remembering that I have main- 
 tained, that the Roman Church is indeed deeply culpable and 
 very corrupt in permitting Idolatry to exist within her pale ; 
 and yet that, as she does not enjoin it, (either by the decrees 
 of Councils or otherwise,) she is not actually apostate or cut 
 off from Christ. In a word, she is still capable of Reformation. 
 
 In connexion with this subject I must say, that I cannot see 
 the justice of your '* demand," (p. 8.) that the expressions of 
 those who are in authority amongst you " be interpreted in 
 " accordance with your formularies." It is not impossible, that 
 men may hold what is inconsistent with the formularies of 
 their Church ; ajid there is still less difficulty in supposing that 
 their doctrines may go beyond the iv or ding of those formularies, 
 without being opposed to them. This is the case with Romanists. 
 Their formularies do not (I believe) teach or enjoin Idolatry ; 
 and yet Idolatry is taught and practised. That is, Romanism 
 is more corrupt than its own formularies. 
 
 The object of your reference (p. 14, 15.) to the former preva- 
 lence of ^' the Bible alone" system in this country, and to the 
 support given to the Bible Society by some of our Prelates, is 
 to prove, that the '^ Bible alone" doctrine, as opposed to any 
 Church authority, is as much sanctioned amongst us, as idola- 
 trous worship is amongst Romanists. But you are surely 
 aware, that this doctrine is now, and has long been, openly 
 condemned and resisted by the great body of the Clergy ; and 
 we have no reason to suppose that the Prelates, (always, I 
 believe, a minority of the Episcopal body,) who have sup- 
 ported the Bible Society, intended to approve any unsound prin- 
 ciples, or to give their countenance to any thing but the circu- 
 lation of the Bible without note or comment, which is, in itself, 
 a perfectly unexceptionable and most laudable object. 
 
 Your argument, however, in this case, concedes the validity 
 of that by which I shewed, that Romanists are responsible for 
 the idolatrous language and prayers employed by the Authori- 
 ties, without any opposition or protest from the members of 
 their Communion. And the whole pamphlet before me is a 
 further admission of its correctness. You do not attempt to 
 deny that the character of Romanism depends on the lawfulness 
 of the expressions which were adduced in my first Letter. 
 I must pass over several minor points in the first and second 
 sections of your ^^ Remarks," the discussion of which would 
 withdraw attention from the important features of this discus- 
 sion. They may perhaps be noticed at the conclusion of this 
 Letter. 
 
LETTER V. 5 
 
 §. 2. Romanism convicted of idolatry by Dr, fViseman^s 
 
 concessions. 
 
 Let us now turn to the really serious part of the question, 
 and examine how far you have been able to meet the charge 
 which was made against your system — that the blessed Virgin 
 and the Saints receive amongst Romanists '' honours which are 
 ^^ due only to the Trinity, and which interfere with the sole 
 ** prerogatives of the Deity." 
 
 Your Reply, Sir, has only confirmed the worst apprehensions 
 that could have been formed as to the extent of the evils under 
 which Religion is suffering amongst you. It has shewn that 
 the corruptions which were pointed out are deeply rooted, and 
 widely spread in your communion. Every expression and 
 every practice to which I referred, however idolatrous and 
 impious, has been studiously maintained and defended. Far 
 from disclaiming responsibility for such language, or from pro- 
 testing against it, you confidently maintain its correctness in all 
 points, and are prepared to go to still greater lengths than any 
 of the writers whom I quoted; for you cite in their justification, 
 language which is still more offensive than that which was 
 produced. This proceeding most fully establishes the truth of 
 what was said in my first Letter; that ^' you (Romanists) con- 
 ^^ tent yourselves with general disclaimers of superstition and 
 ^^ idolatry, but you will never venture to lay your finger on any 
 ^'^ specific case.'"^ No : so far is this from being the case, that 
 the moment an attempt is made to point out the real and unde- 
 niable corruptions existing in your communion, they are eagerly 
 defended and justified in their fullest exrent. 
 
 Your Reply has established another point, which is of great 
 importance in our controversies with Romanists. It has shewn 
 that we are not called on to enter into any discussion with you 
 on the propriety of asking the Saints and Angels to ' '^pray for 
 *^ us." Such discussions may be put aside, until you disclaim 
 and reject those far more objectionable and dangerous Invocations 
 which invest the Saints with the attributes of Deity ; which 
 reduce Grod to the same level with His creatures, or elevate 
 creatures to an equality with God. The mere invocation of 
 Saints to ''pray for us" stands on different grounds, because it 
 distinctly recognises the superiority of God. 
 
 You have conceded then what I contended for in my first 
 Letter, that Romanists are responsible for the expressions sanc- 
 tioned by Authority, which were there produced. 
 
 But you concede still more than this. I contended, that the 
 
 c J^etter I. p. 17. 
 10* 
 
Q LETTER V. 
 
 blessed Virgin and the Saints receive in those authorized expres- 
 sions, honours which are only due to the Deity; that the attri- 
 butes of the Deity are plainly and repeatedly ascribed to created 
 beings. This you have not attempted to deny. You 
 have not answered the arguments which were adduced to prove, 
 that the very powers and attributes ascribed in those passages 
 to the Saints, belong, according to Revelation, to God only. 
 You have only adduced a series of precedents for such prayers 
 from various writers. I have a right therefore to assume, that 
 you cannot deny the validity of my proofs ; and thus my conclu- 
 sion remains established ; that the Virgin Mary and the Saints 
 receive amongst you honours which are due to God ; and that 
 your prayers invest them with the attributes of Deity. 
 
 Now, Sir, according to yourself, ^' Idolatry is the giving to 
 '^ man or to any thing created, that horifiage, that adoration, 
 '^ and that worship which God hath reserved unto himself,"^ and 
 you acknowledge, that '^ throughout God's word, the crime of 
 ^' idolatry is spoken of as the most heinous, the most odious, and 
 ^^ the most detestable in his eyes."® Have I not a right then 
 to claim you as a witness against the prayers which you have 
 defended ? Have I not a right to produce your own confessions 
 as amongst the strongest possible condemnations of what is so 
 generally practised amongst Romanists, and practised without 
 a word of warning, of censure, or of opposition ? 
 
 Romanists allege, that all these acts of homage and adoration 
 to the Virgin and the Saints cannot be in reality idolatrous ; — 
 cannot trench on the worship due to the Creator ; because they 
 believe that God is infinitely superior to the Saints ; and hence 
 they conclude, that He will regard all worship of the Saints^ 
 however apparently idolatrous, as in reality consistent with, 
 and subordinate to, that which is due to Himself. 
 
 But how can you be certain of this ? How can you be assur- 
 ed that the Divine Justice of a "jealous God."^ will so easily 
 excuse actions which to all appearance despoil Him of his glory 
 in the face of the world ? Can it be consistent with the will 
 of God, that his professed disciples should commit even external 
 idolatry f Is it fitting that they should seem to the world idola- 
 ters — and that the Heathen should be able to adduce their ex- 
 ample to justify themselves in worshipping more than one God ? 
 Is it Christian to make use of forms which must, almost irresis- 
 tibly, tempt the unlearned to commit idolatry in the worst 
 
 d Lectures on the principal doctrines and practices of the Catho- 
 lic Church, vol. ii. p. 93. 
 
 elbid*. f Exodus xx. 5. 
 
LETTER V. 7 
 
 sense ? Surely, Sir, if such addresses are, in their plain and 
 obvious sense, idolatrous and if they inevitably lead to the 
 grossest forms of idolatry, there can be no reason to suppose 
 that God will pardon those who employ and sanction them, or 
 those whose especial duty it is to watch against idolatry, and 
 who yet utter no word of admonition or reproof to the people 
 entrusted to their care. 
 
 Is it right that Christians should offer honours to the Saints 
 which are even apparently and externally idolatrous ? There 
 cannot be any doubt of its impropriety. Consider for a moment 
 the object of all external worship addressed to God. We wor- 
 ship God in order to glorify Him before men and angels, — in 
 order to testify that He is, as we believe, All-powerful, All 
 wise, and All-merciful. It is, to shew forth to his glory, the 
 inward convictions of our hearts. If then we divide that wor- 
 ship with others, we do not accomplish the objects of our worship. 
 We do not so much raise others to an equality wath God, as 
 bring down God to a level with his creatures.- If the external 
 worship due to God be imparted also to creatures, God is not 
 honoured : He is even insulted and offended. 
 
 Consider the anger of God against Moses, ^vhen his language 
 at the water of Meribah implied that he could bring water out 
 of the rock by his own power. God said to Moses and Aaron, 
 '^ because ye believe me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the 
 '"' children of Israel^ therefore ye shall not bring this congrega- 
 "^ tion into the land which I have given them."s Consider the 
 rebuke and the punishment administered to Sennacherib for his 
 impious boasting, ^' I have digged and drunk strange waters, 
 ^^ &c." ^' Hast thou not heard long ago," saith the Lord, 
 " how I have done it, and of ancient times that I have formed 
 a it ?"ii Think also of the awful instance of God's displeasure, 
 when Herod did not refuse the divine honours which the 
 people of Tyre and Sydon paid him. " The angel of the Lord 
 ^' smote him, because he gave not God the glory ; and he was 
 '^ eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.'*^ These instances, 
 to which many others might be added, go to establish the con- 
 clusion, that God will visit with his severest displeasure those, 
 who, in any way, attribute to creatures those powers, or offer 
 to them that homage, which is due to the Creator. 
 
 It is not merely our belief or our intention which God re- 
 quires to be sound and pure, but our external profession of faith 
 also, '' for with the heart of man believeth unto righteousness ; 
 *^ and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."^ If 
 
 g Numbers xx. 12, ^ 2 Kings xix. 24, 25, &c. 
 
 iActsxi. 23. kRora. x. 10. 
 
8 LETTER V. 
 
 therefore the external profession of our faith in prayer and 
 worship be unsound ; if it ascribe divine power to creatures ; 
 the mere inward persuasion of our hearts will not suffice for our 
 salvation. If we are externally idolaters, we shall not be saved 
 from punishment, by believing that there is but one God. 
 
 If these principles be not adopted, you could not offer any 
 opposition to the introduction of professions of faith, which, I 
 believe, would be scarcely acceptable even to Romanists. For 
 if it be allowable in prayer, which is a profession of faith, to 
 offer the Virgin and the Saints the same homage, and ascribe 
 to them the same attributes, as we do to God, there cannot be 
 any objection to introduce them into a creed, which is only a 
 profession of faith in a different form. Suppose then, that Gre- 
 gory XVI. were, to substitute a new profession instead of that 
 of Pius IV. (which is a possible case) ; and that after the Ni- 
 cene Creed the follov^ing passage were inserted : 
 
 *^ And I believe in the Virgin Mary, the ^'only refuge^ of 
 *^ sinners, by whom ^ the world is freed,' whose name is of 
 "'' ^ salvation to the baptized.' I acknowledged that from her 
 *^ ^ celestial inspiration' good counsels proceed. I believe that 
 she can do whatever she wills ; and I adore and worship her, 
 with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as my sa- 
 viour, my deliverer, and my sovereign. I believe also iu the 
 Saints and Angels, in whom my whole confidence is placed. 
 I offer to them my heart and soul, and I worship and glorify 
 them, with the Father, the Son_, the Holy Ghost, and the 
 '' Virgin Mary." 
 
 Now, Sir, there is nothing in this profession of faith which 
 would be inconsistent with the principles of your Letter. It 
 might be defended by exactly the same arguments which 
 Romanists employ to excuse the prayers which I quoted in my 
 first Letter. It would be easy to say, that, after all, the 
 belief of the Roman Church was quite sound ; that you re- 
 jected with liorror the notion of idolatry ; and that you did not 
 imagine, that the Virgin or the Saints could do any thing for 
 you except by their prayers. On your principles no opposition 
 could be made to such a profession of faith. You could only 
 object to it on the very principles on which we object to your 
 actual language to the Virgin and Saints. You could only 
 say, that such a profession would be, in its obvious meaning, 
 idolatrous ; that it was calculated to cause the grossest idolatry ; 
 and that the external worship and the professions of Christians 
 ought always to be in accordance with their faith. 
 
 This is what we contend for. We contend that it can never 
 be lawful for Christians to use an idolatrous external worship. 
 
LETTER V. 9 
 
 and that there is no reason to believe that God will excuse such 
 worship^ because /ai7/i is alleged to be sound. 
 
 Let us suppose a petitioner^ on entering the presence of his 
 eaW% Sovereign, to fall down before sonne/e^^owj -swZyec^; to 
 profess his allegiance to that subject ; to offer him all the hon- 
 ours due to the sovereign ; and to solicit from him favours 
 which no subject can bestow. What would be the feelings of 
 that earthly sovereign, thus dishonoured in his own presence ? 
 Or even suppose the petitioner to address his homage equally 
 at the same moment to the sovereign and one of his subjects. 
 Suppose him to couple their names in his petition, and to ex- 
 press equal hope and confidence in the power of each ; and to 
 solicit favours from both at once in the same form of words. 
 Would not this be an act of disrespect to the sovereign ? 
 Would it be regarded as any thing less than insanity in the 
 petitioner ? Would it be sufficient to say, '' that there was no 
 ^' intention to place the sovereign and his subject on the same 
 ^^ level, or to offer them an equal degree of honour ; but that it 
 '' was only meant to ask for the prayers and interest of the sub- 
 '' ject ?" The reply would be, '' Why then did not your con- 
 '^ duct accord with your intentions ? Why did you not practi- 
 ^^ cally make the distinctions which you acknowledge theoreti- 
 ^^ cally ought to be made ?" Transfer this example to the 
 parallel case of your adoration of the Virgin and Saints, and it 
 may suggest a salutary warning. 
 
 §.3, Value of Br, Wiseman'' s Defence. His quotations from 
 spurious and a'pocryphal writings. 
 
 I now come to your Defence of the expressions on which my 
 first Letter commented. It consists in an appeal to Christian 
 Antiquity, with a view to shew that language of the same kind 
 had been employed by the early Fathers. Now, Sir, much as 
 the testimony of Catholic Antiquity is to be valued, you must 
 permit me to say, that we are not bound to approve of every 
 expression which particular writers may have employed in rhe- 
 torical compositions. Romanists have no scruple themselves in 
 exercising a reasonable criticism in such cases '} and if therefore 
 
 iSee Melchior Canus, Delocis Theologicis, 1. vii c. iii; Tournley, 
 De Deo, t. i. p. 181 ; Delahog-ue, De Ecclesia, p. 436. St. Augustine 
 says " Neque quorumlibet disputationes quamvis Catholicorum et 
 laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus, 
 ut nobis non liceat salva honorificentia quse illis debetur hominibus, 
 aliquid in eorum scriptis improbareet respuere,si forte invenerimus 
 quod aliter senserint quam Veritas habet, divine adjutorio vel ab 
 aliis intellectaj vel a nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales 
 volo esse intellcctores meorum." August. Epist. 147. al. 111. ad 
 Fortunatianum Siccensem Episcopum, c. 4. t. ii. p. 502. 
 
10 LETTER V. 
 
 you had been able to produce exaggerated language from some 
 of the Fathers which approximated to that used by Romanists 
 in their prayers to the Saints^ it would not follow that this in- 
 discretion on the part of some pious and holy men^ could in any 
 degree justify you for systematically, soberly, and of set purpose, 
 employing language in itself idolalrons. But, Sir, I most posi- 
 tively deny, that Christian Antiquity furnishes any instances 
 of prayers or declarations like those which were adduced in my 
 first Letter. I say this, after having perused and examined 
 the apparently imposing mass of authorities which you have 
 produced. 1 say " apparently ;" because I was not prepared to 
 find, that a large pr>jportion of these passages which you have 
 quoted as from the Fathers, including all those on which you 
 lay the most stress, are derived from apocryphal and spurious 
 writings ; from works written centuries after the time of the 
 Fathers to whom you attribute them ; from the writings of 
 heretics falsely attributed to the Fathers ! Page after page of 
 quotations, garnished with many an ingenious remark, and 
 many a grave admonition, with your applause of the venerable 
 authors, and your contrasts between their sentiments and mine, 
 are derived from works, the genuineness of which is disputed 
 or denied by the ablest critics, even of your own communion f 
 It is really impossible to refrain from a smile, when, after indulg- 
 ing in masses of quotations of this kind, you deal so leniently 
 with a vanquished opponent, to say, '^ I cannot persuade myself 
 ^'^ that he would have selected such phrases . . had he been 
 '^ aware, or, at least, had he remembered, that they were so 
 *' nearly — indeed quite — identical with those that are found in 
 ^' their (the Fathers') writings.""^ I must confess that I was 
 not aware of this fact, and notwithstanding your labours, I still 
 remain in my ignorance. I have not been occupied in the same 
 ^' pleasing task" to which you allude at the close of your Let- 
 ter. The *^^j9wre sources of ecclesiastical learning" from which 
 you have been ^' refreshing your mind,"" do not seem to me 
 exactly to merit that title. 
 
 But I proceed to substantiate the truth of the above state- 
 ment, by noticing the various passages which you have produ- 
 ced from spurious or doubtful compositions. 
 
 You cite (p. 20.) a prayer of St. Ephrem Syrus, contained 
 in the third volume of his works edited by Assemani at Rome 
 in 1746. This prayer, together with a great body of similar 
 prayers, from which you quote largely, appeared for the first 
 
 m Remarks, p. 66. n lb. p. 86. 
 
LETTER V. II 
 
 I 
 
 ^m time in this edition of Ephrem Syrus,^ having been unknown 
 ^B to all former editors of his works. Now we find from Assem- 
 ^B ani's preface, that all these prayers are copied from a manuscript 
 W in the Vatican Library {of what age it does not appear), which 
 consists of a collection of prayers made by some monk named 
 Thecaras ; and in this collection, the prayers above mentioned 
 are attributed to Ephrem .p So that the evidence for their gen- 
 uineness depends on the veracity of this monk, of whom we 
 know nothing, and who may perhaps have been 2i fictitious 
 personage, or may have forged these prayers in the sixteenth 
 or seventeenth century, for any thing that we know to the con- 
 trary. This is the evidence for their genuineness. On the 
 other hand, we find that one or two similar prayers in the 
 former editions of St. Ephrem, containing equally exaggerated 
 expressions in honour of the blessed Virgin, are rejected by 
 Tillemont,^ Ceillier,^ Oudinus,^ and Cave,^ as altogether un- 
 worthy of this holy man, and inconsistent with the spirit of the 
 age in which he lived. 
 
 You cite (p. 2^.) a passage from the first homily ^'^ In Dormi- 
 ^' tione B. Marise,"^ attributed to John Damascenus. Ceillier 
 has observed, that this homily contains statements which are 
 not consistent with the genuine sentiments of its reputed author.^ 
 And Oudinus remarks, that the Festival on which these homi- 
 lies were delivered, was not instituted till a century after the 
 death of Damascenus ; and that the homilies themselves are 
 attributed by some manuscripts to Andrew, Bishop of Csesarea 
 in the ninth century, by others to Germanus Bishop of Con- 
 stantinople in the thirteenth century 7 The next three quota- 
 tions (p. 22, 23.) are from a homily '^ In Annunciatione^" as- 
 cribed also to Damascenus. It appears from Ceillier, that Leo 
 
 o Ephrem Syri Opera, Grsec. Lat. t. iii. p. 524 — 552. 
 
 p '' Precationes Ephrsemo tribute, alise ad Deum sunt, alise ad B. 
 <e Virginem Deiparam, ali«e ad Sanctos . . separatim habentur . . 
 «* prEesertim in collectione precum, quas Thecarus quidem mona- 
 "chus congessit. De hoc Thecara in cod. MS. Grseco Coisliniano 
 " . . . sic legitur . • * Sanctissimi Monachi Thecarse orationes cora- 
 ** punctorise, coUectse ex divina Scriptura, utplurimum autem ex 
 " Sancto Ephrsem.'. . . Suppresso Thecarse nomine, extant in cod. 
 *' Vat. 1190. a fol. 1117. suntque a nobis editse hoc t. iii. p. 492." 
 Ephrem Syri Opera, t. iii. p. liii. 
 
 qTillemont, Histoire Ecclesiastique, t. viii. p. 757. 
 
 r Ceillier, Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, t. viii. p. 65, 66. 
 ed. Paris, 1740. 
 
 sCasimiri Oudini Comment, de Script. Eccl, t. i. p. 506. 
 
 tCave, Hist. Literaria, t. ii^ p. 238. 
 
 u Opera, Ed. Lequien, t. ii. p. 859. 
 
 X Ceillier, t. xviii. p. 15. 
 
 y Oudinus, ubi supra, p. 1782. 
 
12 LETTER V. 
 
 Allatius believes this homily to have been composed by Theo^ 
 dore Studites the younger.^ When this writer livedo 1 cannot 
 at this moment discover^ but the elder Theodore flourished in 
 the ninth century^ nearly a hundred years after the time of 
 Damascenus. Ceillier observes^ that there are passages in the 
 homilies on the Annunciation^ '^ which do not correspond with 
 '' the modesty and gravity of this Father."* 
 
 At p. 23^ you extract three more passages from the same 
 collection of prayers attributed to Ephrem Syrus by the morlk 
 Thecaras^ of which I have spoken before. 
 
 In pages 26^ and 27, we have various extracts from the Acts 
 of St. Mary of Egypt, which are introduced with a statement, 
 that ^' the Bollandists have proved that her conversion took 
 '^ place about the year 383, and that the tMcts themselves can- 
 ''^ not have been composed later than 500." On referring to 
 the preface of the Bollandists, we find first, that the Greeks 
 suppose that Sophonius, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the eighth 
 century, was the Author of these Acts ;^ and that the Bolland- 
 ists themselves admit, that there is nothing in their own argu- 
 ment, which obliges us to place the history of Mary in the 
 fourth or even the Jifth century.^ It is true they assert that 
 the life of Mary was known in the West in the sixth century.'^ 
 The only proof which is brought for this, is an extract from 
 some manuscript, (of what age or authority is uncertain,) in 
 which Mary of Egypt is indeed mentioned, but without any 
 allusion to the ^cts, as far as I can see. So that there is no 
 evidence for the antiquity of the ActSy or gf the passages quoted 
 from them. 
 
 You produce (p. 28, 29, 30.) very long extracts from the 
 Poem entitled '' Christus Patiens" attributed to St. Gregory 
 Nazianzen. Natalis Alexander, one of your most eminent wri- 
 ters, denies its genuineness, and states that the most learned 
 critics generally attribute it to Apollinaris of Laodicea — a 
 heretic ! Ceillier observes, that it is rejected as a spurious 
 composition by Tillemont, Dupin, Baillet, Baronius, Rivetus, 
 Vossius, Bellarmine, and Labbe.^ He is of opinion that it may 
 have been composed by another Gregory, who lived in the latter 
 part of the sixth century. The Benedictine editors suspect it 
 to be later than the ninth century. 
 
 z Ceillier, t. xviii. p. 149. a lb. p. 150. 
 
 h Acta Sanctorum, torn. i. April, p. 69. c lb p. 68. 
 
 dib. p. 71. e Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. iv. p. 147. 
 
 f Ceillier, His. Gen. &c. t. vii p. 196. See also, Oudinus Com- 
 ment, de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 644, &c. ; Cave, Hist. Literaria, t. i. 
 p. 248. 
 
LETTER V. 13 
 
 We are next favoured (p. 30, 31.)with long extracts from a 
 Sermon attributed to St. Methodius, bishop of Patarag, This Ser- 
 mon is rejected as spurious by Ceillier, who states, that the Feast , 
 of the Purification, on which it was delivered, was not instituted 
 till A. D. 527, and that the style is unlike that of Methodius/ 
 It is also rejected by the learned Jesuit Gretser,s by Canisius,^ 
 Oudinus,^ and Cave. Gretser, Oudinus, and Cave, suppose it 
 to have been written by Methodius, patriarch of Constantinople, 
 in the ninth century. At p. 35, 36. you indulge again in quo- 
 tations from the same spurious homily of Methodius. 
 
 The Apocryphal prayers of Ephrem Syrus by Thecaras, 
 already alluded to, are cited again, p. 41, 42. 
 
 You have hinted that I could hardly have been acquainted 
 with the language of the Fathers, when I ventured to reprove 
 that of Romanists towards the Virgin and the Saints. I 
 must be allowed in return to express my surprise, that one 
 who is fully qualified to examine into the genuineness of writ- 
 ings ascribed to the Fa^.hers, and who is evidently acquainted 
 with their real works, should have rested the whole strength 
 of his defence on productions, which are, at the very first sight, 
 suspicious ; and which the slightest enquiry would have re- 
 jected as valueless. I must say that such a mode of defence is 
 worthy of the cause in which it is employed. 
 
 §.4. Dr, Wiseman'' s Defence of the JVorship of the Virgin- 
 
 Having thus disposed of the quotations from spurious, doubt- 
 ful, and apocryphal writings, which cannot be brought in proof 
 of any doctrine, let us next proceed to enquire how far the re- 
 mainder of your citations justify the language to which objec- 
 tions were offered in my first Letter. I fear that this discus- 
 sion of particular passages will be rather too heavy a tax on the 
 attention of the Reader ; hut as I am unwilling to leave any 
 part of your defence unexamined, I must only request him to 
 pass on to section 5, when he has been satisfied of the inade- 
 quacy of your proofs. 
 
 I. The first passage you defend is the following. 
 
 '^ That she [the blessed Virgin] may propitiously assist us 
 ^' while we write, and by her celestial inspiration may guide 
 ^' us to such counsels as may be most salutary to the Christian 
 ^^ Church." Encyclical Letter. 
 
 f Ceillier, tom. iv. p. 35, 36. 
 
 gFabricii Bibliotheca Grseca, t. vii. p. 268. ed. Harles, 1801. 
 hSee Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 152. 
 
 i Oudifius, De Script. Eccl. 1. 1. p. 303, 304, 305, proves its spurious- 
 ness by several very convincing- arguments. 
 
 11 
 
14 LETTER V. 
 
 I remarked that this passage distinctly invests the Virgin 
 with the attributes of Deity, and you do not deny that it 
 does. In proof of its lawfulness, however, a spurious prayer of 
 St. Ephrem is cited, (p. 20.) and also a passage from his genu- 
 ine writings. The latter is wholly unavailing for your purpose. 
 St. Ephrem was speaking of the Incarnation of our Lord, on 
 which he remarks, that God '^ like a husbandman, grafted the 
 Godhead [of his Son] into the [human] nature of the Virgin ;" 
 after which he continues, in the words quoted by you, '' Mary 
 '^ was therefore to the Father a plant, to the Son a mother, and 
 *^ to men a fountain of the eternal Spirit and the dawn of in- 
 ^^ corruption."^ She was so, by becoming the mother of our 
 Lord ; for had not our Lord been born, we should have 
 remained in condemnation ; but this is widely different from 
 saying, that she is '' a fountain of the eternal Spirit," or that she 
 herself inspires good counsels. 
 
 Your next extract (p. 21.) is from Ildephonsus, bishop of To- 
 ledo, in the latter part of the seventh century. This is certainly 
 not an early testimony ; nor does it proceed from an author of 
 much note. It is however entirely free from the guilt of ascrib- 
 ing the Divine attributes to a creature. Ildephonsus says, ^^ I 
 '^ entreat thee, that 1 may have the Spirit of thy Lord, the 
 '' Spirit of thy Son.^^^ This is perfectly unlike the language 
 of the Encyclical Letter. In the one case the Spirit of God is 
 prayed for : in the other the Virgin is invested with the attri- 
 butes of that Spirit. 
 
 These, Sir, are all the passages which you have been able to 
 produce in justification of the Encyclical Letter, and I think it 
 may be fairly said, that they are wholly insufficient. You al- 
 lude indeed (p. 21.) to prayers quoted in another part of your 
 pamphlet ; but I have in vain looked for any expressions like 
 those which you here defend. My conclusion then remains 
 undisturbed ; that the blessed Virgin receives amongst you hon- 
 ours which are only due to the Trinity, and that she is practi- 
 cally invested with the attributes of God. 
 
 II. The next passages you undertake to defend are as follows. 
 
 '^ That She, whom we have acknowledged as our patroness 
 '' and deliverer amongst the greatest calamities, may &,c." — 
 Encyclical. 
 
 '' We fly to thy protection, holy Mother of God, despise not 
 — Prayer before the Litany of Loreto. 
 '' our prayers .... but deliver us, at all times, from all evi75." 
 
 ^ Ephreemi Syri Opera, Grsec. Lat. t. iii. p. 527. ed. Assemani. 
 1 Ildephonsus Tolet. deperp. Virgin. S. Marise, Opera P. P. Tole- 
 tanorurn, Madrid, 1782. p. 110. 
 
LETTER V. 15 
 
 " Condescend to permit me to praise thee^ sacred Virgin : 
 '^ Grant me strength against thine enemies,^'' — Prayer approved 
 by Pius VI. 
 
 I produce some texts to shew, that the same confidence is 
 here expressed in the Virgin as Scripture teaches us to repose 
 in God. You reply first, by quoting from homilies of Damas- 
 cenus, and prayers of St. Ephrem, which are rejected by the 
 best critics as doubtful or spurious.™ You next remark,, that 
 " nothing is more common than to find the Fathers thus attribut- 
 '' ing to the blessed Virgin directly, what must primarily come 
 " from God. Thus St. Amphilochius . . . . tells us, that ^ the 
 '^ world is freed by a Virgin, which before by a Virgin (Eve) 
 ^^ had fallen under sin.' "" The language of this Father might 
 be more accurately translated : '' The world was freed through a 
 '* Virgin" (y,yevSiprj,Tat xoTiWoj- Six 9r»p$ivcv) ; that Is, by our Saviour 
 being born of the Virgin Mary, she was an instrumental cause 
 of our salvation. How different is this from saying, that the 
 Virgin is the deliverer of mankind, or from acknowledging 
 her power to " deliver us at all times from all evils." The 
 language of Amphilochius is that of every Catholic : it is en- 
 tirely free from the semblance of idolatry. 
 
 It would certainly be easy to ^^ fill pages with quotations" of 
 a similar character from the older writers, from St. Irenaeus 
 downwards ; (p. 24.) but they would not be of any use to you. 
 Sedulius,° whom you quote, as a specimen of the rest, distinc- 
 tly teaches what Amphilochius did — that the Virgin was an 
 instrumental means of our salvation, by becoming the mother of 
 Christ our Lord. The language of Chrysologus which you 
 next cite, can bear no other interpretation ;p and the rhetorical 
 
 *n See above, §.3. 
 
 n Gallandii Bibliotheca Patrum, t. vi. p. 465. 
 o The two first verses of the quotation from Sedulius, refer to our 
 Lord, not to the Virgin. 
 
 Unius ob meritum cuncti periere minores 
 Salvantur cuncti unius ob meritum. 
 
 (Sedulii Opera, ed. Arevalo, p. 361.) 
 pThe whole passage is as follows. It occurs in a homily on the 
 
 feneration of Christ, and the object is to shew, that '* Maria" was a 
 tting name for the mother of our Lord, because it preceded salva- 
 tion. *•' And that * Maria' might always go before the salvation of 
 " men, it preceded with songs the people whom the regenerating 
 '* water brought into light. ' Maria,' (Miriam) he saith, * the 
 " sister of Aaron took a cymbal in her hand, saying. Let us sing; to 
 *« the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.' This name, which 
 ** was salutary to the regenerate, a sign of virginity, the grace of 
 " modesty, a sign of chastity, a sacrifice of God, the virtue of hos- 
 " pitality, an assemblage of holiness, was like a prophecy : justly 
 •* therefore was this the maternal name of the Mother of Christ." 
 Fetrus Chrysologus, Sermo cxlvi. Bibl. Patr. 
 
IS LETTER IV, 
 
 expressions, taken from an oration of St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
 which succeed them, are based on the same doctrine throughout. 
 The oration consists almost entirely of a series of addresses in 
 the same style ; for instance, near the beginning, he says, 
 '' Hail, city of Ephesus, more than ' sea-beholding,' because, 
 ^' instead of earthly havens, angelical and heavenly havens 
 "^ [the bishops there met to protect the Christian faith against 
 '^ Nestorius] have come to thee ! Hail, glory of the Asiatic 
 " government, for as thou art surrounded with precious temples 
 *^'' of the Saints like pearls, so now art thou hallowed by being 
 ^^trod by many holy Fathers and Patriarchs! &c."i In the 
 same rhetorical strain he afterwards addresses the Virgin, in the 
 words you have quoted ; but the doctrine conveyed by those 
 words is perfectly sound, — that Mary was an inslrumental 
 cause in the work of salvation, and in all that has happened in 
 consequence, by being made the mother of our Lord. 
 
 Yenantius Fortunatus, whom you next cite, teaches exactly 
 the same doctrine/ The second verse of the distich distinctly 
 carries its own interpretation. 
 
 Ad c^\os facta es sors, via, porta, rota. 
 
 " Thou wast made the way and gate to Heaven," refers evi- 
 dently to her share in the incarnation of our Lord. It is in the 
 same view, that he poetically entitles her '^ his hope of pardon, 
 since she carries the Help of earth ;'''' i. e. he supposes him- 
 self to address her before the birth of our Lord, an event on 
 which all his hopes depend. 
 
 In all this. Sir, there is nothing whatever to which we can 
 object. It has not the slightest tinge of idolatry or of supersti- 
 tion. 
 
 You next state, that '^ St. Ildephonsus seems to go even fur- 
 ^^ ther than the rest, and to consider, that without devotion to 
 '^ her, there can hardly be hope of salvation." (p. 26.) I can- 
 not think that you have perused the work from which you 
 quote, or you would have seen that Ildelphonsus goes further 
 than even you have stated, and really means, that without what 
 you here call '^ devotion" to the Yirgin, but which might more 
 
 q Cyril Alcxandr. Opera, ed. Aubcrt. t. v. parsji. p. 379. 
 
 1 The first passag-e quoted in the notes, p. 25, where the Virg*in is 
 
 spoken of as <' the help of earth," is explained fully by the context : 
 
 O Virg-o insig-nis, benedicta ad gaudia nata, 
 
 Auxilium terrae, fulg-or honorque poll, 
 
 Ecce iuiis Jlorens uterus qua? prajstitit orbi, 
 
 Te generante, fidenos paradisus habet. 
 
 Venant. Fortun. de Laud. Virg. Marise. 
 
LETTER W 17 
 
 properly be termed ^•^ sound faith," it is impossible to be saved. 
 And in this sentiment of Ildephonsus, we most heartily agree. 
 He was arguing with a Jew who denied the Virginity of the 
 Mother, and consequently denied that Jesus was the Messiah. 
 It is to this unbeliever that he uses the language cited by you, 
 after which he adds^ '' Come, let us confess,°I the sins and 
 *^ ignorance of my youth : you the sins of your sacrilege and 
 ^' wickedness, lest the heavens reveal their indignation."^ The 
 object was to urge the necessity of believing the Virginity of 
 Mary ; not to express confidence in her power. 
 
 The Acts of St. Mary of Egypt, to which you next appeal 
 (p. 26), have been already considered f" and it has been shewn 
 that there is no evidence for their antiquity. 
 
 The words of St. Gregory Nazianzen which you cite (p. 28) 
 are immediately preceded by the following passage. '' Des- 
 '' pairing of all remedies, she (Justina) takes refuge with God, 
 '•and makes her Spouse her protector against this detestable 
 *^ desire ; who delivered Susanna, sav^d Thecla, &c. . . . Who 
 ^Ms this but Christ, who rebukes the spirits, lifteth up them 
 ^' that are sinking, walketh on the sea, &c." Then follow the 
 words cited by you ; ^^ Remembering these and many more 
 " [instances of Christ's power], and beseeching the Virgin 
 ^^ Mary to aid a virgin in danger,"^ Scc. 
 
 I would observe on the preceding passage, that it is conceived 
 4n such terms, '^ beseeching the Virgin Mary to aid," &c. that 
 we cannot determine the form of prayer used. Justina may 
 have employed a perfectly unexceptionable form of address to 
 the Virgin. It may have been a mere request for the Virgin^s 
 prayers.^ Therefore this passage does not touch on the ques- 
 tion between us ; which is not, whether all addresses to the 
 Virgin are unlawful ; but whether it is right to invest her with 
 the attributes of Deity. The passage, however, distinctly 
 shews, that the whole confidence and reliance of Justina were 
 fixed on God and Christ, while she merely sought the " aid" of 
 
 3 Ildephonsus, ap. Petres Tolet. Madrid. 1782. torn. i. p. 122. 
 
 t§.3. 
 
 " Greg-orii Nazianz. Opera, torn. i. p. 279. Par. 1609. 
 
 X Critics have remarked, that the Homily on St. Cyprian from 
 which the above extract is taken, seems to have been composed from 
 some very inaccurate traditions, probably derived from the monks. 
 It confounds the lives of two Saints ot the same name ; one of whom 
 was Bishop of Carthage, while the other was of the Eastern Church. 
 We cannot depend t-hen on the historical correctness of this Homily, 
 and the petition of Justina to the Virgin was most probably added by 
 recent oral tradition. You need not suppose therefore (see p. 28) 
 that Justina, who died in 304, offered any such petition. 
 
 11* 
 
18 LETTER V. 
 
 the Virgin, as we ourselves might seek the '' aid" of a fellow 
 creature in moments of diflSiculty. 
 
 I shall not here enter on the question of the propriety of ask- 
 ing for the prayers of the Saints — a practice, of which ihe first 
 examples are found in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen/ 
 The abuses which naturally flow from this practice, and of 
 which the Romish prayers under consideration afford so melan- 
 choly an illustration, are in themselves perfectly sufficient to 
 shew the wisdom of our Catholic and Apostolic Churches, in 
 discontinuing the Invocation of Saints ; and the Roman Church 
 herself does not consider such invocations necessary.^ 
 
 You produce long extracts from St. Gregory Nazianzen, and 
 from Methodius (p. 28 — 31) ; but, as 1 have already shewn,* 
 they are derived ^from spienows compositions. 
 
 Having now disposed of all your arguments in defence of the 
 declarations and prayers under consideration, I may again be 
 permitted to say, that you have not been able to produce any 
 justification of them from the language of antiquity ; and there- 
 fore my conclusion remains untouched, and even strengthened, 
 — that the Virgin Mary receives amongst you honours which 
 are only due to God. 
 
 III. You next undertake to defend the expressions of Cardi- 
 nal Bona in his prayer to the Virgin ; and here it may be re- 
 marked, that no notice has been taken in your pamphlet of some 
 of the most objectionable parts of that prayer, in which the attri- 
 butes of God are most broadly ascribed to the blessed Virgin ; 
 such as the following : " Place me near unto thee, and protect me 
 " from all my enemies visible or invisible. Say unto my soul, 
 ^' I AM THY SALVATION. Dlrcct me thy servant in all my ways 
 '^^ and actions. Console me in all my griefs and afflictions. 
 '' Defend and preserve me from all evils and dangers. Turn 
 ^' thy face unto me when the end of my life shall come ; and may 
 '^' thy consolation in that tremendous hour rejoice my spirit,^" 
 &c. Surely these are exactly the terms in which we should 
 
 yit may be observed, that Nazianzen, when he addressed the de- 
 parted in his oration, sometimes expressed doubts whether they 
 could hear him. Thus in his Homily on Gorgonia, he says, *' If 
 
 ** thou hast any care of the things done by us, Sac receive this 
 
 *' oration of ours instead of many and before many funeral obsequies." 
 
 z ** The Council of Trent barely teaches that it is good and profita- 
 " hie to invoke the prayers of the Saints ; hence our divines infer, 
 •* that there is no positive law of the Church, incumbent on all her 
 " children, to pray to the Saints." Milner, End of Controversy, 
 Letter xxxiii. 
 
 aSee§. 3. 
 
 b Letter I. p. 18. 
 
LETTER V. 19 
 
 address God— indeed they are the lauguage actually employed 
 far that purpose in holy Scripture ; e. g. " Deliver me from 
 •^'mine enemies, O my God." (Ps. lix. 1.) '' Stop the way 
 " against them that persecute me : say unto ray soul, I am thy 
 '' salvation." (Ps. xxxv. 3.) " O that my ways were directed 
 '' to keep thy statutes." (Ps. cxix. 5.) '' Let, I pray thee, thy 
 '' merciful kindness be for my comfort." (Ps. cxix. 76.) " Pre- 
 '' serve my life from fear of the enemy." (Ps. Ixiv. 1.) " Turn 
 '' us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine ; and 
 '' we shall be saved." (Ps. Ixxx. 7.) 
 
 But I turn to the passage which you have selected for de- 
 fence. It is as follows : 
 
 ^^ Behold, I fall down before thee, most gracious Virgin, I 
 '^ fall down and worship in thee thy Son." 
 
 You boldly deny this passage to be idolatrous, and your proof 
 is, " The Blessed Virgin is constantly called by the Fathers 
 "" the Temple of God, consequently the place in which He is 
 '' to be worshipped." (p. 33 ) We are accordingly favoured 
 with long quotations from Chrysologus, Ephrem Syrus, Cyril 
 of Alexandria, Damascenus^ Sedulius, Maximus Taurinensis, 
 and a spurious passage from Methodius.^ We fully allow the 
 doctrine taught by all these Fathers. The blessed Virgin did, 
 most undoubtedly, become the Temple of the Godhead, by con- 
 ceiving our Lord Jesus Christ : but. Sir, do you mean to say, 
 that she is still the Temple of the Godhead in this sense? No : 
 she ceased to be so, when our Saviour was born. I can produce 
 higher authorities than you have cited, to prove that eve7^y be- 
 liever is a temple of God. St. Paul says, " Know ye not that 
 " ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth 
 "in you ?" (1 Cor. iii. 16.) " Know ye not that your body 
 " is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you ?" (1 Cor. 
 vi. 19.) And yet, what would you think of saying to any 
 living man, " Behold, I/aZZ down before thee ; I fall down and 
 '*■ worship IN THEE thy God ?" Observe that the language of 
 Bona is not, " I worship thy Son, who dwelleth in thee as in a 
 «^ temple ;" but, '^ I worship in thee, thy Son ;" i. e. " In 
 ^^ worshipping thee, I worship thy Son." 
 
 In a note (p. 36.) you produce a passage from St. Ephrem 
 Syrus, to prove that the mere type of our Lord may be wor- 
 shipped in a third person ! I really do not profess to understand 
 the meaning of this. The whole passage, as translated from 
 the Syriac by Assemani, is as follows. "The Year also, 
 " parent of all the months and days, with all the hours and 
 
 cpp. 33— 36. 
 
20 LETTER V. 
 
 ^' moments which depend on it, adored [Christ] the Conqaeror 
 ^^ of death, by its child April [the month in which our Lord 
 ^^ suffered] ; like as Rachel through Jacob worshipped [her 
 " child] Joseph, whom, as a type of the Son of God, the San 
 " and Moon, the rulers of the year, adored.'"^ The allusion is 
 to Joseph's Dream,^ in which the Sun and Moon, representing 
 his father and mother, did obeisance to him ; and it is here in- 
 troduced to illuS'trate the highly figurative language in reference 
 to the Year. Assuredly St. Ephrem did not mean that Rachel 
 or Jacob really and literally adored Joseph : he only alludes to 
 a dream. 
 
 Your Justification of Cardinal Bona having thus entirely 
 failed, my conclusion remains unshaken, — that the Virgin re- 
 ceives amongst you honours which are only due to God. 
 
 IV. The nexl prayers which you undertake to defend are as 
 follows. 
 
 ^^ Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer to you my heart and my 
 " soul — Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, assist me in my last agony — 
 ^^ Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, may my soul expire in peace with 
 '^ you." Prayer approved by Pius VI. 
 
 *'' O holy Joseph .... I beseech and pray thee, by both these 
 "'^ dear pledges, Jesus and Mary .... to make me ever most 
 '^ chastely to serve Jesus and Mary, &c." Approved by Pms VII. 
 
 You do not understand (p. 37.) Avhat is meant by my obser- 
 vation, that our Lord is made a sort oi Mediator between Joseph 
 and his worshippers, in this latter prayer. The term perhaps 
 did not fully express my meaning, which was, that Joseph is 
 here invoked to have mercy on us for the sake of Christ, i. e. 
 just in the same way in which we should approach the Father. 
 We should beseech Plim " by his dear Son," to make us serve 
 Him. Here the same form of supplication is addressed to Joseph. 
 
 Let us now turn to your defence of the prayers before us. 
 
 (1) You enquire first: ^'^ Does the union of creatures with 
 '^ God, in the same address or act of homage, imply their equal- 
 " ity in the mind of him who makes it ?" (p. 37.) I answer, 
 that it certainly does: unless there be some accompanying cir- 
 cumstance which implies that a difference is made. 
 
 You appeal to expressions of Terence and Horace (p. 37.) ; 
 but they are not ^^ addresses" or " acts of homage," and therefore 
 do not affect the question. You refer to the language of Scrip- 
 ture (1 Chron. xxix. 20, 21.) " And David said to all the con- 
 *^' gregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congre- 
 '' gation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down 
 
 <i Ephrsem Syri Opera, Syriaco.-Lat. t. iii. p. 604. 
 * Genesis xxxvii. 9, 10. 
 
LETTER V. 21 
 
 ^' their heads^ and worshipped the Lord and the King. And 
 '^ they offered sacrifices unto the Lord, and offered burnt-offer- 
 ^'^ ings unto the Lord." Here you will observe, that their 
 thanksgivings, prayers, sacrifices, were directed entirely to 
 God ; therefore no one could imagine, that the act of bowing 
 down their heads to worship the Lord and the King, (if both 
 were worshipped in the same act, which may not have been the 
 case,) could have been intended to express the same homage to 
 each. 
 
 You observe (p. 37.) that our Lord is said to have increased 
 ^^in favour with God and man.'''' This furnishes no excuse 
 for praying to God and man as if they had the same power. 
 The language of the prodigal (p. 37.) to his Father, ^^ I have 
 " sinned against heaven and before thee,''' does not justify you 
 in addressing your prayers in common to God and man, as if 
 they were equally the objects of faith and confidence. 
 
 The inscriptions which you next produce (p. 38.) in illustra- 
 tion of ^' the practice of the early Church." will not assist you> 
 
 The first is accompanied by the following remark. 
 
 '^ Muratori considers this inscription of the fifth or [early part 
 ^^ of the] sixth century." (p. 38.) On referring to Muratori/ 
 I find that three most eminent critics, including Fontanini, Arch- 
 bishop of Ancyra. attribute the inscription to the ninth century ; 
 that a fourth (Scalabrinius) thinks it ought to be referred to 
 the fifth or sixth century ; and that Muratori himself gives no 
 opinion as to its date. 
 
 The second inscription (p. 38.) appears from Muratoris to be 
 of the ninth century. 
 
 The third inscription (p. 38, 39.) cannot be earlier than the 
 seventh century, because the title of '^ Arcarius of the Holy 
 '^ See" which occurs there, is not of more ancient date.^ The 
 inscription however may have been of much later date than 
 the seventh century. These inscriptions then do not represent 
 the language of the early Church. 
 
 The fourth inscription (p. 39.) according to you, '^^ takes us 
 ^^back to the year 383 at least, as this Bassus was slain before 
 ^'^ the reign of Gratian." (p. 39.) The same inscnption is ad- 
 duced in your Letter to Mr. Poynder,^ where it is again stated, 
 that Anicius Bassus *' lived about 380 years after Christ," and 
 that, '^ he is mentioned in ecclesiastical history as having with 
 ^^ Marinianus the pratrician, most calumniously accused Pope 
 
 f Muratori, Antiquitates Medii ^vi, torn. v. p. 358. 
 
 g Ibid. 
 
 ii Du Cang-ii Glossarium. 
 
 i Wiseman, Letters to Poynder, p. 38, 
 
22 LETTER V. 
 
 « Sixtus ; upon whose full justification, his goods were confis- 
 ^^cated by Valentinian." There is some sad flaw in your 
 chronology here; for Pope Sixtus was not elected till A. D. 
 432,^ and Valentinian flourished about the same time. How 
 therefore you can " take us back" to 383, is entirely beyond my 
 comprehension. '^ Ecclesiastical history" in the form of Baro- 
 nius' Annals, fixes the transaction alluded to in the year 433.* 
 
 As to the inscription itself, which you have produced, it can 
 have no weight in a matter of controversy, proceeding as it did 
 from the pen of a layman of no authority. Besides, we do not 
 know where it was placed, or with what object. If these cir- 
 cumstances were known, they might aid us in judging of the 
 propriety of the inscription. E. g. If it had been placed in a 
 Church erected m honour of the Saints or Martyrs, it might not 
 have been very unbecoming. 
 
 I have to make but one more observation on all these inscrip- 
 tions : it is simply this. They contain no " acts of homage," 
 no '' addresses" to God and the Saints in common, and therefore 
 they cannot justify your prayers. 
 
 You next refer (p. 40.) to the well-known passages in St. 
 Justin Martyr, where it is said, *^ Him [God], and his Son who 
 ^' came from him, and taught us these things, and the army 
 ^^ of good Angels who follow and resemble Him, and the spirits 
 ^' of prophecy, we venerate and adore.""" You are of course 
 aware, that the ablest critics, even in the Roman Church, are 
 much divided as to the proper translation of this passage/ and 
 that many writers render it thus : '' Him ; and his Son who 
 ^^ came from Him, and taught us and the army of good angels 
 " these things ; and the Spirit," &c. But even taking it as 
 you do, the Angels are not really joined ^^ under the same form 
 " of expression" (p. 40.) with God ; for, as the Benedictine 
 Editors remark,** the word '' venerate" refers to the Angels, 
 
 kBaronius, Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 
 
 iBaronii Annales, t. vii. p. 460. ed. Lucse, 1741. Ceillier rejects 
 the whole transaction as fabulous, t. xiii. p. 240; but it appears from 
 his account that Bassus was Consul in 431. 
 
 m Just. Mart. Apolog-. i. p. 11. ed. Thirlby. 
 
 n The reader may here be referred to the valuable works of the 
 Bishop of Lincoln on Justin Martyr, p. 63. and of Mr. Tyler on 
 "Primative Christian Worship " p. 107—111. 
 
 o j:iZofi3v xxi TT^oa-nvvz-jf^sv^ colimus et adoramus. Nam primum quidem 
 ad angeios ipsos refertur, habita ratione discriminis quod inter Crea- 
 torem et rem creatam interccdit. Alterum autcm nequaquam an- 
 geios necessario comprehendit. Sajpe duo verba simul conjuncta 
 non ad unam, et eandem rem, sed ad diversas judicio legentium 
 referuntur. Just. Mart. ed. Benedict, p. xxii. 
 
LETTER V'. 23 
 
 and " adore" (^Trpoa^woZfitv) to God. In another place Justin ex- 
 pressly says^ ^^ We adore (^pco-xwoS/^sv) God only.'? 
 
 Thus then it appears, that you have been unable to produce 
 either from Scripture or Antiquity, any language which can 
 justify Romanists in addressing at the same moment the same 
 homage and prayers to created beings and to God. 
 
 (2) Your second question (p. 41.) is ; '' Can it be idolatrous 
 " to desire or pray that the blessed Virgin and the Saints should 
 " receive our souls v^hen we expire, or assist us at the hour of 
 " death ?" 
 
 In proof of the lawfulness of this practice you observe that 
 St. Ambrose says the blessed Virgin will receive virgins when 
 they die, and present them to her Son.q You next refer to 
 what St. Gregory the Great relates on the authority of a person 
 named Probus, whose sister beheld a vision of the Virgin as she 
 was dying, and addressed her in the words, " Behold, Lady, I 
 '' come.'"' We are next favoured with a spurious prayer of 
 St. Ephrem, and with the language of Maximus in an Oration 
 on St. Eusebius of Vercelli, in which he expresses a wish, that 
 when we depart from tMs world, he may '^ receive us into his 
 '' abode and his bosom,"^ as Abraham received Lazarus into his 
 bosom. Other passages from the same writer follow, in which 
 it is said that the Martyrs '' receive us," when we go forth 
 from the body. 
 
 All this may be more or less right, probable, or true ; but I 
 cannot see how it meets the objection offered to your prayers. 
 The real objection which I advanced was, that Jesus, Joseph, 
 and Mary are placed on an equality, by being invoked in com- 
 mon at the same moment, to receive our souls. This would 
 lead one to think that they are equal : that they are a Trinity 
 of some sort — that they are three Gods, or three human beings. 
 It is no answer to this objection to say, that the saints or angels 
 receive our souls at the hour of death. 
 
 (3) Your third question (p. 43.) is: "Does the '^ serving of 
 "Jesus and Mary' necessarily imply a division of service or 
 " allegiance between them ; and not a bestowing on each a dif- 
 ^^ ferent species of it ?" 
 
 In proof that it does not, you refer to the answer to the Jirst 
 question. It has been shewn, I think, that you will not find 
 much help in that quarter. As to the passage from Ildephonsus 
 
 p Justin. Mart. Apol. i. p. 26. ed. Thirlby. 
 q Ambros. de Virg-in. lib. ii. c* ii. 
 r Gregorii Dialog. 1. iv. c. xvii. 
 * Maximus, Hom. Ixxviii. 
 
24 LETTER V. 
 
 which is adduced (p. 44.) iri further proof, I need only remark, 
 that it makes a broad distinction between the Virgin and God, 
 '' Ideo ego servus tuus, quia tuus Filius Dominiis mens, Ideo 
 '^ tu Domina mea, quia tu ancilla Domini mei."^ ^^ Thou art 
 " my mistress, because thou art the handmaid of my Lord*'*'' 
 These latter expressions you have thought proper to omit. In 
 no part of the passage does Ildephonsus say, ^' T serve Jesus and 
 ^^ Mary," or use any expressions like those that have been ob- 
 jected to. 
 
 Such then is the result of your defence of the prayers and 
 homage offered to the blessed Virgin by the most eminent au- 
 thorities in the Roman Communion. You have not attempted 
 to deny that they attribute Divine powers to creatures ; that 
 they solicit from them favours which God alone can bestow ; 
 that they place created beings on a level with their Creator. 
 You have entirely failed to bring from Scripture or Tradition 
 any instances of similar forms. I have a right therefore to re- 
 assert that they are idolatrous ; that your Communion is deeply 
 tinged with idolatrous practices ; and that those idolatries are 
 openly defended and justified by the very persons, whose office 
 (if it was legitimately acquired) would compel them, under 
 pain of damnation, to oppose every thing that is connected with 
 Idolatry. 
 
 It is to the nature of the prayers and other honours offered 
 by you to the Virgin that we object, so that we shall not at- 
 tempt to dispute the right of the Roman Church to use such 
 ^x^yeT^ frequently (p. 45.) if they may be used at all. There 
 is not the slightest evidence that the primitive Church ever 
 practised such worship. We have nd reason to think that any 
 ancient devotional works (p. 45 ) contained expressions like 
 those which you employ. There is no trace of them in the an- 
 cient liturgies ; none in the genuine writings of the Fathers. 
 They only appear in the writings of heretics, in spurious and 
 apocryphal writings, or in the figurative language of poetry. 
 
 I shall only make a few remarks on the remainder of your 
 third section, in which a theory, which I have not time to ex- 
 amine, (p. 45 — 53.) is propounded to account for the greater 
 feneration paid to the blessed Virgin in later than in earlier 
 times. I cannot but wonder that you should appeal (p. 47.) 
 
 tJldephonsus, ap. Paires. Toletanos, p. 158. ed. 1782. 
 
I 
 
 LETTER V. 35 
 
 to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, in proof that " devotion 
 *^ towards the martyrs began from the earliest ages." I shall 
 reserve the passage for future consideration : it is decisively op- 
 posed to you. You observe (p. 52.) that " Christian monuments 
 ^^ of the age of the Catacombs represent the Virgin as superior 
 " to the Apostles themselves." This is quite consistent with a 
 sound faith, and yet it does not warrant our giving Divine hon- 
 ours either to one or the other. The figures to which you 
 allude"^ may be as ancient as you imagine, but they resemble 
 those found in manuscripts of a much later date. 
 
 In allusion to the CoUyridian heresy, which elevated the 
 blessed Virgin into a Deity, you remark, that '' this foolish idol- 
 ^' atry could hardly have sprung up, where no sort of venera- 
 ^^tion had ever been paid." (p. 52, 53.) Very true : but who 
 supposes that ''^ no sort of veneration had ever been paid," or 
 that no sort of veneration is due ? All that we contend against, 
 is what the Coilyridian heretics practised, and what Romanists 
 follow them in practising, i. e. worshipping the Virgin with 
 Divine honours ; ofFering to her the same homage and worship 
 which is offered to God. How you can venture to quote the 
 language of Epiphanius, " Let honour be given to Mary, but 
 ^'^ let only Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored,"" (p. 53.) 
 after having so systematically justified prayers and addresses in 
 which the Virgin is placed on a level with the Trinity, is a 
 matter of no small surprise to me. 
 
 §.4. Dr, Wiseman'' s Defence of Prayers to Saints^ 
 
 I have maintained that the Saints receive amongst you " hon- 
 •^ ours which are only due to God,"^ and in proof of this have 
 cited the following passages. 
 
 '' We will earnestly beseech with humble prayers from the 
 ^' Prince of the Apostle Peter, and from his co- Apostle Paul, that 
 ^' you may stand as a wall. Relying on this delightful hope, we 
 *^ trust that the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ, 
 *^ will at length console us in all our tribulations." Encyclical. 
 
 '^ Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer you my heart and my 
 ^^ soul, &c." as above, p 22. 
 
 '^ Angel of God who art my guardian, enlighten me who am 
 *^ committed to thee with heavenly piety ; guard, direct, and 
 ^^ govern me." Approved by Pius VI. 
 
 ^' O holy Joseph I beseech and pray thee to 
 
 ^' preserve me from all uncleanness, and make me ever most 
 ^' chastely to serve Jesus and Mary." Approved by Pius Vll 
 
 ^Sedulii Opera, ed. Arevalo, p. 351. x Letter I. p. 14. 
 12 
 
26 LETTER V. 
 
 (1) Your first question on these prayers is as follows. '^ Is 
 " it idolatrous or wrong to address or to speak of any Saints^ 
 "more especially the two great Apostles^ as protectors?^'' (p. 
 
 55.), 
 
 I do not mean to say that it is idolatrous in all cases ; but I 
 do certainly think it wrong to attribute to the Apostles the pro- 
 tection of the Church, while in the very next words, we only 
 attribute to Christ, its consolation ; because this seems to 
 place the Apostles on a level with our Saviour, to say the least. 
 I think also that it is wrong to express at the same moment, in 
 the same terms, the same confidence in God and in his creatures. 
 
 You refer to St. Basil's homily on the Forty Martyrs when 
 he speaks in the following terms. ''^ These are they who hav- 
 " ing obtained a ])lace amongst us, (their relics were deposited 
 '^ in the Church of Caesarea,) like continual towers, afford se- 
 " curity from the incursions of the enemies. "^ That is, their 
 memory and example was calculated to encourage Christians 
 against the assaults of heresies and evil spirits. I do not see 
 that we can deduce any thing more from this passage, or that 
 it can justify your practice. 
 
 Your next proof is from Paulinus of Nola, who in an epitaph, 
 and a poetical epitaph on the presbyter Clarus, desires his 
 prayers for himself and his wife Therasia. The whole pas- 
 sage is free from any thing that looks like idolatry, and does 
 not afford any justification of the prayers and expressions to 
 which we object.^ It is doubted whether the passion of Gene- 
 sius was written by Paulinus of Nola, but the exhortation is to 
 pray for the intercession of Genesius, " Patrocinetur" may well 
 be translated, '' plead for."^ The next extracts from Paulinus 
 are poetical, and cannot afford precedents for prayers, and sol- 
 emn declarations. It was supposed by many persons, that the 
 martyrs took a particular interest in those places where their 
 relics were deposited, and honoured ; and that they prayed for 
 them. This notice, however uncertain, led to expressions of 
 confidence in their intercession and patronage with reference to 
 those particular places. 
 
 £x T^g Tuiv ivxvrii^v y-xxxS^of^^g Trx^sx^fxtvoi. BasiUi Opera, t. ii. p. 135. ed. 
 Benedict. 
 
 * Sic Deus accivit, sic nos Martinus amavit 
 
 Sic et tu pariter Clare tuere pares. 
 Non meritis sed amore pares, tu sancte velebis 
 
 Exorare pares et meritis fieri, 
 Si cum Martino socia pietate labores, 
 Ut vincant vestraj crimina nostra preces, 
 
 Paulinus Epist. xxxii. ad Severum, ed. Muratori. 
 aPaulini Passio S. Genesii, p. 316. 
 
LETTER V. 27 
 
 The language of St. Prudentius (p. 56.) amounts to a wish 
 that St. Laurence m^y love his fellow-citizens; and the same 
 sentiment in another form^ appears in his hymn on St. Eulalia. 
 (Ibid.) But these again Sixe poetical expressions^ such as any 
 Christian poet who disapproved of your prayers might still 
 employ. 
 
 The language of Gaudentius^ Venantius^ Leo, Chrysostom, 
 Maximus, (pp. 57, 58.) merely shews that those writers some- 
 times used the terms of " patronage" or ^' protection," when 
 they alluded to the prayers of the Saints to God for men. This 
 does not excuse you for expressing your confidence at the same 
 time and in the same manner, in the power of God and of His 
 creatures. It does not justify Gregory XVI. for asserting that 
 Peter and Paul protect the Church, while Christ consoles it. 
 It does not excuse you for ^^ offering your hearts and souls" to 
 '' Jesus, Joseph, and Mary," instead of to the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit. 
 
 You are right in saying that the bishop of Rome might safely 
 repeat the homilies of St. Leo, " without disparagement to his 
 claim of supremacy," (p. 58.) ; for no one was more zealous to 
 maintain and augment the dignity of his See. The ^' protec- 
 " tion" of which St. Leo speaks in the passage you have cited, 
 refers to the promise of Christ that Peter's faith should not fail, 
 Luke xxii. 21. which St. Leo uses as an encouragement to us.^ 
 His continual object was to represent that St. Peter still lived in 
 his successors, and that all the promises made to him, were made 
 to the bishops of Rome also.^ 
 
 It is doubtful whether any such verses as you mention (p. 59.) 
 were ever inscribed over the gate of Glastonbury Church ; for 
 the book of William of Malmsbury '^ on the Antiquities of 
 '' Glastonbury," from which they are taken, is full of fabulous 
 narrations, supplied probably by the monks of Glastonbury. 
 
 (2) The next question is as follows: ^'^Is it direct prayer to 
 "^ Saints, for favours which God alone can bestow, that Mr. 
 ^' Palmer so strongly reprobates in the examples last quoted ? 
 '^ Surely he ought to be aware that in the ancient Church such 
 ^''prayers were admitted." (p. 59.) 
 
 Your citations do not prove this. St. Gregory of Nyssa 
 states, that a person by saying, ^^ Holy Ephrem help (assist) 
 <^^ me,"*^ escaped from a dangerous position. Such an expres- 
 sion does not interfere with the Divine attributes. It is 
 widely different from your prayers to Saints. We may be 
 
 b Opera, ed. Qiiesnel. t. i. p. 18. 
 
 c Opera, t. i. p. 103, 104—106, 110, 112. 
 
 dNyssen. Opera, t. iii. p. 615. ed, 1638. 
 
28 LETTER V. 
 
 '' helped" by a fellow creature : but we have no right to asfc 
 from him blessings, and graces, as if he were a Divinity. The 
 language of Gregory Nazianzen (p. 60.) is plainly rhetorical. 
 It occurs in an Oration in praise of St. Cyprian. That of St. 
 John Chrysostom (p. 60.) recognises throughout the Divine 
 power, and supposes that the Saints can only aid us by their 
 prayers. The same may be said of the succeeding quotations 
 from Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa. (p. 61.)° The pas- 
 sage cited from Basil (p. 61.) does not seem to me to refer to 
 any invocation of Saints. It is 4hus introduced : " Where two 
 ''OY three are gathered together in the name of the Lord, there 
 '' is He in tke midst of them. Where there are forty [in, 
 •^ allusion to the relics of the forty Martyrs;] who doubts that 
 ''He is present? The afflicted takes refuge with the forty 
 ^'^ Martyrs [i. e. In their Church]." Then follows the remain- 
 der of your quotation.^ The meaning is, that prayers may be 
 offered to God in the Church of the Martyrs, with peculiaur 
 confidence. The passage from St. Ambrose (p. 61, 62.) dis- 
 tinctly supposes that the Angels and Martyrs aid us by their 
 prayers, and that they are creatures as we are. 
 
 In none of these cases were^^ direct prayers" offered '^ to 
 " Saints, for favours which God alone can bestow." 
 
 ^ The next passage, from St. Ambrose, is an exhortation of a 
 pious matron to her son to devote himself entirely to God, in 
 which she says, " There we deposited our vows whence we 
 '' took the name. The effect followed our vows : aive there- 
 '' fore back to the Martyr, what thou hast received from the Mar- 
 •^ tyro"f The meaning is, that she had offered her vows to God 
 at the Church of the Martyr St. Laurence, and that the Mar- 
 tyr had ''obtained'' (p. 63.) by his prayers this child. This 
 merely supposes that the prayers of a Martyr had great efficacy. 
 1 he language in reference to Felix and Laurentius (p. 63.) is 
 poetical, and cannot be judged with the strictness which should 
 be apphed to prose compositions. The same observation is ap- 
 plicable to that of S, Prudentius (p. 64.) Doubtful of his own 
 merits, he wishes for the additional prayers of the Saint. As 
 tor the sentiments of Valerian, bishop of Cemela, we cannot 
 attach any weight to what has been rather injudiciously said by 
 this obscure writer, in opposition to the sentiments of the most 
 eminent Fathers which I shall hereafter produce. 
 
 In conclusion, I will only observe, that in no one of the pas- 
 sages adduced by you are there any direct prayers to Saints for 
 lavours which God only can bestow : nor are the Saints addres- 
 
 f Am/lfTV* ? v-^ Martyrs, t. ii. p. 155, ed. Benedict. 
 lAmbros. Exhort. Virgin, c. iii. 
 
I 
 
 LETTER V. 29 
 
 sed at the same time and in the same manner as God. Conse- 
 quently the objections which have been offered to your prayers 
 and language remain unanswered. 
 
 §. 5. Romanism condemned by Catholic *Rntiquity, 
 
 Having now completed the examination of your defence^ and 
 shewn that the appeal which you have made to Catholic Anti- 
 quity in justification of Romish addresses to Saints and Angels^ 
 is perfectly unavailing ; it remains for me to produce the real 
 sentiments of the Fathers^ not derived from spurious or heretical 
 compositions^ but from their own genuine writings. It remains 
 for me to sheWj that the principles and the practice of Roman- 
 ists are equally condemned by Catholic Antiquity — that they 
 are derived from Heresies and Idolatries repudiated by the 
 Catholic Church. You have appealed to Catholic Antiquity. 
 Will you consent to stand or fall by its real verdict ? 
 
 Which doctrine then is the most conformable to that of the 
 primitive Church ? We are of opinion that religious worship 
 is due to God only^ and not to any creature whatever, be it 
 angel, spirit, man, beast, ar inanimate creature. We honour 
 and love Angels and Saints, because they are loved by God ; 
 but we think it wrong to offer religious worship to any being 
 whatever but God. We hold that prayer ought only to be 
 offered to God — that it is a species of sacrifice which is only 
 due to the Divine nature. We think that it is unlawful to re- 
 pose our hope, trust, or confidence in any creature. We think 
 it needless to ask for the intercession of Saints and Angels to 
 render us acceptable to God ; and we believe that we ought 
 ourselves boldly to approach the Throne of Grace, confiding in 
 the intercession of Jesus Christ. We think it unlawful to 
 unite the name of God with that of his creatures in prayer, and 
 to offer the same acts of homage to them. The doctrines and 
 practice of Romanists are opposed to ours on all these points. 
 Let us then place the question before the Fathers, and ascertain 
 their decision. 
 
 I. '^ Is it lawful to worship any other being but God ? Is all 
 religious worship to be offered to Him alone ? And are the 
 Saints, Angels, and other created beings, only to be loved, hon- 
 oured, imitated, or regarded, as the case may be ?" 
 
 The doctrine of Christian Antiquity is decisive on this point. 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote little more that a century after the 
 death of our Lord, in describing to the Emperor Antoninus the 
 doctrines inculcated by our Saviour, speaks thus : '^ That it is 
 '^ necessary to worship God alone, (Christ) thus persuaded us^ 
 
 W 
 
30 LETTER V. 
 
 '' saying", *■ The greatest commandment is. Thou shalt worship 
 ^*^ the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, with all 
 ^f thy heart and with all thy strength ; even the Lord God who 
 ^^ made thee ;' and when a certain person came and said to Him^ 
 *^ ^ Good Master,' He answered, saying, ^ None is good save 
 '^ God only, who made all things.' Bat they who are not found 
 ^* living according to his instructions, be it known that //lei/ art 
 ^^ not Christians . . . .He answered them, saying, ^Render 
 ••^ therefore unto Csesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God 
 '■^ the things that are God's.' Wherefore we worship God only, 
 ^' but in other respects we are gfladly obedient to you." It may 
 perhaps be said, that the restriction of all worship to God in 
 this passage, had reference only to the Heathen worship of false 
 gods or deified ifien, and was not intended as any denial of that 
 worship which is due to Saints and Angels. This is a distinc- 
 tion entirely without foundation, because, as will be shewn, the 
 Fathers objected in general to the worship of any creatures 
 whatever ; and on this one broad principle rejected equally the 
 false Gods of the Heathen, and the idolatrous heresies of the 
 Collyridians and Angelici, But 1 shall now produce a passage 
 to which you have alluded, (p, 48.) and which is conclusive 
 against you. 
 
 It is taken from perhaps the most beautiful monument of 
 Christian Antiquity — I mean the Acts of the martyrdom of St. 
 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, which were composed A. D. 167, 
 immediately after the events which they narrate. It appears, 
 that after the martyrdom of Polycarp, the enemies of the Chris- 
 tians endeavoured to prevent them from obtaining his remains. 
 They urged the Roman Proconsul not to give up the body, 
 '' Lest, forsaking the crucified (Jesus), they should begin to 
 "adore this man. And this they said by the suggestion and 
 '^ aid of the Jews, who had watched our endeavours to remove 
 *^ him from the fire, being ignorant that we can never forsake 
 ^' Christ, who suffered for the salvation of those who are saved 
 *^ out of all the world, nor adore any other. For Him, as being 
 '^ the Son of God, we worship ; but the Martyrs, as being dis- 
 "ciples and imitators of the Lord, we love as they desei^ve, on 
 " account of their unconquerable love to their King and Mas- 
 " tor."^ No words can more plainly teach our doctrine — that 
 worship is due to God only. This is also the language of 
 Athenagoras, a writer of the second century, " We (Christians) 
 
 g Justin Martyr, Apolog-ia Prima, p. 25, 26. ed. Thirlby. 
 hEccles. Smyrnensis Epist. de S. Polycarp. Martyr. ap« Patres 
 Apostol. t. ii. p. 585. ed. Jacobson. 
 
LETTER V. 31 
 
 "do not approach (spiritual) powers^ and serve them; but their 
 " Lord and Master."^ 
 
 St. Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, and a friend of the holy Mar- 
 tyr Polycarp, says^ ttiat '^ our Lord manifestly shewed that the 
 " Lord, who had been declared by the Law, is ihe true and 
 ^' one God, for He whom the Law (of Muses) had announced 
 "as God, Christ shews to be the Father, t^j/iom alone the disci- 
 ''pies of Christ must serve . . . The Law commands us to 
 "praise God the Creator and to serve Him only y''''^ &c. Com- 
 pare this with the prayer to 8t. Joseph,^ that he will " make 
 " us serve Jesus and Mary." The language of St. Theophilus 
 of Antioch^ who lived in the latter part of the second century^ 
 is equally clear. '' A king," he says, " does not wish those 
 ^' who are subject to him to be called kings" [i. e. to receive 
 royal honours]. " For ' the king' is his title, and it is unlawful 
 " for any other person to be called so. In like manner it is 
 " not lawful, to ivorship any hut God only^"^ This^ you will 
 observe, is the very argument I have employed against your 
 acts of external worship to the Virgin and Saints. An earthly 
 king would be offended at seeing royal honours paid to his sub- 
 jects : and it is unlawful to act towards God in a way which 
 we should not dare to attempt with an earthly Sovereign. 
 
 St. Clement of Alexandria considers it a principal point of 
 religion to " worship one God alone, who is truly omnipotent "" 
 and the same doctrine is taught in various places by Tertullian.** 
 Thus, in his reflections on Prayer^ he remarks on the wisdom 
 of our Lord's command " of praying in secret, by which he 
 " . . . . desired the lowliness of faith, that to Him alone, whom 
 " he believed to hear and to see every where, he woidd offer his 
 " worship. ^^"^ These sentiments remained with Tertullian even 
 after he had fallen into the heresy of Montanus : " It is en- 
 " joined me," he says in his Scorpiace, " not to call an}^ other 
 "being God ; that I should not even in speaking, by my tongue 
 " no less than by my hand make a God ; that I should not 
 ^' adore, or in any manner venerate, any other but that One 
 " who thus commands ; whom I am also commanded to fear, lest 
 " I be forsaken by Him."q 
 
 i Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christianis, ap. Gallandii Bibl. Patr. 
 ii. p. 15. 
 
 klrenseus, adv. Hseres. lib. v.c. 22. ed. Benedict. 
 
 1 See above, p 22. 
 
 mTheophil. Antiochen. lib. i. ad Autolycum, c. xi Gallandii Bib- 
 liotheca Patrum, t. ii. p, 84. 
 
 nStromata, lib. vi. t. ii. Oper. p. 825. ed. Potteri. 
 
 o Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christianis, ubi supra, p. 13. 
 
 p Tertullian, De Orat. p. 129. ed. Rigaltii Par. 1664. 
 
 qTertull. Scorpiace, p. 490. 
 
S2 LETTER V. 
 
 The language of the Fathers was always the same ; St. Cy- 
 prian says, that evils are inflicted on men, '^ in order that the 
 " One Qod of all, may be alone worshipped and prayed to by 
 " aW.'"^ St. Dionysius of Alexandria says, ^' We worship and 
 ^' adore the One God and Creator of all thinors who entrusted 
 '^ the empire to Valerian and Gallienus beloved of God .... 
 '^ We worship no other. ^^^ Such also was the language of the 
 Martyr Fructuosus Bishop of Tarragona, (about A. D. 262.) 
 '^ I worship one God, who made heaven and earth and all that 
 " therein is." When his Deacon Eulogius was asked whether 
 he would worship Fructuosus after his death, he replied, '^ I 
 '^ worship not Fructuosus, but 1 worship Him whom Fructuosus 
 "worships also."^ Lactantius says, ^^ No other religion and 
 ^' worship is to fee held, but that of one God."^ 
 
 St. Athanasius supplies us with the principle on which the 
 Church refused to worship any being except God. It was not 
 merely because heathens and heretics worshipped false or ima- 
 ginary Gods : it was, on this broad, plain, and most rational 
 principle — that religious worship was unsuitable to any creature 
 — that it belonged only to the Creator of all things. He argues 
 that Christ is God because he is worshipped, for that no one 
 except God can be worshipped. His argument is very remark- 
 able. 
 
 ^^ One creature,^'' he says, " doth not worship another, but 
 (' the servant his master, the creature his God. Whence Peter 
 " the Apostle hindered Cornelius when he wished to worship 
 '< him, saying, * I also am a man.' The Angel also hindered John 
 " when he wished to worship him in the Apocalypse, saying, 
 <^ *■ See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy 
 " brethren the Prophets, and of them which keep the sayings 
 '^ of this book. Worship God.'' Therefore it belongs to God 
 *' only to be worshipped. And this the Angels themselves 
 " know, that although they excel others in glory, they are yet 
 '' all creatures, and are not in the number of those who are to be 
 '^ worshipped, but of them who worship the Lordy^ It may 
 be remarked here, that it would be perfectly absurd to imagine 
 even for a moment, that Cornelius or St. John could have 
 really intended to give Divine honours to Peter or the Angel. 
 Nevertheless their worshi[) was in each case forbidden ; and 
 according to St. Athanasius it is only due to God. And the 
 
 -'Cyprian, ad Demetrian, p, 232. ed. Rigaltii, 1649. 
 
 9 Eusebii Hist Eccl. lib. vii. c. 11. p. 258. cd. Valesii. 
 
 t Baronii Annates, Anno 262. §. 60 t. iii. p. 126. ed. Lucse. 1738. 
 
 » Lactantii Instit 1. i. c. 20. ap. Galland. tiibl. Patr. iv. 245. 
 
 * Athanasii Orat. ii. contra Arianos, t. i. p. 491. Oper. ed. Benedict. 
 
LETTER V. S3 
 
 principle on which such worship is forbidden is^ that creatures 
 are not to be worshipped. 
 
 This principle is also laid down by St. Gregory of Nyssa in 
 the following terms. " That none of those things which have 
 '^ their being by creation is to be worshipped by men the Di- 
 '^ vine word hath enacted, as we may learn from almost all the 
 '' divinely-inspired Scripture. Moses, the Tables, the Law, 
 ^*^ the Prophets afterwards, the Gospels, the doctrine of all the 
 '' Apostles, equally forbid the looking unto the creature.'''' He 
 then observes, that the neglect of this introduced heathen idol- 
 atry ; and continues thus : " Lest we should suffer the same 
 '^ things, who have been instructed by the Scriptures to look to 
 •'*" the true Godhead ; we have been taught to understand, that 
 ^^ every created thing is different from the Divine nature, and 
 " to adore and worship only the uncreated nature, the character 
 '' of which is never to begin and never to end its existence."y 
 
 The language of Hilary, a -deacon of the Roman Church in 
 the time of Pope Damasus,^ is also very remarkable, from its 
 refutation of the pretences on which the worship of created 
 beings has been justified in ancient and modern times. Speak- 
 ing of the heathen ha says : '' They are accustomed, in order 
 ^' to cover the shame of neglecting God, to use a miserahle 
 ^' excuse, saying, that by them [created beings] they can ap- 
 
 '^ proach God, as we approach a king by his ministers 
 
 " Come then : Is any one so madj so unmindful of his safety y 
 '^ as to give the hinges honour to a minister — when, if any were 
 ^^ even found treating on such a matter, they would be justly 
 ^^ condemned as guilty of high treason ? And yet these men 
 ^^ do not think themselves guilty who give the honour of God's 
 ^' name to a creature, and leaving the Lord adore their fellom 
 ^^ servants ; as if there was any thing more that could be re- 
 *^ served to God. For we approach the king by his ministers^ 
 ^'^ because he is only a man, and knows not to whom he may 
 " entrust the state. But to propitiate God, from whom noth- 
 '^ ing is hid, (for he knows what all men deserve,) there is no 
 '^ need of any other spokesman but a devout mmd. Whereso- 
 " ever such an one shall speak to Him, he will answer him."^ 
 
 yGreg"or. Nyss. contra Eunom. Orat. iv. t, ii. p. 144, 146. Oper, 
 ed. Paris. 1615. 
 
 z The commentary on the Epistles from which I quote, has been 
 commonly attributed to St. Ambrose, but the researches of learned 
 men have assig-ned its composition to Hilary. This writer had fal- 
 len into the schism of Lucifer bishop of Cagliari, but appears to have 
 been reunited to the Church, as he speaks in very honourable terms 
 of Pope Damasus. See Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. ssec. iv. c. vi. 
 art. 14. 
 
 a Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. c. i. latero Ambrosii Operaj t. ih. 
 Appendix^ p. 33. ed. Benedict, 
 
34 LETTER V. 
 
 It is evident from this, tliat the heathen did not intend to 
 give the same honour to their deified men and to God : they 
 regarded them as mediators, or as greatly inferior to the Su- 
 preme Deity. This is distinctly stated indeed by Tertullian, 
 r. ^^^^k ^^^ ^^^^' " dispose the Godhead so, as to acknowledge 
 " that One has the empire or supreme government, but that 
 ^' many are engaged in His service ; as Plato describes Jupiter 
 '' in heaven accompanied by an army of gods and spirits." It 
 would be easy to confirm the truth of this statement from Orosius, 
 Celsus, Hierocles, and other heathen writers. It is evident 
 therefore, that the heathen did not mean, any more than Ro- 
 manists do, to give supreme honours to beings who were inferior 
 to the One Deity. And yet the Fathers most strenuously re- 
 sisted every act of external worship offered to any being except 
 God, on the broad principle which we also maintain, that reli- 
 gioiis worship of every sort is due only to the Creator— never 
 to the creature. 
 
 St. Ambrose says, '' We read that nothing but God alone is 
 " to be adored, for it is written, ' Thou shalt worship the Lord 
 '^ thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.' " St. Jerome, in 
 describing the worship of the Christians, speaks thus; ^^ We 
 ^•^do not worshij) and adore (I do not say merely) the relics of 
 '' the martyrs, but not even the Sun and Moon, the Angels or 
 ^^^ Archangels, the Cherubim, Seraphim, or any name that is 
 ^ named in this world or the world to come, lest toe should 
 ^ serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for 
 <c ^Z^^' r^"^ ^'^ honour the relics of the Martyrs, that we may 
 adore Him whose Martyrs they are."« St. Gregory Nazian- 
 zen says, that the ^' one rule of piety is, to worship the Father, 
 ^^ the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the one Godhead and Power in 
 ^^ three Persons, honouring nothing above or hejieath God .... 
 '' the former of which would be impossible, and the latter m- 
 ''piousy^ St. Hilary of Poictiers teaches the same truth: 
 ' You are not ignorant that religious devotion towards a crea- 
 "ture, is accursedy^ St. Ambrose in another place uses ex- 
 pressions which come still more home to the question between 
 us. ^^ Without doubt the Holy Ghost is to be adored, since He 
 
 Bentd?cY°^^' ^^ ^P'"^"" Sancto, 1. iii. c. 11. Oper. t. ii. p. 680. ed. 
 
 o-7Q*^A''''^"^?\r^P^'V^^^^ii- al- liii- ad Riparium, t. iv. pars ii. p. 
 279. Opcr. ed. Benedict. i- » t' ^ 
 
 dGreg-or. Naziaiiz. Orat. xiv. Oper. t. i. p. 221. ed. Paris, 1609 
 e Hilar. Pietav. de Tnnitate. lib. viii. p. 963. Oper. ed. Henedict. 
 Conripare the note of tlie Bendictine Editors ; who state that Ambrose, 
 Basil Athenasius, Nyssene. &c. employ this principle in their 
 proofsof the Divinity of our Lord. ^ ^ 
 

 LETTER V. 35 
 
 "also is to be adored, who, according to the flesh, was born of 
 " the Spirit. And lest any one should derive the same [adora- 
 ^^tion] to the Virgin Mary ; Mary was the temple of God, 
 '^ but not the God of the temple ; and therefore He only is to 
 '^ be adored who operated in that temple.'"^ How completely 
 this language of St. Ambrose overthrows all your argument in 
 defence of Cardinal Bona's prayer. Theodoret is equally strict 
 in refusing all religious worship to any but God : " We honour 
 " those men who live virtuously, as most excellent men ; but 
 ^^■we worship only the God and Father of all, and his Word, 
 '^ and Holy Spirit."s Epiphanius, like St. Ambrose, rejects the 
 worship of the Virgin Mary and the Saints. "Which of the 
 " prophets permitted a man (not to speak of a woman) to be 
 '^ worshipped ? For she (the Virgin) is indeed a chosen vessel, 
 
 '^ but a woman, and in no respect changed in nature Bat 
 
 "" neither is Elias to be worshipped, though amongst the living : 
 
 '^ nor is John to be worshipped, neither is Thecla, nor 
 
 " any of the Saints to be worshipped. For that ancient error 
 ^'^ shall not prevail over us, to forsake the living God, and to 
 " worship the things that are made by Him, for ^ they served 
 " and worshipped the creature above the Creator^, and became 
 '' fools.' For if He will not have the Jlngels to be worshipped, 
 '•' how much more would he not have (Mary) her that ivas born 
 ''of Anna.^''^ St. Augustine also condemns your practice: 
 " Let not the worship of dead men,''' he says, " be our religion ; 
 ^f for if they lived piously, they are not to be supposed to seek 
 '' for such honours, but they wish Him to be worshipped by us, 
 'f by whose enlightening they rejoice that we are -partners of 
 '' their merit. They are therefore to be honoured for imitation, 
 " not worshipped for religion. .... We honour them (the 
 '^ Angels) with love, not with service ; nor do we build tem- 
 ^^ pies to them. For they do not wish to be so honoured by us^ 
 ^^ because they know that we ourselves, if we are good, are 
 ^''temples of the high God. It is therefore rightly written, 
 " (Rev. xxii. 9.) that a man was forbidden by an angel that he 
 •' should not worship him, but God alone, under whom he was 
 ^^ his fellow-servant."^ 
 
 I shall not carry the proof from Tradition any further at 
 present. From what has been said, it must be evident I think 
 to any candid mind, that Catholic Antiquity entirely accords 
 
 f Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii. c. 11. p. 681. t. ii. ed. Bened. 
 
 g Theodoret. Grsecar. Affect. Sermo ii. p. 502. t. iv. Oper. ed. 
 Sirmond. 
 
 hEpiphan. Hseres. Ixxix. torn. ii. Oper. ed. Petavii, p. 1062. 
 
 i Auffustin. de Vera. Kelig. c. Iv. t. i. Oper. ed. Benedict, p. 786, 
 787. 
 
36 LETTER V. 
 
 with us, in believing that all religious worship is due to the 
 holy Trinity alone ; and that it is unlawful to impart it, in any 
 degreCj to creatures ; that even the appearance of worshipping 
 creatures is to be avoided ; that Angels, and Saints, and even 
 the Virgin Mother of Christ our God, are to be loved and hon- 
 oured indeed, but never worshipped or adored in any manner 
 whatever ; either above God, or equally with God, or even less 
 than God. 
 
 II. '' Ought prayer and praise only to be offered to God and 
 «^ not to any creature ? Is it a species of sacrifice which is only 
 " due to the Deity ? And are we bound to place our hope, 
 ^^ trust, and confidence in God only, and in no creature what- 
 '^ ever ?" 
 
 These questions are immediately connected with that which 
 has just been considered ; and all the sentiments of the Fathers 
 which have been adduced, bear most directly on them ; for 
 prayer, and praise, trust, and confidence, are 2i[\ parts of inter- 
 nal or external worship or adoration. If it be unlawful then to 
 adore or worship creatures, it is equall}'' unlawful to offer them 
 religious prayer or praise, or to place hope and confidence in 
 them. But I proceed to bring specific proofs from the Fathers, 
 in confirmation of our doctrine, and in condemation of the doc- 
 trine and practice so common and so authorized in the Roman 
 Communion. 
 
 I shall commence with St. Irenseus. "As the Church," he 
 says, " has freely received from the Lord, so does she freely 
 '^ minister; nor does she do any thing hy invocation of Angels, 
 "nor by incantations, nor by any evil curiosity ; but by direct- 
 " ing her prayers cleanly, and purely, and openly, to the Lord 
 ^^ who made all things, and calling on the name of our Lord 
 " Jesus Christ."^ It is evident fro"m this, that St. Irenxus 
 thought it unlawful to pray to Angels or any created being. 
 St. Clement of Alexandria is equally explicit : " It is," he says, 
 *^ the extreme of ignorance to ask from those who are not Gods, 
 
 ^<^as though they were Gods Whence, since there is 
 
 ^*^only one good God, both we ourselves and the Angels suppli- 
 " cate from Him alone, that some good things might be given 
 " to us, and that others might remain with us."^ That prayer 
 is a sacrifice due to God, is taught by the same Father in the 
 following terms: "We do not without cause honour God hy 
 ''prayer^ and with righteousness send up this best and holiest 
 " sacrifice. ^^"^ It is also maintained by Tertullian, thus : " We 
 
 »^Irena3us^acIv. Hseres. 1. ii. c. xxxii. ed. Benedict, p. 166. 
 1 Clemens Alcxandr. Stromata, lib. vii. p. 853. ed. Potteri. 
 "» Stromata, lib. vii. p. 848. See also p. 850. 
 
Letter v. St 
 
 ''' Christians pray for all rulers a long life, a secure government 
 
 ^^ These things 1 cannot ask in prayer from any other 
 
 " except Him from whom I know that 1 shall obtain ; both be- 
 ^^ cause He is the one who alone grants, and 1 am the one 
 " whom it behoveth to obtain by prayer ; being his servant, 
 '' who looks to Him alone, who for his religion am put to death, 
 '^ who offer to Him a rich and greater sacrifice which He hath 
 ^^ commanded — even prayer proceeding from a chaste body, 
 '' from a harmless soul, from a holy spirit. "° 
 
 ^' If,'' said Athenagoras, "toe lift up pure hands to Him 
 
 ^^ (God), what need is there of a hecatomb ? What 
 
 " have I to do with burnt offerings, which God does not require, 
 ^^ though it be necessary to offer to Him a bloodless sacrifice, 
 '^ and a reasonable service ?"° 
 
 The sacrifices of prayer and praise were then only to be offered 
 up to God ; as Origen expressly says. '^ Every prayer, and 
 '^ supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent 
 ^* up unto God who is above all, through the High Priest who 
 
 *^Ms above all angels, the living Word and God For it is 
 
 '^ not reasonable that those w^ho do not comprehend the know- 
 ^^ ledge of Angels, whichi s beyond m^n, should invoke them. 
 ^' And even supposing* that their knowledge, which is somewhat 
 ^^ marvellous and secret, w^ere comprehended ; this very know- 
 ^^ ledge, declaring their nature and the things over which they 
 ^'^are appointed, would not permit us to jrresume to pray to any 
 ^' other but unto God, the Lord over all, who is sufficient for 
 '^ all, through our Saviour, the Son of God."? Nothing can be 
 more conclusive — more decisively condemnatory of the practice 
 of Romanists. 
 
 In another place Origen confirms our view very strongly : 
 *^To those who place their confidence in the Saints, we fitly 
 *^ produce as an example, ' Cursed is the man which hopeth in 
 "man;' and again, 'Do not put your trust in man;' and 
 *^ another, ' It is better to trust in the Lord than in princes.' If 
 " it be necessary to put our trust in any one. Let us leave all 
 '^ others, and hope in the Lord."""^ 
 
 Novatian, presbyter of the Roman Church in the middle of 
 the third century, argues, as many of the Fathers have done^ 
 that Christ is God, because He is every where invoked. " If 
 " Christ be only man," he says, '' how is he present, being 
 
 n Tertull. Apolog-et. c. 30. p- 27. Oper. ed. Rig-altii. 
 o Athenagoras, uhi supra, p. 13. 
 
 p Orig-en. cont. Celsum, lib. v. p. 580. t. i. Oper. ed. Delarue. 
 qHom. iv. in Ezechiel,p. 373. t. iii. The Latin translation, from 
 which the above passag-e is taken, was made by St. Jerome. 
 
 13 
 
S8 LETTER V. 
 
 "invoked every where, since it is not the nature of man but of 
 « God to be present in every place ? ... If Christ be only man 
 ^^ why IS hope reposed in Him, when hope in man is said to be 
 ^^ accursed P-hUd Invocation of Saints been practised at that 
 time in the Church, Novatian could not have arg-ued thus • 
 because the immediate answer would have been. That Christ 
 was invoked as a man, even as the Saints were. But his ar- 
 gument is directly opposed to any calling on created beings 
 
 rhe doctrine of St. Athanasius is also strongly opposed to vou. 
 -It is written, ^ Be my protecting God, my house of refno-e 
 '^ and save me,' and ^ the Lord was the refuge of the poor,' a°nd 
 -whatever things of the same sort are found in Scripture 
 ^But If they say that these things are spoken of the Son 
 -which would perhaps be true, let them confess, that the 
 ' feaints did northink of calling on a created beinp- to be their 
 - helper and house of refuge."^ Compare this with the prayer 
 addressed to the Virgin by Cardinal Bona, and those to the Vir- 
 gin and Joseph which have been produced. 
 
 It is really hard to imagine, how, in the face of such senti- 
 ments, Romamsts can dare to appeal to Catholic Antiquity in 
 justification of their idolatrous prayers to created beings You 
 have, however, explained what might otherwise have been 
 hard to account for. You have demonstrated, that Romanism 
 depends for its justification on forged and spurious compositions 
 You have proved, that it is still necessary to resort to such 
 dishonest arts ; that men of literary character like yourself are 
 obliged to cling to them, in the desperate effort to support a bad 
 and a feeble cause. It is in this way that your unhaopy follow- 
 ers are deceived, blinded, and ruined. ' 
 
 We affirnfi with all the Fathers, that prayer is only to be 
 offered to God. Look through their pages, and you will find 
 that this doctrine enters into their very notion of prayer 
 - Prayer is a request of sonae good thing made by pious men to 
 God/' says St. Basil.t It is '^ a discoursing with God " ac- 
 -cording to St. Gregory Nyssene-—" a colloquy with God'' 
 according to St. John Chrysostom--- an ascension of the mind 
 
 ^tt^^h'^rtfi M T^^^T'^""^'^^^' ^•.^^^- ^^'^ '^^^^ti^^ ^^^ frequently 
 attributed to Tertullian or Cyprian, even in the time of St. Jerom^ 
 as he remarks, Ca alog-. Script. Eccl. c. 81, and Apolog-. cont. Ruf 
 fin. hb. 11. Natahs Alexander has shewn that the doctrine of this 
 Treatise is sound. Hist. Eccl. Sjec. ii. Dissert, xi. art iv 
 
 I^lofi^'n'' Orat i. cont. Ananos, tom. i. p. 466. ed. Benedict. 
 
 t Basil. Orat. in Julitiam Martyr. Oper. tfii. p. 33. ed. Benedict 
 
 "Nyssen. Orat. ii. de Oratione Dom. Oper. ii 724 •'^encaict. 
 
 X Chrysost. Orat. ii. de Orat. 
 
LETTER V. 39 
 
 *- ** lo Gody or a request of fit things from God,''^ according to 
 John Damascenus y Could any of these Fathers have prayed 
 to Saints ? The thing is wholly impossible. 
 
 We have heard the doctrine of St. Athanasius : let us now 
 attend to that of one of his successors, St. Theophilus of Alex- 
 andria. " How shall they call on Him in whom they have 
 ^^ not believed ? It is necessary in the first place to believe 
 " that the Son of God is, in order that calling on Him be ricrht 
 ^' and reasonable ; and as he who is not God is not to be adored, 
 "so^ on the other hand. He that is God, is to be adored."^ 
 Here we see that invoking or ^^ calling on" any one by prayer, 
 is a part of adoration, and as such is due to God only. Hilary, 
 Deacon of Rome, in commenting on the fourth chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Colossians, says, that the Apostle '' in the begin- 
 "ning declared how great and infinite is the Almighty great- 
 ^' ness of Christ, that He might instruct us, that hope is only to 
 •^ be placed in Him ; because all things are his, and because 
 *' nothing can exist without Him, neither in heaven nor in 
 *^ earth. ' For He is before all things, and by Him all things 
 ^^ consist, because He hath the preeminence in all things ;' so 
 ^' that if any one thinks that he ought to be devoted to any of 
 '^ the Angels, or elements, or powers, let him know that he is 
 " in error."^ This was the language of the fourth century. ■ 
 J^oio we hear of nothing but '•' devotion to the Virgin and the 
 '^' Saints" — "^ trust" and " hope" in their power. What was 
 impious in the fourth century, is now obtruded upon us as 
 Catholic and laudable. 
 
 So strictly did the Catholic Church in primitive times adhere 
 to the Apostolic tradition, that in the Eucharist, prayer was 
 not even to be directed to the second or third Persons of the 
 blessed Trinity. The thiid Council of Carthage, at which St. 
 Augustine was present, decreed, that " At the Altar prayer 
 ^' should always be directed to the Father^ and whatever prayers 
 ^' are composed by any one, he may not use till he has submit- 
 *• ted them to the examination of the more learned brethren."'^ 
 Thus jealous was the Catholic Church of the prerogatives of 
 the Father, to whom our Lord had directed us to address our 
 prayers in his name. *^ Verily, verily, I say unto you, What- 
 '^ soever ye shall ask the Father in my name. He will give it 
 ^^ you At that day ye shall ask in my name ; and I say 
 
 yDamasceiius, De Fide Orthodox, lib. iii. c. 24. Oper. t. i. p. 248. 
 zTheophil. Alexandrinus, Paschal, ii. p. 718. t. iv. Bibl. Patr. 
 Colon. 1618. 
 
 a Hilar, in Coloss. i. p. 266, Ambrosii Opera, t. ii. pars ii. ed. Ben. 
 feCoucil. Carthag". iii. c. xxiii. Labbsei Concilia, t. ii. col. 1170. 
 
40 LETTER V. 
 
 <^ not unto yoUj that I will pray the Father for you ; for the 
 <•' Father Himself loveth you." (John xvi. 24, 26, 27.) And 
 if our prayers are generally to be directed to the Father, instead 
 of to the Son or the Holy Spirit — if even in the Trinity itself, 
 where there is the same Godhead in three Persons, the priority 
 of the Father is to be practically recognised in our worship, how 
 much greater becomes, the sin of those who worship and pray to 
 mere creatures, as they would to the Supreme Fountain and 
 First Principle of all things. 
 
 The practice of Romanists in praying to Angels was first in- 
 vented by a sect in the fourth century, who for the purpose of 
 exercising this unlawful worship, held private meetings sepa- 
 rate from those of the Catholic Church, in which it was not 
 permitted. The' Council of Laodicea, the decrees of which 
 were received and approved by the whole Church, condemned 
 this sect in the following terms : '^ Christians ought not to for- 
 ^' sake the Church of God, and depart, and call on angels, and 
 '<^ make meetings ; which are forbidden. If any one therefore 
 ^' be found giving himself to this hidden idolatry, Let him be 
 ^ ' *Rnathema, hecause he hath left our Lord Jesus Christ the 
 " Son of God, and hath betaken himself to idolatry.''"' Prayers 
 to Angels are forbidden in this decree, but the same principle 
 applies equally to all prayers to created beings. Prayers to 
 Angels and Saints were therefore in the judgment of the 
 Catholic Church of the fourth century, idolatrous ; and yet you 
 adopt and defend those prayers without any scruple. 
 
 The adoration of the Virgin was also introduced about the 
 same time, and was regarded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. 
 It commenced in Arabia about A. D. 373, and seems to have 
 given rise to an opposite heresy, that of the Antidicomarians, 
 who spoke irreverently of the blessed Virgin. We learn that 
 the sinful and misguided persons who adopted this new wor- 
 ship made offerings of cakes to the Virgin at particular times of 
 the year, from which they were called Colly ridians, (a word 
 which signified the nature of their offering.) There is no evi- 
 dence that they separated from the Church or its worship, or 
 refused to worship God, or regarded the Virgin as equal to God. 
 They are not accused of this by any writer. They, however, 
 offered external worship to the Virgin, and were therefore re- 
 garded as heretics. St. Epiphanius has refuted this heresy, 
 
 c Concil. Laodicen. Can. xxxv. Revereg-ii Pandect. Canon, t. i. p. 
 468. This heresy is referred to by Epiphanius, Hceres. Ix. Oper. t. 
 ii. p. 505. and by St. Augustine, Lib. de Hseres. n. xxxix. t. viii. p. 
 11. Oper. ed. Ben. ; and it seems to have become extinct in a short 
 time. 
 
LETTER V. 41 
 
 Tind at the same time furnished the strongest arguments against 
 Romanists^ in a work from which the following extracts are 
 made. — 
 
 " The body of Mary was holy indeed, but she was not God. 
 ^' She was a Virgin and honoured, but not proposed to us to be 
 ^^ worshipped, but as worshipping Him who, born of her flesh, 
 '^ had descended from Heaven and from his Father's bosom. 
 '^ Therefore the Gospel warned us beforehand, in which Christ 
 f^ thus speaketh, ' What have I to do with thee^ woman ? my 
 '^ hour is not yet come,' in order that from this expression, 
 '' ^ What have I to do with thee, woman ?' none mirrht think 
 '' the holy virgin more excellent (in nature) .... none might 
 •^^ by excessively admiring the Saint, fall into this folly of heresy,^ 
 ^' Which of the prophets ever permitted a man to be worshipped, 
 ^^ not to speak of a woman ?^ Let Mary be in honour, but let 
 '-' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be worshipped : let no one wor- 
 «^ ship Mary. That service is not enjoined by God ; I say not 
 '^ to a woman, but even to a man. Not even the Angels are 
 " worthy of such honours. . . . Let no one taste of that error 
 ^^ concerning the holy Mary, for although the tree be beautiful, 
 " it is not good for food ; and although Mary is most excellent, 
 '' and holy, and worthy of honour, yet she is not to be worship- 
 
 '^ ped Let such women (as worship her) be silenced by 
 
 '^Jeremiah, and no longer disturb the world. Let them not 
 " say, ' We honour the Queen of Heaven?^ Let Mary be in 
 -'^honour. Let the Lord be worshipped. For the righteous 
 ^^ afford to no one an occasion of error. '"§ 
 
 To speak of the blessed Virgin as a woman, in the way 
 which St. Epiphanius here does, would be regarded by many 
 Romanists as little less than blasphemous. If indeed those mag- 
 nificent titles which they bestow on her (amongst which is that 
 very one of " Queen of Heaven,-' here reprehended by St. 
 Epiphanius) be rightly and piously applied, it must be disre- 
 spectful to speak of her as '^ a woman." 
 
 in. " Is it necessary to ask for the intercession of Saints and 
 '^ Angels with God, or is it better to approach the throne of God 
 '• with our own prayers, relying with confidence on the inter- 
 "^ cession of the Great High Priest Jesus Christ?" 
 
 Our belief is in this case also confirmed by the voice of 
 Catholic tradition, and the practice and opinions of Romanists 
 approximate to those of the heathen and heretics, against whom 
 the holy Fathers contended. 
 
 J Epiphan. Hseres. Ixxix. t. ii. Oper. p. 1061. 
 
 e p. 1062. f p. 1052, s p. 1066,. 
 
 13* 
 
42 LETTER V. 
 
 You have quoted (p. 64 ) Valerian, Bishop of Cemela, A. D. 
 450^ as urging* the necessity of having recourse to the Saints, 
 because '' it is the only way to secure the favour of God." 
 " What place of pardon will there be," he says, '' if you know 
 -'^ not how to entreat thefritnds of the king ?" \ have not ex- 
 amined into the genuineness of this piece— but admitting it to 
 be genuine, I maintain that the doctrine here advanced was not 
 that of the Catholic Church. 
 
 The heathen, as we learn from the example of Celsus, defen- 
 ded their worship and prayers addressed to Angels or SpiritSj by 
 representing that we ought to put our trust in them because 
 they were ministers of God. To this Origen replies : '^ Away 
 '^*^ with the advice of Celsus, saying that we should pray to 
 '^ Angels, and l^t it not be heard for a moment. For we must 
 '^ pray to God alone who is above all, and we must pray to 
 " the only-begotten Word of God, ' the first-born of all crea- 
 '^ tures,' and we must entreat Him, as a high priest, to offer up 
 ^^ our prayers to his God and our God}^ We must endeavour 
 ^' to please God alone, who is above all things, and labour to 
 " have Him propitious to us, procuring His good will by god- 
 " liness and all kinds of virtue. And if Celsus will yet have 
 ^' us to procure the good will of any others after Him that is 
 '^ God over all ... . having God, favourable to us, who is over 
 "^^all, it follows that we shall have all His friends both Angels 
 ^' and Spirits loving unto us.^ To whom we offer our first fruits, 
 *•' to Him also do we send our prayers, having a great High 
 ^*^ Priest that is entered into the heavens. . . . But if we have 
 ^' a desire towards a multitude [of Saints, Angels, &c.] whom 
 " we wish to be favourable unto us^ we learn that thousand 
 ^^ thousands stand by Him,' &.c. . . . who labour together 
 " for the salvation of those who call upon God, and pray law- 
 '' fully ''^ 
 
 I have already quoted the answer of Hilary the Deacon to 
 the argument for the necessity of appealing to creatures in order 
 to propitiate God. St. John Chrysostom speaks still more dis- 
 tinctly. " It is often impossible to present our gift immediately 
 '^ unto the masters themselves, and to converse with them, but 
 ^^it is necessary first to obtain the favour of their ministers and 
 
 " stewards Bui with God it is not so, for there is no need 
 
 *' of intercessors for the petitioners, nor is He so ready to give a 
 " gracious answer, being entreated by others, as by our own 
 *^ selves praying unto Him} Amongst men it is required that he 
 '' should flatter all those that are about the prince .... but here 
 
 ^ Orig-en. cont. Celsum, 1. viii. p. 760. t. i. Oper. ed. Benedict. 
 
 i P. 7rt9. k p. 766. 
 
 V Cited by Damascenus, Sacra, Parallela, t. ii. Oper. p. 46§. 
 
LETTER V. 43 
 
 ^' there is no need of any thing save a watchful mind only^ and 
 '^ there is nothing that hindereth us from being near to God.""' 
 " God does most when we do not ask of others. As a kind 
 " friend, he blameth us most, as not having courage to trust in 
 '^ his love, when we entreat others to pray to Him for us." We 
 *^^ do not therefore so pacify Him when we entreat Him by 
 " others, as when we do it by our own selves."^ Damascenus, 
 in the eighth century, adopts these sentiments. " Mark the 
 '^ philosophy of the woman of Canaan. She entreats not James_, 
 ^'^ she beseeches not John, neither does she eome to Peter, but 
 «^ broke through the whole company. I have no need of a me- 
 '^ diator, but taking repentance as my spokesman, I come to the 
 ^' Fountain-head itself. For this cause did he descend, for this 
 ^^ cause did He take flesh, that I might have the boldness to 
 
 ''^ speak unto Him I have no need of a mediator : Have 
 
 '^'^ mercy on me.'"P This is even the language of Theophylact, 
 Metropolitan of Bulgaria in the eleventh century. Speaking 
 of the woman of Canaan : " Observe," he says, " that although 
 '^ the Saints pray for us as the Apostles did for her, yet we 
 ^^ praying for ourselves, prevail much morey^^ These authori- 
 ties are sufficient to shew that the ancient Church did not be- 
 lieve it necessary to use the Saints as mediators with God, and 
 that they held it much safer and m.ore pious to approach God 
 with our own prayers^ confiding in the intercession of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 IV. " Is it lawful to unite the name of God with that of His 
 ^^ creatures in prayer, and to offer the same acts of homage to 
 ^' both at the same time ?" 
 
 In proof of the unlavv^fulness of this practice^, I shall only ad- 
 duce the language of the great Athanasius. " A^o one,''"' he 
 says, ^^ would pray to receive any thing from the Father and 
 '^ the Angels, or from any of the other creatures'. Nor would 
 ^*" any one say, ^ God and the Angel give thee.' " In reply to 
 the objection derived from Jacob's language, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. 
 
 ^' The God which fed me from my youth the Angel 
 
 ^' which delivered me, &c." Athanasius says, " He did not 
 ^^ couple one of the created beings, and by nature Angels, with 
 '' God who created them .... but in saying, ' which delivered 
 ^^ me from all evils, he shewed that it was not any of the 
 '^^ created Angels, but the Word of God, whom he coupled with 
 
 mChrysost. in Psal. iv. t. p. 8. ed. Benedict. 
 
 n Horn, xxxvi. in Act. Apost. t. ix. p. 278. 
 
 o Expos, in Ps. iv. t. v. p. 9. 
 
 p Cited by Damascenus, Oper. t. ii. p. 467. 
 
 4 Theophylact. Comment, in. Matt. c. xv. p. 89. ed. Paris, 1631. 
 
44 LETTER V. 
 
 '' God and prayed unto.'"" I need not produce any further evi- 
 dence. Compare this with your indulgenced prayer, ^^ Jesus, 
 *' Joseph, and Mary, assist me in my last agony." 
 
 I have produced but a small portion of the evidence which 
 may be brought from Christian Antiquity in refutation of your 
 doctrines and practice on this subject. What has been said, 
 however, will I trust be sufficient fur the vindication of the early 
 Fathers from the imputations of superstition and idolatry which 
 your pamphlet tends to fix upon them. Their doctrines stand 
 out in bold relief, against the heathenish corruptions which Ro- 
 manism sanctions and defends. 
 
 §.6. Jldditional proofs of Romish Idolatry and Superstition. 
 
 We have now sufficiently seen what the doctrine of the 
 Catholic b'athers is on the subject of the worship of creatures. 
 Let us contrast it with the doctrines and practice of Romanism. 
 I can only afford space for a very few citations from your popu- 
 lar books of devotion, but they will afford a fair specimen of the 
 remainder. 
 
 Your admired Saint Alphonsus de Liguori shall speak first. 
 
 *^ From the moment that Mary consented to become the 
 Mother of God," says St. Bernardino of Sienna, ^^ she merited to 
 receive sovereignty over all creatures.'''' Mary and Jesus hav- 
 ing but one and the same flesh," says St. Arnand, abbot, " why 
 should not the Mother enjoy, conjointly with the Son, the hon- 
 ours of royalty." Mary is then Queen of the Universe, since 
 Jesus is its King: thus, as St. Bernardine again observes, '' As 
 many creatures as obey God, so many obey the glorious Virgin."^ 
 " I am," said she, to St. Bridget, '^ the Queen of heaven and 
 Mother of Mercy" — I am " the joy of the just, and the gate 
 through which sinners go to God." (p 22.) ''' Queen of heaven 
 and earth I Mother of God ! my Sovereign mistress ! I pre- 
 sent myself before you as a poor mendicant before a mighty 
 Queen, ip. 29.) No grace, no pardon, emanates from the 
 throne of the King of kings without passing through the hands 
 of Mary, according to St Bernard. The plenitude of Grace is 
 found in Jesus Christ as the head, whence it flows to Mary, 
 
 1- Athanasii Orat. iii. cont. Arianos, t. i. p. 666. 
 
 s The Glories of Mary, Mother of God, translated from the Italian 
 of Saint Alphonsus Lig-uori by a Catholic Priest. Third Edition^ 
 Dublin, Coyne, 1837. 
 
LETTER V. 45 
 
 who communicates it to all his members, (p. 121.) No doubt, 
 Jesus the Man-God, alone sufficed to effect our redemption ; but 
 it was more convenient that both sexes having* concurred to our 
 ruin, both should conspire to save us. Albertus Magnus styles 
 Mary ' the coadjutrix of our redemption !" (p. 128.) All is sub- 
 ject TO Mary's empire, even God Himself! .... Jesus has 
 rendered Mary omnipotent : the one is omnipotent by nature, 
 the other is omnipotent by grace, (p. 138.) St. Germanus says 
 to Mary, ' You, O holy Yugin, have over God the authority of 
 a mother, and hence you obtain pardon for the most obdurate 
 sinners' (p. 141.) It is impossible that a true servant of Mary 
 should be damned, (p. 165.) '^ My soul,' says the blessed Eric 
 Suzon, ' is in the hands of Mary, so if the Judge wishes to con- 
 demn me, the sentence must pass through this clement Queen, 
 and she well knows how to prevent its execution, (p. 171.) 
 
 Jesus ! O Mary ! may your names live in my heart . . . O 
 Mary! my Mother! when my last hour shall come, when my 
 
 1 beseech you, that my last words may be, Jesus, Mary, I love 
 soul shall be at the eve of its departure from the world, grant 
 you. Jesus Mary, I give you my heart and my soul. Amen." 
 (p. 205.) 
 
 My next extracts shall be from '^ the New Month of Mary^" 
 published last year with the formal approbation of authority.^ 
 
 '^ Thou art the only hope of sinners. Through thee do we 
 hope for pardon of our sins; and in thee, O most blessed Lady, 
 is the expectation of our rewards, (p. 42.) Recite the Acts of 
 Faith, Hope, and Charity, to-day, in honour of Mary, and 
 make this one of the devotions which you will resolve to prac- 
 tise in her honour, (p. 121.) In all the infirmities of the body, 
 and all the maladies of the soul, be thou, O Mary, my refuge 
 and my relief. Numberless are the sick who through thee 
 have recovered health. Relying on thy power and goodness, I 
 fly to thee, and implore thee to heal my infirmities, and obtain 
 for me perfect health of body and of soul, that I may be the bet- 
 ter able to serve thee and thy Divine Son, (p. 146.) O hea- 
 venly Queen, thou dost excel the highest of the Angelic host 
 in merit, in s^race, and in holiness. All heavenly spirits bow 
 down before thee, and praise and glorify thee." (p. 168 ) 
 
 tThe New Month of Mary, principally designed for the Month of 
 May, by the Very Rev. P. R. Kenrick. Dolman, London, 1841. 
 Approved, April 25, 1841, by " F. P. Kenrick, Bp. Arath. and 
 Coadjl. of Bp. Philadelphia." 
 
46 LETTER V. 
 
 The next extracts shall be made from " Devotion to the holy 
 « Angels from the French of Boudon. Dublin^ 1837." 
 
 ^^The Virgin Mary ^ being the august Empress of Paradise,' 
 the Angels are her subjects, and consider it a great honour to be 
 obedient to her laws. (p. 44 ) It is most useful to perform a 
 
 Novena in honour of the Angels It may be as follows: 
 
 the first day honour the Angels of the last choir by some prayer 
 — nine Gloria Patris for example — and ask them for the grace 
 or favour you want; and thus ascend to all the choirs succes- 
 sively On the first day ask the Angels to obtain for you 
 
 a lively faith ; on the second, beg of the Arcbangels holy zeal; 
 on the third, honour the Principalities, and. beg the extinction 
 of the reign of sin. (p, 62.) Tuesday in each week . . . should 
 be sacred to the Angelic devotion, (p. 62.) If we would be 
 truly devout to the Angels, we should once for all take the re- 
 solution of avoiding deliberate faults and imperfections, pf 
 searching out and overcoming our predominant passion .... En- 
 deavour every day to sacrifice some inclination of yours in hon- 
 our of the Angels, (p. 69 ) It was proposed to form an Asso- 
 ciation for the purpose [of worshipping the Angels], each mem- 
 ber of which would successively honour the Angels in the name 
 of the rest — and thus a conlinual homage would be rendered to 
 these blessed Spirits, (p, 71.) [The Pope granted Indulgences 
 in favour of this Association, p. 71 ] Some persons devout to 
 the holy Angels .... wished to dedicate to these holy Spirits a 
 whole month— thdit of October. They during that period per- 
 form the following practices &lc O, all ye holy Angels 
 
 ....I your unworthy servant, present and offer you all the 
 practices of this month, consecrated to you, not only as a means 
 of obtaining, (here specify your request .) but also as a reparation 
 for my past ingratitude, and that of all men. (p. 75 ) [After 
 this follow, ' The Little Oflice of the Holy Angels; Hymns to 
 the Angels, Litany of the Saints w^ho have been specially 
 favoured by the Angels; Beads of the holy Angels; Litany of 
 the holy Angels; Litany of the Angel Guardian,' &c.]" 
 
 I extract the following from " Reflections on the prerogatives, 
 '' power, and protection of Saint Joseph .... with special devo- 
 " tions to that most glorious Patriarch. London, 1825." 
 
 '' He must be looked on as his (Jesus') legitimate parent, and 
 entitled in all things to the right of paternity, except that of 
 generation, which according to Rupertus Abbas, the eternal 
 father supplied, by infusing into the husband of Mary a pate^* 
 
LETTER V. 47 
 
 nal love for her Son Jesus, (p. 6.) The illuminated St. 
 Theresa of Jesus ... (said,) I have seen clearly, that this 
 Father and Lord of mine, St. Joseph, hath drawn me, as well 
 out of this necessity, being crippled with sickness, as out of 
 others greater, w^hen there was question of honour and loss of 
 my soul. (p. 37.) This glorious Saint brings also whole pro- 
 vinces and nations to the Catholic faith. JNew France owns 
 him as the propagator of His gospel whose legal parent he was. 
 (p. 64.) The universal practice of honouring our holy Patri- 
 arch, is to recite his little office, his litanies, hymn, and prayer, 
 either daily or for a set lime, (p 7-2.) There are several other 
 ways of honouring him, as to say the beads, to wear rings with 
 
 his name engraved others have on their rings Jesus, 
 
 Maria, Joseph, (p. 85.) O holy Joseph ... I. N. N. in the 
 presence of Jesus and Mary, do from this moment choose you 
 for my Lord and Master, (p. 89.) [After this follows the 
 office of St. Joseph, or worship of him seve?i times in the day, 
 The Litany o*f St. Joseph, a Hymn in his honour. Beads of St. 
 Joseph, Seven Prayers to St. Joseph in honour of his seven 
 dolours. Eight Meditations on his Life.]" 
 
 The following extracts are taken from ^"^The imitation of the 
 ^^ blessed Virgin composed on the plan of the imitation of Christ. 
 ^^From the French. Dublin, Coyne, 1836." 
 
 '^ Thou art truly become the Queen of the world, as well as 
 the Queen of Heaven . . . O Virgin Mother, the highest in grace 
 and perfection among the x\ngels, deserves only to rank among 
 thy servants ; so great is the distance between him and thee. 
 (p. 268 ) I comprehend that in that quality (Mother of Jesus) 
 thou hast a sort of right over all the treasures of grace. ... 
 Who can comprehend the elevation of thy dignity ? All is so 
 great and eminent in the Mother of God, that the Seraphims 
 themselves can only admire it. (p. 269.) At the sight of thy 
 greatness and sublime elevation, I am seized with religious fear 
 and respect, which, as it were, annihilates me at thy feet. (p. 
 270. He (God) has given her a sort of superintendence over 
 His treasures, and it is through her that He is pleased to dis- 
 tribute them to us." (p. 289.; 
 
 I quote the following from '^The glories of Saint Joseph, 
 "chiefly taken from the French of Rev. Father Paul Barrie. 
 Dublin, 1835." 
 
 "As God the Son is the Redeemer of mankind, so St. Joseph 
 is his coadjutor in this great work, since he employs all his 
 
4d LETTER V. 
 
 cares ... to gain wherewithal to nourish and maintain our mer- 
 ciful Redeemer. Lastly, as the Holy Ghost is the spouse of 
 Mary the Mother of God, so St. Joseph is also her spouse. 
 What, therefore, can be a greater subject of jealousy to the 
 Angels than this ? (p. 25.) The learned and devout Gerson 
 says, that if the first rank or hierarchy in heaven is that of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; so the second is this of Jesus, 
 Mary, and Joseph ; and that all other Saints are of a lower 
 rank, and of a different hierarchy. These other great Saints 
 hold, indeed, the first place in their rank and hierarchy, ac- 
 cording to the ordinary law of love; but not in that of the order 
 of the Hypostatical union, and in the mystery of the Incarna- 
 tion, wherein those are only comprised, who most nearly relate 
 to Jesus and Mary : namely, St. Joseph, who completes this 
 created Trinity, (p. 39, 40.) 
 
 The following passages are extracted from '"^ A Short Trea- 
 '' tise on the Antiquity, &c. of the Confraternity of our blessed 
 '' Lady of Mount Carmel. Dublin, 1838." 
 
 ^^ Another benefit or privilege of this Confraternity of the 
 Scapular, is contained in these words : he that dieth invested 
 with this habit shall not suffer eternal fire : which is as much 
 as to say, that the Scapular is a great help in order to obtain 
 eternal felicity, (p. 43.) St. Anselm saith. There is no doubt 
 but the blessed Virgin Mary, by maternal right, is with Christ, 
 president of heaven and earth, St. John Damascene saith, it 
 is fitting and convenient that Mary should possess what is her 
 
 Son's She being really Mother of the Word incarnated, 
 
 there is in all propriety due to her a certain power; or as others 
 say, a dominion over all things, as well spiritual as temporal, 
 to which the authority of her Son doth extend itself. So that 
 she had by natural right of maternity, a power almost like that 
 of her Son. (p 49.) Purify my heart, O immaculate Virgin, 
 from every sin, .... purge this soul of its aff'ection for earthly 
 and sinful goods, and raise it to the love of celestial and 
 heavenly blessings." (p. 74.) 
 
 I need not carry this proof any further. The passages which 1 
 have selected are taken almost at random from a few of your 
 books of popular devotion, and furnish but an imperfect speci- 
 men of the real state of religious worship amongst Romanists. 
 1 am obliged to refrain from citing similar passages from num- 
 bers of books now lying before me. I cannot afford space for 
 describing the multiplicity of your acts of worship and adora- 
 
LETTER V. 4» 
 
 tion to the Virgin, the Saints, and Angels — ^The special months 
 devoted to their daily worship — The repetition of hymns, pray- 
 ers, and litanies to them seven times in the day — The vows made 
 to them — The Eucharist offered to their honour — Acts of faith, 
 hope, and charity, the reception of the holy Eucharist, almsgiv- 
 ing, all the works of religion done to please them — Offerings of 
 gifts to them — Confraternities for the purpose of worshipping 
 them, supported by Papal Indulgences — Confession made to 
 them conjointly with God — The ascription of all the titles and 
 prerogatives of the Creator to his creatures. How deplorable, 
 how awful, is this scene of superstition and idolatry ! And 
 how fearful a contrast does it present to the religion of Scrips 
 ture and of Antiquity ! Can nothing awaken the conscience of 
 Romanists to a sense of what is due to God ? 
 
 I can only adduce one more passage in illustration of your 
 religious system. It is taken from the writings of Alphonsus 
 de Liguori, your favourite Saint, and describes the mode in 
 which those who are in their last agony are to be aided by the 
 priest. 
 
 ^' When the sick man comes to his agony, let the Priest em- 
 ploy the usual arms of the Church in his assistance. 1. Let 
 him often sprinkle him with Messed water, especially if he is 
 troubled by diabolical temptations. ... 2. Let him fortify him 
 with the sign of the cross, and bless him, saying, * God the 
 Father who created thee bless thee, &c.' .... 3. Let him fre- 
 quently give him the image of our Saviour and of Mary to kiss. 
 4. Let him take care that the sick person gains all the Indul- 
 gences that he can, and especially receives benediction in the 
 article of death, with plenary indulgence granted by Benedict 
 XIV 5. Let him suggest some sentiment of grief, confor- 
 mity, hope in the passion of God and the intercession of St. 
 
 Mary 6. Let him endeavour that the names of Jesus and 
 
 Mary be very frequently invoked, at least mentally, and the 
 prayer, 'Mary, mother of grace,'' be said. 7. In the last agony 
 let him cause the bystanders to say many litanies of the Virgin 
 Mary for the sick man. It is desirable to procure the bell of 
 the agony to be rung. ... 8. As the time of expiring draws 
 near, let the Priest with a mournful voice and bended knees re- 
 cite the accustomed prayers of the Church, ' Go forth, &.c.' . . . 
 9. (Directions as to handling the sick person.) 10. When he is 
 near death, let him give him a blessed candle, and thus profess 
 that he dies in the faith. 11. While he is yet sensible, it will 
 be advisable to give him Absolution frequently, after a short 
 
 14 
 
60 LETTER V. 
 
 reconciliation Let him admonish him often to call on the 
 
 names of Jesus and Mary.^ 
 
 ^' When the sick man is near expiring, the [following] acts 
 should be recited without pausing and in a loud voice [by the 
 Priest] . 
 
 "Lord Jesus receive my spirit. My God, help me, permit 
 me to come and love thee for ever. My Jesus, my Love, I 
 love thee I repent, f wish that I had never offended thee! 
 O Mary my hope, help me, pray for me to Jesus. My Jesus, 
 for thy passion save me. I love thee ! Mary, my mother, in 
 this hour help me. St. Joseph, help me. Archangel Michael, 
 defend me. Gruardian Angel, guard me. Saint JV, (here let 
 the principal protector of the sick man be named) commend me 
 to Jesus Chri^. Saints of God, intercede for me. Jesus, 
 Jesus, Jesus. Jesus and Mary, I give my heart and my soul 
 toyou!"^ 
 
 I should only injure the effect of this most awful scene by 
 oflfering any comments : I leave it to the reflections of the 
 Reader. May the last hours of those he loves have other^con- 
 solations^ — and peace. 
 
 On the remainder of your Pamphlet I can at present only 
 make one or two remarks. ^ The passages which you have 
 adduced (p. 79, 80.) in support of the doctrine of Purgatory do 
 not relate to it. They shall be examined in my next Letter. 
 I shall also have an opportunity of considering your remarks on 
 Indulgences. I did not mean to deny your veracity as you 
 suppose, (p. 84,) in calling for sufficient evidence of the fact, 
 and implying that " others might have been able to give a 
 '^ somewhat different account." I merely meant, that what 
 you did not think superstitious might have appeared in a widely 
 
 u Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, t. ix. p. 175. (Praxis Confessarii, 
 n. 276.) 
 
 X lb. p. 178, 179. 
 
 y I would refer an anonymous Correspondent to my Treatise on 
 the Church, Part ii. c. xi. objections x. aud xi. It can never, under 
 any circumstances, be lawful to profess what is false or deny what 
 is true. The wish for union may however exist *, and may be law- 
 ful, even where ^reat corruptions are visible, provided there is no 
 intention of unitmg in those corruptions, but rather an intention of 
 protesting against them. 
 
LETTER V. 51 
 
 different point of view to others. With reference to your obser- 
 vation (p. 4.) that my denial of your ordination was irrelevant, I 
 must say that it was highly relevant in a controversy between 
 you and me ; because, had I admitted your assumed title of 
 bishop, it would have been necessary to address you in a tone 
 of great respect. You have hinted that my style is uncourteous : 
 I confers that I have not treated you with any ceremony, be- 
 cause I do not recognise Romish ordinations in these countries,^ 
 and am unwilling to place them on a level with those of the Cath- 
 olic Church in England. If there has been any apparent uncourte- 
 ousness in the tone of these Letters, it has not, I assure you, 
 arisen from any desire to inflict pain ; for to yourself personally, 
 I can have no feeling but that of good-will. It is intended to 
 apply to you only in your official capacity, as Vicar Apostolic 
 and pretended bishop. 
 
 I remain. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER, 
 
 Oxford, June 8, 1841. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 A layman of the Romish persuasion, calling himself Verax, 
 has published a Letter to me on the worship of the Virgin 
 Mary, in which the Fathers are quoted copiously in justifica- 
 tion of the prayers to which attention was drawn in my First 
 Letter. This gentleman has prevented me from noticing his 
 proofs more particularly, by omitting to annex references to 
 his quotations. I observe, however, that many of them are 
 derived from spurious productions, and in particular, a long 
 passage purporting to be from S. Augustine (Sermo 18, de 
 Sanctis), on which this writer, and Mr. Ambrose Phillips in 
 his recent pamphlet, have rested the whole strength of their 
 cause. Verax, in his Appendix, puts questions and difficulties 
 to me, which only shew his entire ignorance of the Anglo- Cath- 
 olic Theology of the present day. 
 
 2 See Treatise on the Church of Christ, Part vi. chap, xi ; Episco- 
 pacy Defended ag-ainst Wiseman, Sect, xviii. 
 
SIXTH LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D.i). 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A 
 
 OP WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, 
 
 110 BAXiTIMORS STREET. 
 
 1843. 
 
A SIXTH LETTER, &c, 
 
 § 1. Introduction. 
 Sir, 
 
 lie my preceding Letters your Controversial Lectures were 
 frequently referred to for statements and proofs of Romisii doc- 
 trines, not with any particular view of calling on you for a de- 
 fence of those Lectures, but merely because they contain a re- 
 cent and tolerably authentic exposition of Romish tenets. In 
 future, however, a more sparing use shall be made of your pro- 
 ductions^ since it appears from the conclusion of your '^ Re- 
 marks" on my first Letter, that you " have on principle, declined 
 answering several attacks on your Controversial Lectures ; and 
 that it will require particular reasons to induce you to alter 
 your past course." I beg you distinctly to understand, that it 
 has not been my object to '' attack your Con*<roversial Leotujes/' 
 but to contend against the system of which they furnish a con- 
 venient exposition. This explanation will, I trust, have the 
 effect of enabling you, without any compromise of ^^ principle," 
 to continue your defence of principles and practices, in vindica- 
 tion of which you so eagerly rushed forward, when you ima- 
 gined that they had been misrepresented by Mr. Newman. 
 
 The course of these Letters now brings us to consider the 
 doctrine of Purgatory. And here. Sir, I am ready to admit, 
 that if the description given by Romish controversialists of their 
 belief on this point, did really and fairly represent the doctrines 
 which are currently received amongst you, we might be in 
 some degree inclined to wonder at the opposition which has 
 been made to the doctrine of Purgatory. It is the uniform 
 practice of your modern writers to keep out of view all those 
 offensive doctrines which are universally received amongst 
 Romanists, although they have not been actually and formally 
 defined by the Council of Trent ; and we are thus to be persua- 
 ded, that the Roman Churches are in no degree responsible for 
 such doctrines — that they are the mere private opinions of indi- 
 viduals — that they may be disputed or denied at pleasure ; 
 while at the same time, those very doctrines are sedulously 
 inculcated on your own people, universally believed and appro- 
 
4 LETTER Vl. 
 
 ved ; and their denial by any member of your Communion, 
 would cause the highest scandal. They are never, in fact 
 opposed by any Romanists, without bringing down on them the 
 imputation of Jansenism, or of some other heresy ; and if your 
 opponents are ever able to bring it to the test whether you really 
 do or do not hold them, we find that they are immediately 
 defended with the utmost pertinacity. 
 
 Of this you have yourself afforded an example in the present 
 controversy. Romanists are continually assuring us, that they 
 only invoke the Saints to ''/pray for us''^ to God, and that they 
 are, therefore, most unjustly accused of idolatrous practices. I 
 shewed, that it is an aiithoi^ized practice in your Communion, to 
 pray to the Saints in the very terms in which God is address- 
 ed ; to offer them Divine honours , to regard them as fountains 
 of grace ; to place religious trust and confidence in them ; to 
 set them, in every respect, on a level with God. You had 
 repudiated all such imputations ; but when they were actually 
 brought home to your Communion, you at once stepped forward 
 to express your approbation of all the most obnoxious expressions 
 and practices that had been adduced, and to justify them by 
 still more objectionable passages from spurious and forged 
 writings. 
 
 The same line of proceeding has been followed by your con- 
 troversialists with reference to the doctrine now before us. 
 The obnoxious doctrines connected with Purgatory are never 
 obtruded on us : they are studiously kept out of view : and our 
 attention is directed only to the points which have been for- 
 mally defined by the Council of Trent. Thus Dr. Milner 
 remarks, that '' all which is necessary to be believed by Roman- 
 ists on this subject, is contained in the following brief declara- 
 tion of the Council of Trent : ' There is a Purgatory, and the 
 souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful, 
 and particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.'"^ M. 
 Bouvier, Bishop of Mans, observes, that these '' two points only 
 have been defined by the Church as matters of Catholic faith," 
 and that '' other matters are left free to the discussion of theo- 
 logians."^ Perrone again, as cited by you in your Letter to 
 Mr. Newman, (p. 15), makes nearly the same statement; and 
 adds, that " every thing relating to the place, duration, and 
 quality of the pains of Purgatory, does not pertain to the Catho- 
 lic faith," &c. " The Faith of Catholics," by the Romish 
 priests Berington and Kirk, states, that all such questions are 
 '' superfluous and impertinent as to faith." (^nd Ed. p. 355) 
 
 a End of Controv. Lett, xliii. 
 
 f> Tractatus de Pcenitentia,p. 285. 
 
LETTER VI. 5 
 
 If, Sir, the doctrine of Purgatory went no further than this, I 
 believe there would not be any great repugnance to it. If to 
 assert that "" there is a Purgatory, and that the souls detained 
 there are helped by our prayers," be sufficient, we need not have 
 any further difference on this point. We admit '^ a Purgatory" 
 just as much as you do, that is to say, a Purgatory in this 
 present life ; and we believe " that the souls detained there 
 are helped by the prayers of the faithful." Will tiiis satisfy 
 you ? Oh no ! You will be ready to pronounce such a doctrine 
 mere heresy. It is therefore evident, that your doctrine goes 
 beyond the mere wording of the decree of Trent^ or of the 
 Creed of Pius V. Let us, then, ascertain what the doctrine of 
 Romanists really is. 
 
 In my first Letter (p. 27.) I enquired, in reference to your 
 quotation from Perrone, which was intended to shew that Ro- 
 manists are at liberty to speculate on the nature of Purgatory, 
 whether he does not add to his statement, " that the doctrine 
 of a purging material fire is the general and most probable opin- 
 ion of theologians ? ;" and I also requested you to produce the 
 entire passage. With this request you have declined to com- 
 ply 't'^ and I shall therefore copy what immediately follows your 
 quotation, in order that we may be able to see how far Roman- 
 ists are at liberty to speculate on points involved in the doctrine 
 of Purgatory, though not actually comprised in the definition of 
 the Council of Trent. 
 
 Having stated then, that '' matters relating to the place, 
 duration, and quality of pains in Purgatory do not pertain to 
 to the Catholic faith," Perrone proceeds thus : 
 
 ^^ We are not ignorant, that there are some of those things 
 which we have said do not pertain to faith, which although 
 they he not defined, cannot he rejected without a mark of 
 temerity; since not only the common doctrine of theologians 
 concerning them, (from which it is unlawful for any discreet 
 Catholic to depart without most weighty reason,) is sufficiently 
 known ; but also the sense oj the Church herself, especially with 
 reference to the severity of th£ punishments with which 
 SOULS are tortured in Purgatory."*^ 
 
 c Remarks, &c., p. 78. 
 
 d Haud ignoramus ex his, quse diximns ad fidem minime spectarci 
 aliqua esse, quae quamvis definita non sint, absque temeritalis nota 
 rejici non posse, quum satis innotescat circa ea non solum commu- 
 nis theologorum doctrina, aqua cordato Catholico absque gravissima 
 causa recedere nefas est. sed insupef ipsius ecclesiae sensus, prseser- 
 tim circa poenarum acerbitatem, quibus animse in Purgfatorio cruci- 
 antur.— Perrone, Theologia, t. iii. p. 321. ed. Rom. 1836. 
 15* 
 
g LETTER VI. 
 
 This passage throws considerable light on the subject. It 
 appears that although Perrone does not expressly state that the 
 doctrine of a material purging fire is most commonly received 
 by theologians, he does inform us, that there are various points, 
 not put before us by Romish Controversialists, which cannot be 
 rejected by Romanists, without rendering themselves liable to 
 formal condemnation by the authorities of their Communion; 
 for the '' common doctrine of theologians," and " the sense of 
 the Church herself" are the ordinary grounds for Papal and 
 Episcopal censures. Let us next endeavour to ascertain, what 
 points may be considered to have the general sanction of theolo- 
 gians, and to represent the sense of the Roman Church. 
 
 § 2. Doftrine of Purgatory stated and refuted. 
 
 I. In the first place then, it is the doctrine of the Roman 
 Church and of all her theologians, that the souls detained in Pur- 
 gatory suffer dreadful tortures from fire, as well as in many 
 other ways, and that their punishment differs from that of hell 
 only in duration, the one being temporal, the other eternal. 
 Bouvier Bishop of Mans writes in the following terms : ''Ml 
 agree that there is a twofold punishment in Purgatory, one of 
 'loss,' which is the delay of the beatific vision ; and the other 
 of ' sense.' This, according to the Greeks, is caused by severe 
 labours and pains : but the constant belief of the Latins is, that 
 there is in Purgatory a material fire like the fire of hell ; and 
 therefore that the Church, in praying for the souls of the f§iith- 
 ful, does not ask merely for ' a place of light and peace,' but for 
 a place ' of cooling,^ i. e. against the ardour of the fire.''® " It 
 is certain,''^ says Cardinal Bellarmine, '' that in Purgatory, as 
 also in hell, is a punishment of fire, whether that fire be under- 
 stood properly or metaphorically."^ In another place he ob- 
 serves that the temporal punishment to be endured after the 
 remission of sin, «Ms the very same sensible punishment which 
 the sinner ought to have suffered in hell, with the exception of 
 its eternity. ''^s Dens teaches that the pains of Purgatory are the 
 same as those of hell.'' Delahogue says that '- theologians com- 
 monly teach" t^iat the souls in Purgatory " are confined in some 
 dark prison, and tortured by some fire.''^ Natalis Alexander 
 having observed that '' it is not a dogma oi faith that the fire of 
 
 e Bouvier, de Pcenitentia, p. 285. 
 
 f Bellarniinus de Purg^atorio, lib. ii. c. x. 
 
 g Bellarminus de Pcenitentia, lib. iv. c. i. 
 
 ii Dens, 'rheologia, t. vi. p. 40. 
 
 i Delahogue, de Poenitentia, p. 304. 
 
LETTER TI. 7 
 
 Purgatory is real and corporeal," says, '' I reply thirdly, that 
 according to the more probable opinion received by the 
 CHirRCH, the fire of Purgatory is real and corporeal, and never- 
 theless tortures incorporeal souls."^ In fine. Pope Benedict XIV. 
 fully explains to us the doctrine of the Roman Church, as to 
 the tortures suffered in Purgatory. 
 
 He recnarks on a certain part of the Canon of the Mass, that 
 the Priest therein prays, ^'^ for all those who are expiating in 
 the Jire of Purgatory ; and requests for them all ^ a place of 
 cooling,' which refers to that fire in which they are burning ; 
 ^ a place of light,' which relates to that darkness in which they 
 are ; ^ a place of repose,' which regards that anxiety of mind 
 with which they are struggling ; by which threefold species of 
 punishments those miserable souls are expiated by the Divine 
 Justice."^ 
 
 In explaining a disputed passage in a Mass for the dead, the 
 same Pontiff says : " But that we may determine something^ it 
 seems that we should say that the Church, in that anthem or 
 ofFertor)^ in Masses for the dead, means the punishments of 
 Purgatory ; and calls Purgatory hell^ because there is 
 THE SAME FIRE IN BOTH PLACES J and prays that souls may be 
 delivered ' from the deep pit, and the mouth of the lion,' that 
 is, from the subterranean prison in which the souls of the just 
 are expiated ; and finally, that the Church prays of God that 
 ^ Tartarus may not swallow them up, and that they may not 
 fall into darkness,' that is, that they may not be longer detained 
 in that gloomy prison^ struggling in so many tortures.""^' 
 
 This then is the sense of the Roman Church, from which, 
 as Perrone remarks^ no discreet member of her Communion can 
 recede, without the imputation of temerity at least. It is her 
 doctrine, that the souls in Purgatory are tortured by fire, and 
 other torments, in the same manner as the lost souls are tor- 
 tured in hell. 
 
 II. It is also held, that the duration of the pains of Purgatory 
 is wholly unknown, and those who have maintained that they 
 are of short duration, have been condemned by the Romafi 
 Church. Tournely says that we cannot and ought not certainly 
 to affirm any thing with regard to '^ the duration" of this pun- 
 ishment.^' Bouvier, Bishop of Mans, in reply to the question 
 ^' How long are the souls of the just detained in Purgatory ?" 
 says, '' This is wholly unknown : Alexander VII. condemned 
 
 ^ Natalis Alex. Dissert, xlv. in Ssec. iv. 
 
 ^ Benedict, xiv. De Sacrificio Missse, p. 128. ed Ferrarise, 1767. 
 
 m Benedict, ubi sujn^a, p. 77. 
 
 n Tournely De Deo, t. i. p. 582. 
 
8 LETTER Vr. 
 
 the following proposition, ' An annual legacy left for a sduf^ 
 does not last longer tlian ten years.' St. Augustine recommen- 
 ded his mother thirty years after her death to the sacrifices and 
 prayers of his readers : the Church celebrates anniversaries ap- 
 pointed many ages before for certain souls in particular. There- 
 fore it may be that souls remain for a great length of time in 
 Purgatory, and many interpret those words of St. Peter (1 Rp. 
 iii. 19, 20,) ^ By which also he went and preached to the spirits 
 in prison, which were some time unbelieving, when once they 
 waited for the long-suffering of God, in the days of Noe^ when 
 the ark was preparing,' of the souls detained in Purgatory from 
 the time of the Deluge, to the descent of Christ into hell, that 
 is, for two thousand years and itpwards.^^ Thus it is evident, 
 that, according^to the received Romish doctrine, the time spent 
 in Purgatory by the souls of the just is of an unknown length, 
 and may extend to many thousands of years. 
 
 III. It is a matter of debate amongst Romish theologians, 
 whether the souls detained in Purgatory are not tortured hy 
 devils. '^ It is uncertain," says Bouvier, " whether the devils tor- 
 ture the righteous in Purgatory; some grave theologians with St. 
 Thomas, deny it ; but St. Bernard affirms it, whose opinion is 
 favoured by the liturgies, in which God is entreated to deliver 
 those souls from the lion's mouth."? Cardinal Bellarmine ob- 
 serves that the doctrine is uncertain, because the schoolmen 
 with St. Thomas, deny it ; but ^' on the other hand, that the 
 souls in Purgatory are tortured by devils, is taught by many 
 revelations, as that of St. Furseus in Beda, lib. ii. c. 19, and in 
 Dionysius Carthusianus," &c.^ 
 
 IV. I have now only to add that it is the doctrine of the Roman 
 Church and of all your theologians, that Purgatory receives 
 only the souls of the just, i. e. of those persons who die in a 
 state of justification and grace^ fr€e from the guilt of mortal sin. 
 
 The Council of Trent distinctly intimates that ^' after the 
 grace of justification is received," temporal penalties for sin 
 remain to be endured in this world or in Purgatory."^ The 
 Catechism of the Council describes it as " a fire in which the 
 souls of the pious, being tortured for a certain time> are expiated."* 
 
 o Bouvier, De Poenit. p. 287. 
 
 p Bouvier, p. 286. 
 
 q Bellarminus De Purgatorio, lib. ii. c. xiv. 
 
 r Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam, cuilibet peccatori 
 poenitentia ita culpam remitti, ut reatum seterna? poense deleri dix- 
 erit, ut nullu3 remaneat rcatus pcena3 temporalis exsolvendse vel in 
 hoc saeculo vel in future in Purgatorio, antequ^irn ad re^na ccBlorum 
 aditus patere possit; anathema'sit. Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. can. 30. 
 
 3 Praeterea est purgatorius ig^nis, q«o pigrum animae ad definitum 
 
LETTER VI. 9 
 
 lossuet says that ^^ those who depart this life in this state of 
 ^race and charity, bat without having discharged their debt of 
 temporal punishment reserved by the Justice of God, suffer that 
 mnishment in the other life."^ Perrone says: "'By the 
 word ^ Purgatory' we mean a state of expiation, to endure for a 
 time, in which Jws^ souls ... are detained."" Tournely, Bou- 
 vier, Delahogue, and all your other Divines, employ exactly 
 the same language. 
 
 Having thus ascertained what doctrines on the subject of 
 Purgatory are received, approved, and authorized in the Roman 
 Communion, though they have not been formally defined by 
 the Council of Trent, we are in a position to explain to you the 
 reasons for which the public in this country so strongly object 
 to the doctrine in question. 
 
 '^ I am at a loss to conceive," you say, *' what can be consid- 
 ered in it repugnant to the justice of God, or to the ordinary 
 ways of Providence ; what can be found therein opposed to the 
 moral law, in the remotest degree. The idea that God, besides 
 condemning some to eternal punishment, and receiving others 
 to eternal glory, should have been pleased to appoint a middle 
 and temporary state, in which those who are not sufficiently 
 guilty for the severer condemnation, nor sufficiently pure to en- 
 joy the vision of His face, are for a time punished and purged, 
 so as to be qualified for this blessing, assuredly contains nothing 
 but what is most accordant to all we can conceive of His justice, 
 .... What then, in God's name, is there in this doctrine, 
 viewed simply in itself, that can make it so popular a theme of 
 declamation against Catholics? The anti- Scriptural docinne 
 of Purgatory, as it is termed, is more frequently than almost 
 any other of our less important dogmas, the theme of obloquy 
 and misrepresentation."^ 
 
 Let me endeavour to account to you for the feelings of which 
 you complain, and at the same time to shew that they are just 
 and well-founded. 
 
 In the first place, then, T would again draw your attention to 
 the fact that Romanists most positively assert, that none but 
 
 tempus cruciatse expiantur, ut eis in seternam patriam ingressus 
 patere possit, in quam nihil coinquinatum ingreditur. Cat. Cone. 
 Trid. pars i. art. v. c. 5. 
 
 t Bossuet, Eposition, c. vii. 
 
 u Perrone, Prsel. Theol. vol. iii. p. 308. ed. Lovan. 1839. 
 
 X Wiseman, Controv. ^.ectures^ ii, p. 52, 53. 
 
10 LEISTER VI 
 
 the just or righteous are admitted into Purgatory. Its punish- 
 ments are reserved exclusively for those who die without the 
 guilt of mortal sin, and in a state of justification. The pains of 
 Purgatory are supposed to be inflicted in order to satisfy the 
 justice of God for the temporal punishment still remaining due 
 for remitted mortal sin, or for venial sin still remaining. You 
 will not dispute the correctness of this statement. 
 
 In the second place, let us consider what you believe to be the 
 relation of the just to God, or w^hat is implied in justification* 
 According to the Council of Trent, then, " Justification is not 
 merely remission of sin, but sand ijicat ion, and the renewal of 
 the inner man by the voluntary reception of grace and Divine 
 gifts ; so that he who w^as unrighteous is made righteous, and 
 the enemy becomes a friend, and an heir according to the hope 
 of eternal life. . . . When a man is justified, and united to 
 Jesus Christ, he receives, together with the remission of sins, 
 the following gifts bestowed upon him at the same time, namely, 
 faith, hope, and charity. ""^ 
 
 Thus justification includes the gift of sanctifying grace ; and 
 according to Perrone, whose theology is taught in the Univer- 
 sity of Rome, ^' Sanctifying grace, which is usually called 
 * habitual,' is commonly defined as ' a supernatural gift of God, 
 permanently inherent in the soul, by which a man is. immedi- 
 ately and formally rendered holy, just, pleasing to God, the 
 adoptive Son of God, capable of doing works deserving of eter- 
 nal life, and an heir of the same.' From this definition the 
 whole system of Catholic doctrine, with regard to the nature of 
 this grace and its effects, is collected ; as, first, that it is intrin- 
 sic to our souls, or closely adherent to them ; secondly, that it 
 washes the soul from its defilement, and makes it refulgent ivith 
 a sort of Divine beauty ; thirdly, that this sanctifying grace is 
 inseparable from justification, which depends on it, since a sin- 
 ner is, by one and the same act, made just and holy^^ 
 
 When therefore, you speak of n just man — of one who has 
 received the grace of justification, you mean that he is recon- 
 ciled to God ; holy ; full of faith, hope, and charity ; full of all- 
 sanctifying grace ; free from the defilement of sin ; refulgent 
 with the beauty of sanctity, a child of God, an heir of salvation, 
 well pleasing to God, united to Jesus Christ. There is in short 
 no term applied by Scripture to the holy objects of God's 
 love, which you do not believe applicable in all its fulness to 
 the JMs^ And yet. Sir, you hold that God consigns these his 
 
 y Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. cap. vii. 
 « Perrone, Prael. Theol. t. v. p. 210. 
 
LETTER VI. ll 
 
 beloved children to the tortures of Hell, for a period, the extent 
 of which you cannot in any way calculate ! You believe tliat 
 they are, perhaps for thousands of years, tortured in the same 
 fire which torments the lost spirits ; that they are enveloped in 
 darkness, struggling in anxiety of mind ; and in fine, perfectly 
 " miserable." And this, ISir, is the representation you give 
 of the mercy and justice of God. The mercy of God is, accord- 
 ing to your doctrine, exhibited in demanding payment '^ even 
 to the last farthing" for venial sins, and plunging the objects of 
 His love into the torment of the damned, because they have 
 departed this life without satisfying for some trivial fault. The 
 justice of God is shewn by His exacting payment " even to the 
 last farthing" for sins which He has already pardoned — and by 
 imposing the tortures of the reprobate and of devils on those 
 who are "just" and '' holy," and ^'^ washed from all defilement," 
 and whose souls are '^ refulgent with divine beauty !" 
 
 Can it be a matter of surprise even to yourself, that we reject 
 such doctrine, as most highly injurious to God .'' 1 cannot un- 
 derstand how it is possible, that with such fatits as these before 
 the world, you can venture to appeal to our sense of the ^' jus- 
 tice" of God in connexion with the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 You are " at a loss to conceive what can be considered in it re- 
 pugnant to the justice of God." We are equally at a loss to 
 imagine, how the justice of God can be believed by those who 
 embrace the doctrine of Purgatory, as generally taught and 
 held in the Church of Rome. 
 
 But further : according to your doctrine, the punishment of 
 'Purgatory is required by the unsatisfied justice of God. The 
 injinite atonement offered by our Lord Jesus Christ is, it 
 seems, insufficient to satisfy the demands of Divine Justice. 
 No : after that atonement has been applied to the soul, and 
 has produced its full justification and sanctification. Divine 
 Justice still remains unsatisfied ! What then, we would ask, 
 is the benefit of Christ's atonement for sin, if it does not satisfy 
 the JUSTICE of God ? If that justice be not satisfied by the 
 merits of Christ applied in justification, we may say with the 
 Apostle, " Your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then, 
 they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." (1 
 Cor. XV. 18, 19.) The doctrine of Purgatory, therefore, sub- 
 verts our hope of Salvation. It leaves the justified without 
 any shield against the demands of infinite and awful justice. 
 Let it not be alleged, in reply, that the justice of God is par- 
 tially appeased by the merits of Christ applied in justification, 
 hut that it has further demands on us; for this still subverts 
 our belief in the infinite value of Christ's atonement : it as* 
 
12 LETTER VI. 
 
 sumes most unwarrantably, that the demands of infinite justice 
 are capable of division : it leaves us in total uncertainty as to 
 the amount of the demands which Divine justice may have upon 
 lis : in fine, in admitting that it has any demands on us at all^ 
 it shakes our confidence in the atonement of our Lord : it teaches 
 us to look away from that atonement, and to place our confidence 
 in other things which still remain, to save us from the tremen- 
 dous inflictions of a justice and a wrath which not even the 
 death of the incarnate Deity could appease ! Oh, how frail, 
 how fearful is this hope ! How would the repentant and justi- 
 fied sinner shudder to find himself on the brink of this preci- 
 pice, with the tortures of Hell before him, and with nothing 
 to satisfy the demands of Divine justice — nothing to appease 
 the terrors of Divine wrath, except some of his own works and 
 observances in the few years of sin and infirmity which he 
 spends in this life ! What can be the value of those breathings 
 and actings of a worm ? Can they satisfy that justice which 
 God Himself, " manifest in the flesh," has failed to satisfy ? 
 Can they afford any ground of hope, when the verij sacrifice of 
 Christ, from which they derive whatever worth they may claim, 
 is itself pronounced insufficient to meet the demands of divine 
 justice ? 
 
 But this, Sir, is not the whole of your received doctrine on 
 the point. I have already shewn that you, and all Romish 
 theologians teach, as a matter of course, that temporal punish- 
 ments inflicted on the justified, whether in this world or in 
 Purgatory, are necessary to appease the '^ wrath," the " anger," 
 and the " vengeance" of an offended God.* You believe, there- 
 fore, that God is full of wrath and revenge towards the souls 
 in Purgatory ; and yet you believe, as I have shewn in this let- 
 ter, that those very souls are just, holy, full of faith, hope, and 
 charity ; well-pleasing to God, and refulgent with divine beauty ! 
 Is not this something like blasphemy ? I am sure that Roman- 
 ists have no intention whatever to teach any doctrines which 
 can be in any degree injurious to God. I am equally certain 
 that they rarely think of comparing the doctrine of Purgatory 
 with that of Justification. But the result of their doctrine is 
 simply this : that the Saints are pursued by the Divine hatred 
 and revenge ! I would now ask you, whether you can much 
 wonder at the repugnance with which your doctrine of Purga- 
 tory is viewed ; and I would still more solemnly and earnestly 
 enquire, whether it is possible that such a doctrine can be 
 true ? 
 
 a Letter II. p. 39—41. 
 
LETTER VI. 13 
 
 Your writers endeavour to obviate the prejudice which must 
 be excited against the doctrine of Purgatory when understood, 
 by representing that the punishment thus inflicted, is, after all, 
 somewhat milder than that of hell ; for as Dens says, "It is 
 much alleviated by the friendship of God and the certainty of ob- 
 taining glory, and by resignation to the most just will of God."^ 
 But let me ask% how can those souls feel consolation from the 
 "friendship" of God, when, according to your doctrine, they are 
 still subjects of His "justice," His " wrath," His "anger," and 
 His " venoreance ?" And what reason is there to maintain that 
 souls in Purgatory are " certain of obtaining glory," when the 
 *^ justice" of God, which demands eternal punishment^ still re- 
 mains unsatisfied ? It is imagined that their future happiness 
 is made known to them by revelation in their particular judgment 
 after death, and before the general judgment; and that such 
 souls know that they have continued in a state of grace and 
 will therefore be finally saved. But Sir, according to your re- 
 ceived doctrine, they know equall}'' well, that they are subject 
 to the demands of God^s justice and wrath ; and they have just 
 as much reason therefore to think, that they shall be saved for 
 a time, and finally punished ; as to think that they shall be 
 punished for a time and finally saved. In short. Sir, "resig- 
 nation" is the only consolation remaining to such souls; and 
 easy as it may be to be resigned to the inflictions of a loving 
 Father — a reconciled God ; it is not so easy to feel resignation 
 under the punishments of an angry and wrathful God. If it 
 were so, we might suppose that the punishments of the damned 
 and of devils may be alleviated by resignation. No : resigna- 
 tion was never intended to be exercised in diminishing the de- 
 mands 0^ justice and of vengeance. It is in vain, therefore, that 
 any attempt is made to draw distinctions between the punish- 
 ments of Hell and of Purgatory ; and this attempt is at once 
 entirely and utterly subverted, by the direct assertions of Bene- 
 dict XIV., Bellarmine, Cajetan, Dens, and others, that the 
 punishment of Purgatory "is the very same as that of 
 Hell, its eternity only being removed." 
 
 The answer of Romanists to all this may be readily anticipated. 
 They will exclaim : " This is not our belief: it has never been 
 defined by the Church : it is no where to be found written in 
 express terms in the Council of Trent : we are therefore not 
 required to believe it." In this manner they would gladly re- 
 lieve themselves from the imputation of such errors, and from 
 the legitimate prejudices which they are calculated to excite. 
 
 b Dens, Theol. lib. vii. p. 354. 
 16 
 
14 LETTER VI. 
 
 But they cannot escape under these pretexts ; for I admit 
 indeed that the whole mass of doctrine on Purgatory which has 
 been produced^ has not been formally defined by the Council of 
 Trent^ and therefore that it is not strictly defide in the Roman 
 obedience ; but I assert, on the authority of their most eminent 
 divines, that the doctrines I have adduced, are, in fact gener- 
 ally, if not universally, received, held and acted on in their 
 Communion — that they are received without censure or disap- 
 probation from any authority — and that any Romanist who 
 openly opposed or censured them, would be liable to censure 
 from authority. I would in short ask. Whether any Roman- 
 ist is now prepared to censure or publicly reject any of the 
 above doctrines ?^ Will he anathematize or even censure the 
 doctrine, that the souls of the righteous are tortured in Purga- 
 tory — that they are struggling in fiery tortures — that they suf- 
 fer torments of sense — that the pains they suffer are most horri- 
 ble, and far beyond any that are endured in this life — that they 
 differ from the tortures of hell chiefly in duration — that this 
 torture is of unknown length, and may continue for thousands 
 of years — that it is exacted by God's justice, after sin has been 
 pardoned — that it is inflicted by an angry God on the justified ? 
 No, Sir : neither you, nor any other Romanist will venture to 
 uplift your voice against this doctrine, although it is not con- 
 tained in the decrees of Trent. It is therefore the doctrine of 
 Romanists — the received and approved doctrine in their Com- 
 munion ; though it may not be defide ;- and therfore they can- 
 not escape from it, or persuade us that it is not really their doc- 
 trine. Let us see it openly disputed and denied, with impunity, 
 by Romanists ; and then, but not till then, will we exonerate 
 them from the charges to which it gives rise. 
 
 § 3. Romish Proofs from Theological Reasons and Scripture, 
 
 refuted. 
 
 Let us now come to your arguments in proof of the doctrine 
 of Purgatory. 
 
 I. The first and leading argument of all your theologians is, 
 that '^ since temporal punishments are due to Divine justice for 
 remitted sins, such punishments, if not averted by satisfactions 
 in this world, must be endured in Purgatory." 
 
 I have already shewn that the foundations of this argument 
 are perfectly untenable. It has been proved in Letters II. and 
 III., that the doctrine of temporal penalties being due to God's 
 justice for remitted sin, is unsupported by Revelation, opposed 
 to the word of God, contradictory to sound doctrine, inconsistent 
 
LETTER VI. 15 
 
 with the doctrine of the Roman Church herself. I have farther 
 proved in Letters III. and IV., that satisfactions or penitential 
 works for remitted sins, are not required by God. Hence it 
 follows, as a matter of course, that the above argument of your 
 writers for Purgatory is wholly unavailing ; and we are en- 
 titled to reverse it in the following manner. 
 
 According to the Gospel, the Divine justice is satisfied, and 
 the anger of God is appeased, when sin has been remitted by 
 the infinite merits of Christ applied by true repentance, (com- 
 prising contrition, confession, and works of repentance.) Con- 
 sequently, no further penalties can be exacted by Uivine justice 
 or anger from the justified believer ; and therefore he has no 
 debt of satisfaction to pay in this life or another ; although he 
 may be afflicted by God for his greater sanctification, and is 
 always bound to live a life of humility, watchfulness, and self- 
 denial. 
 
 II. There is another favourite argument of all your theolo- 
 gians, which I shall (merely for the sake of convenience) give 
 in your own words . ^^ No one will venture to assert that all sins 
 are equal before God — that there is no difference between those 
 cold-blooded and deliberate acts of crime which the hardened 
 villain perpetrates, and those smaller and daily transgressions 
 into which we habitually, and almost inadvertently, fall. At 
 the same time, we know that God cannot bear to look on ini- 
 quity, however small ; that He requires whatever comes into 
 His presence to be perfectly pure and worthy of Him ; and we 
 might rationally conclude that there should be some means, 
 whereby those who are m the middle state of offence, between 
 deep and deadly transgressions on the one hand, and a state of 
 perfect purity and holiness on the other, may be dealt with ac- 
 cording to the just measure of His justice.'"^ '' We are assured 
 in the new Law, that ' nothing defiled shall enter into the 
 heavenly Jerusalem.' Rev. xxi. 27. Suppose then, that a 
 Christian dies, who had committed some slight transgression : 
 he cannot enter Heaven in this state, and yet we cannot sup- 
 pose that he is to be condemned for ever. What alternative 
 then are we to admit ? Why, that there is some place in 
 which the soul will be purged of the sin, and qualified to enter 
 into the glory of God."^ 
 
 This, Sir, is the palmary argument of all your writers in 
 support of the doctrine of Purgatory. They all contend, with 
 you, that those who die after having committed some of those 
 smaller transgressions, defects, or faults, which you call venial 
 
 c Controv. Lectures, vol. ii. p. 52, 53. 
 d Ibid. p. 57. 
 
16 LETTER VI. 
 
 sins, cannot be admitted into Heaven, into which " nothing defi- 
 led" can enter ; and consequently that they must be purified 
 from the guilt of those venial sins in Purgatory. 
 
 Let us now consider for a moment what your opinions are 
 with regard to venial sin, and whether you really consider it to 
 be sin at all, properly speaking. It is the doctrine of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, that, for sins committed after baptism, the sacrament 
 of penitence is the divinely-appointed remedy } " If any one 
 '' saith, that penitence is not truly and properly a sacrament in- 
 ^^ stituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful to God 
 '^ as often as they fall into sins after baptism ; let him be Ana- 
 '^ thema."® The same doctrine is taught by the Catechism of 
 the Council. ^^ After the baptismal innocence is lost, unless 
 ^*^one takes refuge in penitence, without doubt, his salvation 
 *^ should be despaired of "^ According to Perrone, penitence 
 as a sacrament is universally defined ' A sacrament instituted 
 '^ by Christ the Lord, in which, by the authoritative absolution 
 " of the priests, a man who is contrite, and has confessed, re- 
 '^ ceives remission of his sins committed after baptism.' "s The 
 same definition is given by Tournely,^^ Bouvier,^ Dens, and 
 your other theologians and writers. Hence therefore it is plain, 
 that you believe the sacrament of penance to be the divinely-ap- 
 pointed mode of obtaining remission of sins committed after bap- 
 tism. 
 
 It is also certain that you do not believe that venial sins are 
 properly or necessarily the subject of this sacrament. You be- 
 lieve that they are a sufficient subject ; i. e. that a person may, 
 if he wishes, confess venial sins, ana reutivc abisoKition for 
 them ; but you do not consider it necessary to do so.^ It is the 
 judgment of your theologians that, although the Canon of the 
 Lateran Synod Onmis utriusque sexsu, renders it absolutely 
 incumbent on every member of your Communion to confess all 
 his sins once in the year, yet, nevertheless, it is not incumbent 
 on those who are conscious only of venial sins to confess them ;' 
 and that a priest is bound to administer the Eucharist without 
 exacting any previous confession, if the petitioner declares that 
 he is only guilty of venial sin."^ 
 
 e Concil. Trident. Sess. xiv. c. i. 
 
 f Cat. Cone. Tridentini, pars ii. De Poen. Sacramento. 
 
 g Perrone, Prajl. Theol. t. vi. p. 366. 
 
 h Tournely, De Pcenit. t. i. p. 10. 
 
 i Bouvier, Do. Poenit. p. 7. 
 
 kDens, Theolog^ia, t vi. p. 7; Li^orio, Theol. Moral, t. vi. p. 45 
 79; Tournely, De Pcenit. t. i. p. 102; Bouvier, De Poenit. p. 3 2* 
 Perrone, ubi supra, p. 455. 
 
 1 Lig-orio, Theoloffia Moral, t. vi. p. 319. 
 
 «»Ibid. p. 318. 
 
■If 
 
 LETTER VI. 17 
 
 Now, Sir, we may fairly conclude from this, that the Roman 
 Church herself does not believe that venial sin is properly and 
 really sin at all. St. Thomas, according to Tournely, thinks 
 that " repentance, really and properly so called, is not neces- 
 ^^ sary for the remission of venial sins, but a virtual displeasing- 
 '' ness in this life, or the pain of Purgatory in another."^ The 
 Council of Trent itself declares, that venial sins may be remit- 
 ted in many ways besides by penitence ;° and Tournely? and 
 Dens^ (after St. Thomas Aquinas) consider the repetition of the 
 Lord's Prayer, knocking on the breast, the sprinkling of holy 
 water, a Bishop's or a Priest's blessing, and other similar mat- 
 ters, quite sufficient to remove the guilt of venial sin. Ligorio, 
 after Aquinas, affirms, that '^ any motion of grace or charity" 
 remits venial sin.^ It is evident, then, that venial sin is, in 
 your opinion, a very slight and trifling fault, failing, infirmity, 
 or imperfection, rather than a real sin. If you believed it a sin, 
 strictly speaking, you would apply the remedy which you be- 
 lieve God to have instituted for the remission of sin, and would 
 oblige your people to confess it every year. 
 
 But besides this, you believe that venial sin is perfectly con- 
 sistent with a state of justification and grace; and consequently, 
 as I have shewn, you are firmly convinced, that notwithstand- 
 ing a justified person may have committed venial sin, he is 
 nevertheless "^ holy, just, well pleasing' to God, united to 
 Christ, endowed with the grace of sanctijication, refulgent with 
 Divine beauty.'''' 
 
 So then your doctrine comes to this : That those who are full 
 of holiness and of all heavenly graces, are, on account of some 
 trifling failings, which do not even require repentance, to be 
 tortured in Purgatory, with the punishment of devils, for an 
 unknown length of time ! Is this your representation of the 
 justice of God ? 
 
 And you also maintain, that those who are thus holy, thus 
 sanctified, thus united to Christ, are unworthy to be received 
 into heaven ! Yes : because it is written, that ^^ there shall in 
 no wise enter into it any thing that defleth, neither whatsoever 
 worketh " abomination, or maketh a lie ; but they which are 
 '' written in the Lamb's book of life;" (Rev. xxi. 27.) You 
 assert, that the justified who die after the commission of some 
 trivial fault are unfit to enter Heaven. The '^'^ justified" then, 
 
 n Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 623. 
 <> Concil. Trid. Sess. xiv. c. v, 
 p Tournely, De Poenit. t. i. p. 104. 
 q Dens, Theol. t. vi. p. 39. 
 "^ Ligorio, ubi supra, p. 44. 
 
 16* 
 
18 LETTER VI. 
 
 according to you, are defiled ! The " holy" are defiled! The 
 ^«^ members of Christ" are defiled! The "children of God" 
 are defiled ! They are too impure to be received into Heaven; 
 and yet they are not too impure to be '^ members of Christ." 
 They are fit to be " members of Christ/' but they are so defiled 
 that they cannot be permitted to enter His presence. Was 
 there ever knowa such an absurd, such a monstrous, such a 
 contradictory doctrine ? If no one shall be received into Hea- 
 ven that " maketh a lie,'''' those v^^ho uphold this doctrine may 
 well tremble. Those who would consign to the tortures of hell 
 the holy and glorious objects of God's love, are themselves guilty 
 of a mortal sin against the God of truths of mercy, and of 
 charity. 
 
 III. Romanics appeal in the next place to the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. I shall again avail myself without scruple of your 
 words. 
 
 (1.) '^ There is a passage with which, probably, roost who 
 ^« have looked into this subject are well acquainted. It is in the 
 " second book of Maccabees (chapter xii.) where w^e are told how 
 " Judas, the valiant commander, made a collection, and ' sent 
 " twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice, 
 ^^ to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and reli- 
 " giously concerning the resurrection,' For if he had not ho- 
 ^^ ped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have 
 "seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. It is, 
 ^' therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, 
 " that they may be loosed from their sins. (xii. 43 — 46.) .... 
 ^' It proves therefore, that, at the time of the Maccabees, the 
 " conviction existed, that when prayers were ofi'ered for the 
 " dead, they were beneficial to them, and that it was ' z, holy 
 " and wholesome thought to pray for the dead.' "^ 
 
 In commenting on this argument of all your writers, let me 
 first observe, that the persons for whose sins these sacrifices and 
 prayers were made, had been slain in battle (verse 34) ; and 
 that when Judas and his company came to bury them, " under 
 " the coats of every one that was slain, they found things con- 
 *^ secrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the 
 " Jews by the Law. Then every man saw that this was the 
 '^ cause wherefore they were slain.'''' (verse 40.) 
 
 From this it appears that the cause for which these people 
 were slain, was their possession of what was '^ accursed" by 
 the Law, (1 Deut. vii. 25, 26.) and their symbolizing with 
 idolaters, offences to which the extreme penalty of death was 
 
 • Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 54, 65. 
 
I 
 
 LETTER VI. 19 
 
 I 
 
 awarded by the law of God. They were thus g'uilty of mortal 
 sin. If therefore^ this passage correctly states the tenets of the 
 Jews at that time^ it proves that they believed it lawful to 
 pray for the pardon of those who died in mortal sin — and there- 
 fore either they or you must be in error, for you hold it incon- 
 sistent with the Catholic faith to pray for those who die in mor- 
 tal sin. Your writers allege that the sin was venial in this case, 
 because those who were slain were ignorant that they were in 
 possession of things offered to idols ; but this is purely conjectu- 
 ral ; and had it been the case, these persons could not have 
 been punished with death, without having committed any reat 
 sin which deserved it. It is contended by Romanists, that as 
 the custom of praying for the dead, here mentioned, existed 
 among the Jews in our Saviour's time, and was not reproved 
 by him, it must be lawful. What is this but to condemn your 
 own doctrine on the subject ? If it were lawful, in the opinion 
 of the Jews, to pray for those who had died suddenly in mortal 
 sin, and if our Saviour did not reprove this view, then it follows 
 that Christians ought to imitate their example. Nevertheless 
 you refuse to do so, and pronounce it wrong. So that your own 
 doctrine and practice are condemned by the passage you have 
 adduced in their favour. 
 
 Remember that I am not here contending against the practice 
 of prayer for the departed faithful, as it was allowed in the 
 primitive Church. I am merely denying that this passage of 
 the Maccabees can afford any support to your belief, that the 
 justified who are/ree from mortal sin, are in a state of torment 
 in another life. 
 
 (2.) Romanists next appeal to the New Testament. " Our 
 ^^ blessed Saviour, on one occasion, distinguishes two kinds of 
 ^^ sin, and calls one a sin against the Holy Ghost, saying, 
 *' ^ Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it 
 " shall be forgiven him ; but he that shall speak against the 
 ^^ Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this world, 
 " or in tiie next.' Matt, xii 32. Here is a species of sin, the 
 ^' aggravated nature of which is expressed by its not being for- 
 '^ given in the next world. Should we not thence conclude, 
 '' some other sins may be forgiven there ? Why give this pe- 
 ^^ culiar characteristic to one, if no sin is ever pardoned in the 
 " next world ? Assuredly, we have a right to conclude that 
 '^ there is some remission of sin there ; and yet it cannot be 
 " either in Heaven, or in the place of eternal punishment. 
 '' We must therefore admit some other state in which this may 
 " be." 
 
20 LETTER VI. 
 
 Now, Sir^ admitting that such a conclusion may possibly be 
 drawn from our Saviour's words, I have yet to learn that such 
 a possibility is sufficient to found an article of Catholic Faith. 
 It may be that such a doctrine was meant to be taught by these 
 words, or it may be that our Lord had no such intention ; for 
 surely you do not mean to say that your conclusion follows as a 
 matter of necessity from this text — that because Christ says 
 that a certain sin shall not be forgiven in this world or in the 
 next, therefore there are sins which ivill be forgiven in the next 
 world. You must see, that conclusions gathered in this way 
 from texts which do not necessarily infer them, are wholly in- 
 sufficient to prove articles of faith. It is very true that St. Au- 
 gustine argues with you from this text, that some sins will be 
 remitted in the world to come ; but he adds, with becoming cau- 
 tion ; *^ Concerning this thing, since it is a most deep question, 
 "no precipitate opinion is to be formed."* And if St. Gregory 
 the Great also makes use of the same argument,^^ I must beg to 
 remind you, that according to the received doctrine of all your 
 theologians, the sentiment of one or two of the Fathers is quite 
 insufficient to constitute an article of faith. On the other hand, 
 many of the Fathers understand the expression of our Lord, 
 that this sin '' shall not be forgiven him in this world or in the 
 " next," as simply equivalent to saying, that it never shall be 
 remitted. This may be collected from St. Jerome,^ Chrysos- 
 tom,y Theophylact,^ Hilary of Poictiers,^ Theophilus of Anti. 
 och,^ Dionysius, Carthusianus,^ &c. ; and therefore there is 
 nothing unreasonable in our adopting that interpretation, more 
 especially as our Lord is represented in the other Gospels as ac- 
 tually using the word '^ never" to express his meaning more 
 fully. But besides this, the text, as interpreted by Romanists, 
 goes to establish a doctrine which they do not themselves be- 
 lieve ; i. e. that sin in general may be remitted in another 
 world ; and consequently that those who die in mortal sin, may 
 be pardoned after death. You will answer in a moment, that 
 the text only refers to the temporal punishment due to remitted 
 mortal sin, or lo venial sins. But. where, I would ask, have 
 
 t De qua re, quoniam profundissima qucestio est, non est modo 
 prsecipitanda sententia. Aug-ust. lib. vi. cent. Julian, c. 15. t. x. 
 u Gregor. Mag-. Dialog, lib. iv. c. 39. 
 X Hicron. Comment, in S. Matt. Oper. t. ii. p. 50. 
 y Chrysost. Oper. t. vii. p. 449. ed. Benedict, 
 z Theophylact. Comment, in IV. Evang. m loc. Paris, 1631. 
 a Hilarius Pictav. Opera, p. 671. ed. Benedict. 
 ^ Theophil. Antioch. Comment, in. IV. Evang-. lib. i. Bibl. Patr. 
 .i. p. 874. 
 c Dionys. Carthus. in loc. 
 
LETTER VI. 21 
 
 you learnt this ? What authority have you for thus forcing the 
 text to suit your own purposes ? The text says nothing of 
 '^ temporal punishments" or of ^' venial sins ;" it simply and 
 broadly speaks of " sin ;" and if you are entitled to limit its 
 meaning to suit your own purposes^ why do you not also limit 
 the words of our Lord, '^ whosoever sins ye remit they are re- 
 '^ mitted ?" and say that they only confer the power of remitting 
 *' temporal penalties" or '' venial sins ?" 
 
 (3.) We next come to the famous text; ^^ Other foundation 
 '^ can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 
 '^ Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, pre- 
 *^ cious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be 
 '^'^made manifest : for the day shall declare it, because it shall 
 '' be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work 
 "^ of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath 
 ^' built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's 
 '' work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall 
 *^^be saved ; yet so as by fire." (1. Cor. iii. 11 — 15.) 
 
 This passage, w^hich so many of your writers advance in 
 proof of the doctrine of Purgatory, does not seem to you or to 
 Perrone to have much weight. The reasons for this are sup- 
 plied by Tournely^ and Natalis Alexander,® from whom we 
 learn, that although many persons understand the text in the 
 sense usually given to it by modern Romanists, yet St. Augus- 
 tine himself confesses that it is obscure and difficult to under- 
 stand ; and he says that '^he should prefer to hear persons of 
 more understanding and w^isdom" on that subject.^ Bellarmine 
 observes, that there are many points in this text on which ia- 
 terpreters do not agree. First, what is meant by the builders ; 
 2. what by gold, silver, and precious stones, wood, hay, stub- 
 ble; 3. what by the day of the Lord; 4. what by the fire 
 which shall try every man's work. It appears that Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, and the Greek Fathers, understand the fire 
 here spoken of to be the eternal fire of hell, while St. Augustine. 
 and St. Gregory the Great believe that it signifies only the tri- 
 bulations of this life.s In conclusion Natalis Alexander and 
 Tournely remark, that amidst such various expositions of inter- 
 preters. Purgatory can only be deduced probably from this text, 
 not demonstratively. It is plain, therefore, that we need not 
 trouble ourselves in discussing with you the meaning of thiw% 
 passage. 
 
 d Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 590. 
 elMatalis Alexander, Dissert, xlv. in Hist. iv. seculi, 
 f Augustinus, lib de Fide et Operibus, cap, xvi, 
 g Beilarmin. De Purgatorio, lib. ii, cap. v. 
 
22 LETTER VI. 
 
 (4.) There is another text which is in much favour with 
 some Romanists^ and which we may as well consider here. I 
 allude to the well known passage in the first epistle of St. 
 Peter : '^ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
 ^^ for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to 
 ^' death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. By which also 
 '^ he went and preached unto the Spirits in prison ; which some 
 ^* time were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God 
 ^^ waited in the days of Noe." (1 Pet. iii. 18—20.) 
 
 How the doctrine of Purgatory is to be deduced from this, it 
 is not easy to see. It is very true that a ^^ prison" is here 
 mentioned, but the inhabitants of this prison were those who 
 were disohedier\t in the days of Noah, and we have no right 
 hence to infer that the justified or obedient are cast into any 
 prison after death, more especially when it is considered that 
 we are now under a different dispensation from that under 
 which these souls were in prison, and that no conclusive argu- 
 ment can be drawn from their condition to ours. 
 
 (5.) As to that text which other writers of yours quote, '^ I 
 ^^ tell thee, thou shalt not come out thence, till thou hast paid 
 ^^ the last farthing," (Luke xii. 59,) I need only refer to Nata- 
 lis Alexander, one of your most approved theologians, who ob- 
 serves that ^^ this place does not demonstrate Purgatory ;" for 
 according to St. Augustine, the ^^^ adversary" who accuses us to 
 the judge, is the Law of God ; while St. Hilary, Ambrose, 
 Jerome, &c. believe that it signifies any one whom we have in- 
 jured, and who complains to God against us; and that the pri- 
 son here mentioned is Hell, from which the sinner shall never 
 escape. This is also the interpretation of St. Augustine.^ It 
 is plain, therefore, that no argument for Purgatory can be de- 
 duced from this text, as Natalis Alexander remarks. 
 
 As for the other passages of Scripture which various writers 
 have adduced in support of Purgatory, I refer you to the writer 
 last mentioned, who has sufficiently shewn their insufficiency. 
 
 § 4. Romish Proofs from Tradition, refuted. 
 
 We now come to your arguments from tradition in support 
 of the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 It would be impossible in a short Tract to examine all the 
 passages which have been adduced in proof of the doctrine of 
 Purgatory. I shall therefore content myself with noticing those 
 which you have yourself selected from the '^ Faith of Catho- 
 ^' lics,"^ as bearing most strongly on the point. 
 
 b This is proved by Natalis Alexander, ubi supra, 
 iControv. Lectures, vol. ii. p. 59—63. 
 
LETTER VI. 23 
 
 We are first referred to Tertullian's statement that a Chris- 
 tian widow '^ prays for the soul of her husband, entreating re- 
 " pose for him^ and participation in the first resurrection."^ 
 This will not aid you, for the mere circumstance of her entreat- 
 ing" repose or rest for him, does not imply that he was not ac- 
 tually in the enjoyment of that ^^ rest which remaineth for the 
 " people of God." We pray for those who are in a state of 
 grace in this worlds that they may have faith^ hope, and 
 charity; meaning to express our desire that those graces may 
 be continued and increased. So also the Christian widow 
 meant to pray that her husband might continue in his " rest" 
 and that it might be augmented. There is not the slightest 
 reason to suppose that she believed him to be in a state of 
 suffering. 
 
 8t. Cyprian states that his predecessors ^^ advised that no 
 ^' brother, departing this life, should nominate any Churchman 
 " his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be 
 '^ made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose."^ And it is 
 liencs argued^ that ^' it was considered a severe punishment, 
 " that prayers and sacrifices should not be offered up for those 
 ^^4¥iio had violated any of the ecclesiastical laws."™ 
 
 A punishment it certainly was — a mark of reprobation on the 
 memory of the deceased — an exclusion from the ordinary offices 
 of Christian love and honour at that time. But you will in 
 vain look here for any intimation of a belief that the souls of the 
 departed faithful were in any torment. 
 
 We are next referred to Origen, and informed that '^ no 
 ^^one can be clearer regarding this doctrine." Origen says: 
 ^^ When we depart this life, if we take with us virtues or vices, 
 *^ shall we receive reward for our virtues, and those trespasses 
 '^ be forgiven to us which we knowingly committed ; or shall we 
 "be punished for our faults, and not receive the reward of our 
 " virtues ! Neither is true ; because we shall suffer for our sin, 
 ♦^ and receive the reward of our good actions .... Would you 
 " enter into Heaven with your wood, and hay, and stubble, to 
 " defile the kingdom of God ; or, on account of those incum- 
 " brances, remain without, and receive no reward for your gold, 
 *^ and silver, and precious stones ? ... It is manifest that, in 
 " the first place, the fire destroys the wood of our transgres- 
 " sions, and then returns to us the reward of our good works."" 
 
 k Tertull. de Monogamia, c. 10. 
 
 iCypr. Ep. xlvi. p. 114. 
 
 m Lectures, p. 59. 
 
 n Origea. Hem. xvi, al. xii. In Jerem, t. iii. p. 231, 232. ed. Bened» 
 
24 LETTER VI. 
 
 On this passage I would beg to quote to you the note of the 
 Benedictine editors of Origen, derived from the writings of the 
 learned Huet, Bishop of Avranches. '^ Not only in this place 
 '^ but in a multitude of others, Origen establishes a Purgatory; 
 ^^ but in his own way, that is to say, that no other fire or pun- 
 ^* ishments torture souls, but those that are purgatorial or 
 ^'temporary.'''' In fact Origen denied the eternity of future 
 punishments; as St. Augusiine remarks in his book on heresies; 
 and the doctrine of which you so highly approve is styled by 
 this great Father " a most vain impiety," which Origen had 
 learned from the heathen philosophers, and which St. Augus- 
 tine refuted in his works.° It was also condemned as a heresy 
 by the fifth ^Ecumenical Synod.^' The passage, then, is 
 throughout heretical; and you venture to appeal to these cow 
 demned heresies as affording " clear" proofs of your doctrine ! 
 
 We are next referred to the language of St. Basil, who, in 
 commenting on the words of Isaiah, '^^ Through the wrath of 
 ^' the Lord is the land burned," says, that '' the things which 
 ^^ are earthly shall be made the food of a punishing fire : to the 
 ^^ end that the soul may receive favour and be benefited ;" and 
 that there is there no ^' threat of extermination, but it denotes 
 " expurgation, according to the saying of the Apostle : If any 
 ^^ man's work burn, he shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be 
 ^' saved, yet so as by fire."^ I have only to remark, that it is, 
 I think impossible for any orie to read the passage, without per- 
 ceiving that St. Basil in this place was speaking only of the 
 temporal tribulations of the Jews in this life, and that he did 
 not make the slighest allusion to the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 St. Ephrem of Edessa is cited, as asking his brethren to pray 
 for him after his departure, and as maintaining that '^ the dead 
 '^ are helped by the offerings of the living."'" This merely 
 refers to the practice of praying for the dead ; it determines 
 nothing as to their condition. You also quote the following 
 words : '' If also the sons of Mattathias who celebrated their 
 
 o Quis enim Catholicus Christianus vel doctns vel indoctus nori 
 vehementer exhorrcat, earn quam dicit (Origenes) purgationem 
 malorum, id est etiam eos qui hanc vitam in flag-itiis et facinoribus 
 et sacrilegiis atque impictatibus quamlibet maximis finierunt, ipsum 
 etiam postrcmo Diabolum atque an^elis ejus, quamvis post long-is- 
 sima tempera, purg-atos atque liberates regno Dei lucique restitui 
 . . De qua vanissima impietate adversus philosophos k quibus ista 
 didicit Origenes, in libris de Civitate Dei diligentissime disputavi . . * 
 August. Lib. de Hajres. c. xliii t. viii. Oper. ed. Bened. p. 13. 
 
 P Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. iii. p. 603. 
 
 *i Basil. Com. in cap. ix. Isai. t. i. p. 654. 
 
 ^ In Testament, t. ii. p. 234; p. 371. edit. Oxen. 
 
LETTER VI. 25 
 
 '^ feasts in figure only, could cleanse those from guilt by their 
 '^ offerings who fell in battle, how much more shall the priests 
 ^''of Christ aid the dead by their oblations and prayers."^ This 
 latter passage is of very doubtful authority, for it does not ap- 
 pear in any of the Greek manuscripts of Ephrem's works, and 
 is only found in the Syriac* 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, it is said, asserts, ^' that the souls of 
 '^ those for whom the prayers are offered, receive very great 
 "relief while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the 
 " altar,"^ i. e. in the holy Eucharist. I would observe in the 
 first place, that the word used is cv^^nv " profit" or '' advantage" 
 — not "relief;" and next, that the passage merely proves the 
 existence of the practice of prayer for the departed . 
 
 St. Gregory of Nyssa is cited as teaching, that " God allows 
 " man to remain subject to what himself has chosen ; that hav- 
 " ing tasted of t'he evil which he desired . . . and in this lift 
 " being renovated by prayers and the pursuit of Divine wisdom, 
 " or in the next, being expiated by the purging fire, he might 
 " recover the state of happiness which he had lost.'^ I need 
 not copy the remainder of the passage, which teaches throughout 
 the same doctrine, namely, that of Origen, that persons who 
 have committed sins in this life, will be purged from them by 
 temporary punishments in another. These passages were 
 doubtless interpolated by the Orig-enist heretics, and Dom Ceil- 
 lier remarks, that there is not one of the works of Gregory 
 of Nyssa which the heretics have so much altered, as that in 
 which these passages are found. y You have therefore in this 
 instance also, been only tracing the conformity of Romanism 
 with heresies condemned by the Catholic Church. 
 
 The next quotation professes to be from St. Ambrose,^ but 
 the work in which it is contained is rejected as spurious by the 
 Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose, and it is generally suppo- 
 sed by critics to be the work of Hilary^ a deacon of the Roman 
 Church who was involved in the schism of Lucifer of Cagliari.* 
 This writer, in commenting on the words '^ He shall be saved, 
 yet so as by fire," says, '" He will be saved . . . because his 
 substance shall remain, while his bad doctrine shall perish. 
 Therefore he said, ^ y-et so as by fire,' in order that his salvation 
 
 s Lectures, ii. 61. 
 
 t Ephrem. Syri Opera, t, ii. p. 239. 401. ed. Assemani. 
 
 " Cyril. Cateches. Mystag-. ix. x. p, 328. 
 
 X Greg;. Nyss. Orat. de defunctis, tom. ii. p, 1066, 1067, 1068, 
 
 y Ceillier, tom. viii. p. 365. 
 
 2 Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 62. 
 
 a Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. tom. iv. p. 150, 
 
 17 
 
26 LETTER VI. 
 
 be not understood to be without punishment. He shews that 
 he shall be saved indeed, but he shall undergo the punishment 
 of fire, and thus purified, be ^ saved by fire,' and not be like the 
 unbelieving, tortured with eternal fire for ever ; so that in some 
 sort it may be worth one's while to have believed in Christ,'''^ 
 From the above passage it may be inferred that this writer was 
 of opinion that all those who profess to be Christians, will 
 finally be saved, even though they may have taught erroneous 
 doctrine in the present life. Such a doctrine however, which 
 is censured by St. Augustine, is not that of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 We now come to a genuine passage from St. Ambrose, in 
 which he pray3 for the soul of the Emperor Theodosius, 
 f*" Give, O Lord, rest to Thy Servant Theodosius, that rest 
 '^ which Thou hast prepared for Thy Saints ... I will not 
 *^^ leave him, till, by my prayers and lamentation, he shall be 
 ^'^ admitted to the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts 
 ^^ call him."^ We are to infer from this, I presume, that St. 
 Ambrose believed the soul of Theodosius at that time to be in 
 Purgatory suffering the torments remaining due to his sins. 
 Was this really the case ? The following extracts from the 
 commencement of the very same funeral oration, will shew 
 what was his view of the condition of the soul for which he 
 prayed ; and it will also suffice to explain all similar prayers in 
 the writings of the Fathers, and in the ancient Liturgies. 
 Theodosius, he says, " did not lay aside his kingdom (in death), 
 ^^but changed it, having been brought, in virtue of his piety, to 
 ^' the tabernacles of Christ, to that heavenly Jerusalem, where, 
 ^^ BEING- NOW PLACED, he saith, ^ As we have heard, so have 
 ^' we seen in the city of the Lord of Hosts, &c.' "'^ He after- 
 wards says, " Being therefore delivered from the doubtful con- 
 ^^ test, Theodosius of august memory now enjoys perpetual 
 ^^ LIGHT, A lengthened PEACE, and for those things which 
 ^^ he hath done in the body, rejoices in the fruits of the 
 '' DIVINE REWARD."® Therefore St. Ambrose did not believe 
 that the soul for which he prayed, was in Purgatory. 
 
 b Ut per ig"nem purgatus fiat salvns, et non sicut perfidi seterno 
 igne in perpetuum torqueatur : ut ex aliqua parte opera) pretium 
 sit credidisse in Christum. Ambrosiaster, Com. in 1 Ep. ad Cor. 
 torn. ii. Append, p. 122. Oper. Ambrosii ed. Benedict. 
 
 c Ambros. De ODitu Theodosii Oper. tom. ii. p. 1207, 8. 
 
 d Et ille quidem abiit accipere sibi regnum, quod non deposuitsed 
 mutavit, in tabernacula Christi jure pietatis adscitus, in illam 
 Hierusalem supernam, ubi nunc positus dicit, &c. Ambr. p. 1197. 
 
 e Absolutu3 igitur dubio certamine, fruiter nunc aug-ustaj, me- 
 morise Theodosius luce perpetua, tranquillitate diuturna, et pro 
 
LETTER VI. 27 
 
 A passage from St. Epiphanius is quoted^ in which he says, 
 that in prayers^ '' we mention both the just and sinners, in order 
 that from the latter we may obtain mercy.'^^ There is no 
 allusion to Purgatory in this passage : it merely shews the 
 opinion of Epiphanius, which was also that of Chrysostom/ and 
 of Augustine,^ that the punishment of lost souls in the other 
 world might be alleviated by the prayers of the Church. This 
 is a doctrine which Romanists themselves do not receive. 
 
 With reference to the passage cited by you from St. Jerome^ 
 " As we believe the torments of the devil, and of those wicked 
 " men, who said in their hearts ' there is no God/ to be eter- 
 '^ nal : so, in regard to those sinners who have not denied the 
 ^' faith, and whose works will be proved and purged by fire, 
 ^' we conclude that the sentence of the Judge will be tempered 
 "by mercy ."^ In this passage St. Jerome certainly does speak 
 of a Purgatory ; but it is one which is intended for the final 
 purification of professing Christians, however great may have 
 been their sins — a doctrine which is rejected by St. Augustine/ 
 and by the Catholic Church. Even Romanists reject the doc- 
 trine of St. Jerome in this place. 
 
 We are next met by a passage from St. Augustine, that *^ the 
 ^^ prayers of the Church, or of some pious persons, are heard 
 *^ for those who have been regenerated in Christ, whose life in 
 " the body has not been so evil as to be judged unworthy of 
 ^' such mercy, nor so good as to render such mercy unnecessary. 
 ^^ As also, after the resurrection, there shall be some to whom, 
 "^^ after punishments which the spirits of the dead suffer, mercy 
 ^^ shall be imparted, that they be not cast into eternal fire, 
 " Otherwise it would not have been said of some, with truth^ 
 ^' that ' their sin shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor 
 " in the world to come,' unless some sins were remitted in the 
 '^ next world."^ 
 
 This passage will not establish your doctrine, for St. Augus- 
 tine is here speaking of persons who depart this life in sin, and 
 who consequently are not in a state of justification : and he sup- 
 poses that such sinners may receive pardon in the next life. 
 But he is not speaking of the just, who alone, according to 
 the Romish doctrine, are consigned to Purgatory. This seems 
 
 lis quse in hoc gessit corpore, remunerationis divinse fructibua 
 gratulatur. lb. p. 1206. 
 
 fHseres. Iv. sive Ixxv. tom. i. p. 911. 
 
 gChrysostom. Horn. xxi. in Act. Hom. iii. in Ep. ad Phil 
 
 ii Aug'ustin. Enchirid. cap. ex. 
 
 iHieron. Comment, in cap. Ixv. Isai. tom. ii. p. 492. 
 
 ■k August. Enchirid. cap. Ixvii. 
 
 I De Civitate Dei, lib. xxi. cap. 24. t. vii. p. 642. 
 
28 LETTER VI. 
 
 evident from his language elsewhere^ for he asserts that '^ the 
 ^^ souls of the|)iows^ when separated from the body, are at rest, 
 *' but those of the impious suffer punishment, until the bodies 
 " of the former revive to eternal life^ and of the latter to eternal 
 "death."'^ 
 
 The last passage is also from St. Augustine,''- as follows : 
 " If they had built ^ gold and silver, and precious stones,' they 
 ^^ would be secure from both fires ; not only from that in which 
 " the wicked shall be punished for ever, but likewise from that 
 '' fire which will correct those who are to be saved by fire. . . . 
 " And because it is said ' he shall be saved,' therefore that fire 
 *' is despised. Yes, indeed, though they shall be saved by fire, 
 '^ that fire will be more grievous than whatever a man can 
 '^ suffer in this life."° 
 
 I have only to remark, that St. Augustine himself elsewhere 
 interprets the fire here spoken of as signifying the tribulations 
 of this life ;? and that he acknowledges the texts of Scripture 
 here referred to be obscure and difficult.^ So that, on the 
 whole, it is doubtful in what sense he understood the above text. 
 It seems, however, that in this, as in the last passage, he is not 
 speaking of the justified, but of those who die in unrepented 
 sin. Augustine says of the former : " It is unlawful to doubt 
 '^ that the souls of the departed just and pious are living ia 
 
 ^' REST."^ 
 
 As to the language of Isidore of Seville, in reference to the 
 purifying fire, that it is '^^ longer and sharper than any torments 
 " which man can devise in the present life,"* I have only to 
 say that the authority of this writer, who lived at the end of 
 the sixth century, is of no great weight, and cannot suffice to 
 establish an article of faitli ; but he expresses his doubts 
 whether those who are penitent and justified at the end of life 
 do not receive at once remission of their sins, without any puri- 
 fying fire.*^ 
 
 «n In requie enim sunt animre piorum a corpore separatse ; impio- 
 rum autcm pcenas luunt, donee istarum ad seternam vitam, illarum 
 vero ad a^ternuni mortem, quae secunda dicitur, corpora reviviscant. 
 De Civit. Dei, lib. xiii. e. 8 t. vii. p. 330. 
 
 " Lectures, ii. 63 ; Remarks on Letter from Rev. W. Palmer, p. 
 79. 
 
 o Enarrat. in Psal. xxxvii. torn. iv. p. 295. 
 
 p Enchirid. cap. Ixviii. tom. vi. p. 222. 
 
 q Lib. de fide et operibus, cap. 16. tom. vi. p. 180. 
 
 r Justorum ac piorum animse defunctorum, quod in requie vivant, 
 dubitare fas non est. Aug-. De Civ. Dei, lib. xii. cap. ix. 
 
 s De Ordine Creaturariim, cap. xiv. cited in Remarks, p. 80. , 
 
 t Ibid, apud Dacherii Spicileg-. tom. i. p. 303. 
 
h 
 
 LETTER Vr. 29 
 
 The passage which you quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa^ in 
 your Remarks (p. 80), has been already noticed, (p. 25). It 
 is of no authority, and was interpolated by the Origenist 
 heretics. 
 
 These then are the best arguments which can be produced 
 in favour of the doctrine of Purgatory. The errors of individual 
 writers opposed to the Catholic doctrine, and the interpolations 
 of heretics are obtruded on us as the voice of tradition. But no 
 where do we find, even in the passages adduced, the doctrine of 
 Romanists. No where do we find it said that the ^'^ just and 
 *^ pious" are tortured for an indefinite time after this life with 
 the punishments of the lost; or that this punishment is inflicted 
 by the ^'^ unsatisfied justice" of an " angry" and ^^ vindictive" 
 God ; or that tortures of the most horrible description are 
 awarded to the most trivial faults which do not require repent- 
 ance ; or that the justified members of Jesus Christ are too pol- 
 luted to be permitted to enter his presence. These are the doc- 
 trines received, approved, and authorized in your Communion, 
 and which are entirely opposed to those of the Scriptures and 
 of Catholic tradition. 
 
 § 5. The Catholic Doctrine opposed to Purgatory, confirmed 
 by Scripture and Catholic Jintiqiiity. 
 
 It now only remains to establish the truth in opposition to the 
 doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 The belief of the Catholic Church in England, then, is ex- 
 pressed in the following prayer of her ritual : '' Almighty God, 
 '^ with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in 
 '^ the Lord, and with whom the souls of the faithful, after they 
 ^' are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and 
 " felicity ; we give thee hearty thanks," &c. We therefore 
 believe that the justified are, after this life, in rest and happi- 
 ness ; that they are not sufi'ering any torments or aflSictions ; 
 and that they await the Resurrection in joyful certainty of 
 God's favour. 
 
 How consoling and encouraging is this doctrine to those who 
 are buffeting the waves of temptation in this life, and toiling 
 through the narrow and thorny path which leads to eternal 
 glory ! It enables them to look with hope to that moment when 
 this doubtful contest shall be at an end, and when the liberated 
 soul shall enter into the joy of its Lord — when the exile of this 
 life shall be no more, and the holy, the pure, the humble spirit of 
 the child of God, shall be received into the kingdom of its Eternal 
 Father. Such a thought sheds so bright a splendour over death 
 itself, that it is lost in the glory of victory. The Christian, 
 17* 
 
so LETTER TI. 
 
 then is stimulated by hope to prepare for death, knowinff that 
 he shall receive his reward as soon as this short life is over 
 How different would be his feeling if he believed that the 
 tornients of this life are greatly inferior to those which await 
 hiram another; that the few years which he spends on earth 
 are insufficient for his purification; that he must, perhaps 
 for thousands of years after this life, suffer the torments of Hell 
 and groan under the miserable feeling of alienation from his 
 God. Theargumentof St. Paul, - this light affliction, which 
 'IS but for a moment, worketh for us a for more exceedincr 
 
 and eternal weight of glory,"- would lose much of its force'' 
 He would look with anguish and- terror to the end of life • 
 though he might derive some poor consolation from the reflec- 
 tion, that at somi future time unknown to him, his soul would 
 be delivered from the tortures of Purgatory. 
 
 But the word of God strengthens us against such terrors by 
 the unfailing assurances which it affords of God's love towards 
 the justified— assurances which we do not feel warranred in 
 limiting and curtailing as you do. We receive in all its 
 length, and breadth, and depth, and height, that promise of 
 fecripture, ^^ There is therefore no condemnation to them 
 which- are. in Christ Jesus"--no condemnation to punishment 
 whether temporal or eternal. We believe that " beino- justified 
 by his blood, we '^ shall be saved from wrath throifffh him"y 
 --savedfroni his wrath here and hereafter. We are persuaded 
 ttiat God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but to obtain 
 salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that 
 
 WHETHER WE WAKE OR SJ.EEP WO should LIVE TOGETHER 
 
 WITH HiM."^ And hence we believe, that the justified souls in 
 I'aradise are not subject to the wrath of God, but that they are 
 in salvation, and are living with Christ; and therefore we 
 reject with horror the notion that they are subjected to the pen- 
 alties of the second death, even for a time. We believe that 
 God will '^ withhold no good thing from them that walk up- 
 ^rightlyya and therefore that he will not withhold from them 
 peace and joy after this life. We know that he '^ preserveth 
 
 the souls of his saints,'"^ and therefore will not permit them to 
 be tortured by the jflames of Hell. We know that God - has 
 
 delivered us from the power of darkness ;"c that Christ has 
 declared, "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness -"^ 
 and therefore we fear no dark and gloomy prison after this life 
 and no tortures from the inhabitants of darkness. We have the 
 
 " 2 Cor. iv. 17. ^ Rom. viii. 1. y Rom v. 9. z 1 Thess v 10 
 a Ps. Ixxxiv. 11. b Ps. xcvii. 10. c Col. i. 13. d John v'iu! 12; 
 
LETTER VI. 31 
 
 promise of God, ^^ I will never leave ihee or forsake thee :"« and 
 how can we imagine that we shall be *' left" to the torments of 
 infernal fire ? No : relying- on him who has said : " with 
 '^ everlasting kindness will f have mercy on thee,''^ we rely on 
 his love after the soul and body shall be separated. We believe 
 that if Christ has said " we will come nnto him, and make our 
 " abode with him,"? tortures after this life shall not be the lot 
 of those who ar^ glorified by the indwelling of God. 
 
 Surely a simple and unquestioning faith would teach us to 
 feel with the Apostle : '' To us to live is C^hrist, and to die is 
 ^^g-ain,"^ and " gain" implies rei6'arc/.s, not torments. It would 
 oblige us to believe really that " there reraaineth therefore a 
 ''rest unto the people of God."^ It would compel us to acquis 
 esce in the language of the pious, though uninspired author of 
 the Book of Wisdom, that ^'^ the souls of the righteous are in the 
 ^' hand of God, and then shall no torment touch them ;"'' and 
 that ^' though the righteous be prevented with death, yet shall 
 *^ he be in resty^ It would induce us to accept in all its fulness 
 that consolatory declaration, " Blessed are the dead that die in 
 ^' the Lord, from henceforth ; yea, saith the Spirit, that they 
 '' may rest from their labours, and their works do follow 
 *^ them."™ It would teach us to dwell with happiness on the 
 assurance of our Lord to the dying malefactor, ''To-day shalt 
 ^^thou be with me in jyaradise ;''^'^ beholding in this the imme- 
 diate reward of the departing righteous. And when we read of 
 the rich man in torments after this life, and of Lazarus 
 in Abraham's bosom, we should, with Catholic Antiquity, see 
 in the latter the reward of the righteous, ev^n before the day of 
 judgment. 
 
 And now it may be feirly enquired, How can you dispose of 
 this multiform voice of Scripture, proclaiming peace, and rest, 
 and joy,. to believers, after this life? By what authority do 
 you venture to consign those to punishment, whom the Scrip- 
 ture pronounces blessed — to subject those to Divine justice and 
 wrath, whom the word of God declares the objects of his love ? 
 It is true that you explain away these passages. If rewards are 
 promised, you say they are promised with a reserve; if rest and 
 joy are promised, they arise only from a cessation of the toils of 
 this present life, and are in some sense or other consistent with 
 a residence in Purgatory. Nothing is impossible to ingenuity ; 
 no Scripture is incapable of perversion by the unstable and 
 unlearned ; but notwithstanding all distinctions, and evasions 
 and subtleties, the meaning of the whole of Scripture evidently 
 
 e Hebrews xiii. 6. f Is. liv. 8. g John xiv. 23. t Phil. i. 21 
 iHeb. iv. 9 k Wisd. iii. 1. i lb. iv. 7. ^ Rev. xiv. 13. 
 
 n Luke xxiii. 43. 
 
3«i LETTER Vf. 
 
 is, that the justified are after this life suhject to no torments ; but 
 that they repose in peace and joy ; that they receive an imme- 
 diate reward. 
 
 How deep and wide is the contrast between this and your 
 doctrine. You consign the *^ justified," the " sanctified," the 
 ^^ members of Christ," bone "of his bone and flesh of his flesh," 
 to punishments, and tortures, to anguish, to flames, to misery, 
 to the wrath and vengeance of God. Death is with you the 
 moment when the real afflictions and torments of the justified, 
 infinitely worse than any which they have suffered in this life, 
 commence ; it is the entrance of the beloved children of God 
 on a state where a vista o( unknown length is filled with fire, 
 and agonies, and torturing fiends. 
 
 Is this the doctrine which you pretend to have learned from 
 Catholic antiquity ? Did the Fathers believe that the suffer- 
 ings of the righteous were enhanced and multiplied by death ? 
 Or did they agree with Scripture and with us, that death is a 
 haven of rest to the wearied souls of the faithful ; that they 
 await their resurrection in peace, and joy ; and that they repose 
 in the bosom of their Saviour and their God ? 1 am really at a 
 loss how to select from the abundant evidence which the records 
 of antiquity supply in confirmation of our doctrine, and in con- 
 demnation of yours. I shall however make the attempt. 
 
 I commence with Justin Martyr, who, near the beginning of 
 his Dialogue with Trypho says, that " all souls do not die^" but 
 that, " the souls of the pious remain in some better place, 
 ^' \v y.f.lrrovi TTOi y^.^^.', , aud tho uurighteous and wicked in a worse 
 ''place, expecting the time of judgment." It is plain from 
 this, that the doctrine of Purgatory was unknown at that 
 time, for it is impossible to regard as " a better place" a region 
 where tortures of the most dreadful character are inflicted. 
 
 I next turn to the venerable Irena^us Bishop of Lyons, who 
 was acquainted with the contemporaries of the Apostles. *^ The 
 ^'Lord," he says, " taught in the fullest manner, that souls 
 ^''departing from the bod}^ — not only continue to exist with- 
 '^ out migrating from one body to another, — but to preserve the 
 " same bodily appearance, in that narrative concerning the rich 
 "man and Lazarus who was at rest in Abraham's bosom, in 
 " which he saiih that the rich man knew Lazarus after death, 
 "and Abraham likewise; and that each of them remained 
 " in his own order," that is, in a place of suff'ering or of happi- 
 ness, " and that he requested him to send Lazarus to aid him 
 '', . . For by this it is plainly declared that souls continue to 
 " exist, . . and that each people,^' i. e. the good and the bad, 
 
LETTER VI. SS 
 
 " receive a fitting habitation even before the day of judg-ment."° 
 This is exactly our belief. We hold that the good receive re^ 
 ward, and the wicked punishment,, immediately after this life. 
 
 Tertullian, in refuting the opinion of some persons who denied 
 that the souls of the faithful descend inta the region of depart-, 
 ed spirits^ remarks that they " proudly imagine that the souls 
 " of the faithful do not deserve it, as if servants were above 
 '^ their Lord, and disciples above their master. They disdain 
 " perhaps to receive the consolation of awaiting the resurrection 
 " in Abraham's hosonL^'P The faithful then, according to this 
 Father, are in Abraham's bosom, and at rest. And hence he 
 held that -^ We do an injury to Christ when we hear without 
 '' equanimity that any have been called away by him, as if 
 '^ they deserved commiseration. ' I desire,' said the Apostle, 
 ^* ' to be received presently, and to be with Christ.' '"i There 
 was evidently no notion at that time, that the souls of the de- 
 parted believers were consigned to tortures,, surpassing all that 
 can be endured in this life. 
 
 The language of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian, is stili 
 more remarkable, and clearly establishes our faith against the 
 error of Romanists. He consoles the faithful at Carthage under 
 the awful visitation of a pestilence, in the following manner, 
 ^^ Our country we believe to be Paradise : the Patriarchs we es- 
 " teem to be our parents. Why then do we not speed and run, 
 " that we may behold our country, and salute our parents .'* There 
 " a great multitude of those who are dear to us, await us ; a 
 " numerous and abundant crowd of parents., brethren, children 
 " already secure of their own salvation, yet still desirous of ours, 
 ^' desire us. How great a joy for them and us in common to behold 
 " and embrace them ! What pleasure of celestial kingdoms is 
 '^ there, without fear of death ; and with eternal life what great 
 ^^ and perpetual happiness ! There is the glorious choir of the 
 " Apostles ; there the number of the rejoicing Prophets . . . There 
 '^ are the merciful rewarded, <^c.^" Can any doubt remain 
 after this, that the primitive Church believed the souls of the 
 departed faithful to be in ^^ the joy of their Lord ;" and that 
 they would have repelled with horror the notion, that they are 
 consigned to torment, with the devil and his angels ? 
 
 o Irenseus, adv. Haeres. lib. ii. cap. xxxiv ed. Bened. 
 
 p Quis satis superbe non putant animas fidelium inferis dignaa^ 
 servi super dominum et discipuli super magistrum, aspernati si 
 forte in Abrahse sinu, expectandse resurrectionis solatium capero*. 
 Tertul. de .Anima. cap. Iv. p. 304. Oper. ed. Kigaltii. 
 
 q Tert. de Patientia, cap. ix. p. 145. 
 
 rCyprianus, Pe Moi-talita^te. 
 
84 LETTER VI. 
 
 That the just and pious are reserved for torment after this 
 life, was a doctrine wholly unknown to antiquity. The very 
 writers who maintain that sinr.ers will be saved by sufferings 
 after this life, never thought of consigning the justified to the 
 same punishment. Origen himself was a stranger to such a 
 doctrine: "The soul," he says, ^''having its own substance 
 " and life, when it departs from this ivorld, shall be disposed of 
 '^ according to its merits, enjoying the inheritance of eternal 
 *' life and happiness 1/ its actions shall have obtained it, or 
 ^^ delivered to eternal fire and punishments if the guilt of its 
 '^ crimes have thrust it into them."^ '' We have," he else-" 
 where says, " a great High-Priest ... who hath promised to 
 '' those who rightly learn divine things and live according to 
 '^ them, that he will raise them to heavenly places, for he saith, 
 ^^That where I am there ye may also be. Therefore we hope, 
 '' that after the labours and contests here below, we shall be in 
 ^^ the highest heavens.^^^ Whenever, in short, this Father 
 speaks of the future destination of the righteous, he uses 
 exactly the same terms that we should do. He never sup- 
 poses them to be in any suffering whatever. 
 
 St. Methodius, Bishop of Patarae A. D. 290, who was re- 
 markable for his opposition to the errors of Origen, describes in 
 the following terms the state of the departed faithful. " When 
 " this short transitory life is dissolved, we shall have our 
 
 '' DWELLING WITH GOD, EVEN BEFORE THE RESURRECTION, 
 
 ^^ until we receive again our habitation (the body) renewed, 
 ^^ and stable, and never to fall."" It is clear from this, that the 
 Primitive Church believed the souls of the just to be in happi- 
 ness, for it vi^ould be impious to imagine that any torment can 
 approach those who '^'^ dwell with God." 
 
 The Apostolical Constitutions, which appear to have been 
 composed before the Council of Nice, furnish another proof of 
 the continuance of the orthodox doctrine on this subject. In a 
 prayer we find the following passages; " The spirits of all the 
 **just are living with thee, and are in thine hand, whom no 
 "torment shall touch; for all that are sanctified are under 
 " thine hand. ^^^ How little notion was there at that time in 
 the Church, that the pious and just go forth from this life, into 
 sufferings far exceeding any that can be endured in this world ; 
 
 ■ Origen. Prsef. Lib de principiis, torn. i. Oper. ed. Bened. p. 48. 
 t Contra Celsum, lib vi. torn. i. p. 145. 
 
 u Methoclius, De Rcsurrectione, apud Photii Biblioth. Cod. 
 ccxxxiv. p. 921. ed. 1611. 
 
 X Tool/ SiKxljav Tx TTvevfixTx Iv T>j %£<p(' Tsu tiorivj wv oO fini »;}/»iT»» /Sio-avof, CoilSt. 
 
 Apost. lib. viii. cap. xli. 
 
LETTER VI. 35 
 
 into '' misery," " torments," '' punishments," — nay, into the 
 very fire prepared for the devil and his angels, '' its eternity 
 *^^only being" removed." 
 
 The illustrious confessor St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, is 
 another witness against the doctrine of Purgatory. He remarks 
 on the history of the rich man and Lazarus, '* There is here no 
 "putting off or delay; for the day of judgment is the eternal 
 '^retribution of blessedness or of punishment, but the time of 
 ''death, in the meanwhile, imposeth laws on all, for (the bosom 
 "of) Abraham, or punishment, reserves every one to the judg- 
 " ment."y That is, the righteous are in Abraham's bosom_, and 
 the sinners are in punishment. 
 
 A discourse, attributed by some to Theophilus of Alexandria, 
 by others to Simeon Stylites,^ in speaking of the just and the 
 unjust when they die, says of the former, that his " soul goes 
 " forth in joy and exultation with the saints . . . and is brought 
 " into a 'place of rest, into ineffable joy, and perpetual light, 
 " where there is no grief, no groaning, nor weeping, no anxiety , 
 "but immortal life, and everlasting joy.'' ^^ Of the unjust soul 
 he says that *• it is seized by devils at the day of death, and led 
 " into an obscure, dark, and dismal place, where all the wicked 
 "are reserved until the day of judgment and eternal condem- 
 ^^ nation.'' ^ He is thus evidently speaking of the intermediate 
 state, and he considers the souls of the righteous to be at once 
 in the enjoyment of happiness unmingled with any pain or evil. 
 
 Such too is the langpuaoe of St. Basil. The moment of death 
 
 . OCT 
 
 IS, according to him, the beginning of the believer's happmess : 
 it leads not to torments, but to bliss. " If the dissolution of 
 "this life," he says, " by which the soul is delivered from the 
 " bondage of the flesh, is the commencement of true life to those 
 
 y Nihil illic dilationis aut morse est. Judicii enim dies vel 
 beatitudinis retributio est seterna, vel poense. Tempus vero mortis 
 habet interim unumquemque suis legibus, dum ad judicium unum- 
 (^uemque aut Abraham reservat, aut pcena. Hilar. Pictav. in Ps. 
 ii. Oper. p. 52 ed. Bened. 
 
 z Ceiilier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccl. torn. xv. p 439. 
 
 a Si aiiima virtutes hie cgreg-ias sibi asciverit, vitamque severam 
 et honestam traduxerit; in die sui exitus, illse ipsse quas hie sibi 
 comparavit virtutes earn comitantur, stipantque boni angeli, nee ab 
 illo adversario eorum dsemone eam sinunt conting-i. Verum in 
 gaudio et exultatione cum Sanctis proficiscitur. et ang-elis victorise 
 hymnos concinentibus Deo ... in quietis locum perducitur, in gau- 
 dium ineffabile, in lumen perpetuum ; ubi non est mceror, nee 
 gemitus, neque fletus^ neque anxietas, sed vita immortalis et peren- 
 nis Isetita. Bibl. Patr. Ludg. 1677, torn vii. p. 1228. 
 
 b Eam occupant deemones miseris modis lachrymantem ... in 
 loca obscura, tenebrosa, et tristia deducentes; ubi cuncti nocentes, 
 ad diem judicii ac seternse damnationis asservantur. Ibid. 
 
36 LETTER VI. 
 
 *f who live accordingf to God, why are we grieved, as if we had 
 '^ no hope ?"^ St. Gregory Nazianzen, the friend of Basil, still 
 more distinctly confirms the truth in the following passage ; '' I 
 ^^ am persuaded by the words of the wise, that every soul 
 ^' which is good and beloved of God, when loosened from the 
 ^^ bonds of the flesh, it departs hence, immediately feels and cori' 
 ^' templates the good ivhieh awaits it, being purified and deliv- 
 '' vered (I know not how to say it) from what had darkened it ; 
 '' and enjoys a certain wondrous pleasure, and rejoiceth, and 
 '^ joyfully goeth to its Lord, escaping from this life as from a 
 ^' grievous prison, and shaking off the trammels which had 
 ^'^ bound its wings of thought; and enjoys (as it does now in 
 '^ fancy) the ha^ppiness laid up for it. But after a little it receives 
 '^ again its native flesh . . . and with it enjoys heavenly glory ."'^ 
 Such, according to this illustrious Father, is the state of the 
 departed faithful. They are in the immediate enjoyment of 
 happiness with God, in the contemplation of the glory into 
 which they shall shortly enter. 
 
 Hence, when the Fathers speak of the departed righteous, 
 they never think of representing them as "struggling in tor- 
 *' tures," or as suffering " punishments." Their words are full 
 of rejoicing, of triumph, and of consolation. Thus Gregory 
 Nazianzen says of his sister Gorgonia, " I well know that you 
 '' now enjoy things more excellent than all that we can behold 
 '^ — the sound of feastings, the exultations of angels, the con- 
 " templation of glory, and a purer and more perfect illumina- 
 " tion of the supreme Trinity."® He speaks elsewhere of his 
 Father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzum, as being " near to 
 " God,'''' and as having " become possessed of the angelical 
 " order and boldness."^ 
 
 You have quoted, in support of the doctrine of Purgatory, 
 some writings of St. Gregory Nyssene, which had been inter- 
 polated and corrupted by the Origenist heretics. His genuine 
 belief was widely different from that which you have attributed 
 to him. He believed that the souls of the righteous are, imme- 
 diately after death, in a state of joy and glory. Thus in his 
 Funeral Oration on Pulcheria, he consoles her mother, the Em- 
 press Placilla, in the following terms ; " Therefore, although 
 «^ thy child hath left thee, she hath departed to the Lord. She 
 / hath closed her eyes to thee, but opened them on eternal light, 
 
 c Basil. Epist. ci. Oper. torn. iii. p. 197. ed. Bened. 
 d Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oral. vii. al. x. tom. i. p. 212, 213. Oper 
 ed. Bened. 
 
 e Orat. viii. al. xi. tom. i. p. 232. 
 f Orat. xviii. al. xix. tom. i. p. 332. 
 
LETTER VI. 37 
 
 ^^ She hath departed from thy table^ but hath been received at 
 '^ that of the angels. The plant hath been removed from this, 
 " but hath been planted in Paradise : it hath changed /rom one 
 '' kingdom to another:'^ In his Funeral Oration on the Em- 
 press Placilla, herself, he says: ^*^The good we seek, brethren, 
 ^*^ still exists: it is not lost. I speak less than the truth. 
 ^' That good not only exists^ but is more exalted than before. 
 '' Do you seek the Empress ? She hath her dwelling in regal 
 '' mansions. But do you desire to see her ? You cannot behold 
 ^^''her countenance. There is a dreadful guard of angels 
 '^ around her."^ 
 
 I have already (p. 26.) quoted the language of St. Ambrose 
 
 in reference to the Emperor Theodosius. Similar expressions 
 
 might be produced in abundance from his v^orks, in proof of his 
 
 belief that the souls of the departed righteous are in peace and 
 
 joy. I shall merely cite a few of his words in speaking of the 
 
 death of Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica. *^ T know that he 
 
 '^ now rests in heavenly places . . . He now enjoys the perpetu- 
 
 '^ al reward of his labours , and the bonds of the flesh being dis- 
 
 ^^ solved, is with Christ amongst the ministering angels . . . He 
 
 '^ is now an inhabitant of the regions above, a possessor of the 
 
 '^ eternal city, of the Jerusalem which is in Heaven,''''^ Nor is 
 
 it to be supposed that St. Ambrose imagined these blessings to 
 
 be reserved for the exclusive enjoyment of those who were of 
 
 an eminent and surpassing sanctity. He believed them to be 
 
 shared alike by all the righteous after death ; for in allusion 
 
 to death, as being a dissolution of soul and body, he says, 
 
 '' What is the meaning of that dissolution, but that the body is 
 
 '^ dissolved and remains at rest, and the soul turns to its rest and 
 
 ^^ is free, which, if it be pious, is with Christ. ^''^ He elsewhere 
 
 says, ^' Death is the passing of all things. It is a passing from 
 
 '^ corruption to incorruption . . . from perturbation to tranquil- 
 
 '^ Zifi/."^ He therefore encourages us to depart from this life 
 
 without apprehension. " Let us go without fear to our Redeem- 
 
 '^ er, Jesus Christ ... to that assembly of the holy and just. 
 
 '^ For we shall go to our fathers, to those preceptors of our faith 
 
 ^^ . . . where Abraham opens his holy bosom, where there is a 
 
 '^ paradise of delight ; where there is no cloud, no thunderings,'*'"" 
 
 g Gregorius Nyssen. In Funere Pulcherise Oratio, tom. iii. Oper. p» 
 517. 
 t Orat. in Funere PlacilliEe, tom, iii. p. 529. 
 i Ambros. Epist. xvi. t. ii. p. 819. 
 k Ambros. De Bono Mortis, cap. iii. tom. i. p 392. 
 1 Ibid. cap. iv. p. 396. 
 m Ibid. cap. xii. p. 411, 
 
 18 
 
Sa LETTER VI. 
 
 &c. It is clear, therefore, that St. Ambrose believed, that alt 
 the just are received into happiness immediately after death. 
 That Prudentius was of the same opinion, appears from his 
 placing the righteous in Abraham's bosom, in a region of rest 
 and enjoyment. 
 
 Sed dum resolubile corpus 
 Revocas, Deus, atque reformag, 
 Quanam regione jubebis 
 Animam requiescere puram ?, 
 Greniio sensis abdita sancti 
 Recubabit, ut est Eleazar, (Lazarus> 
 Quern floribus undique septum 
 Dives procul aspicit ardens. 
 
 Patet ecce fidelibus ampll 
 Via lucida jam paradisi ; 
 Licet et nemus illud adire 
 Hominif quod ademerat anguis,^^ 
 
 St. John Chrysostom, in innumerable places, confirms the 
 Catholic doctrine which we maintain. On those words, "Turn 
 " again then to thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath reward- 
 *^ ed thee," he remarks : '^ You see then, that death is a benefit, 
 " and a rest, for he who hath entered into that rest, hatk rested 
 ''fro7n his woi'ks, as God rested from his own."° '^^Lamenta- 
 *^ tion becomes the wickedness of him [who di^s at enmity with 
 '^ God], but not thee who art about to be crowned, and to be at 
 " res^."P When consoling a friend for the loss of one whom he 
 had loved, he says : " Think, to whom he hath departed ; and 
 "receive consolation. He is where Paul, where Peter, where 
 " all the choir of saints arey^^ He tells a parent deprived of 
 his child to think, that ^^ he hath departed to a better place, 
 *^ and hath gone to a more excellent seat ; and that he has not 
 '^lost his son, but placed him in security. "^ '*^ The righteous," 
 he says, " whether they be here (on earth) or there, are with 
 " the King, and there much more, and more nearly."* In 
 speaking of funeral rites, he enquires : " Do we not glorify 
 ^' God, and give thanks, because he hath already crowned the 
 '^ departed ; because he hath delivered him from his labours; 
 " because, expelling fear, he hath him with himself? Are not 
 
 n Prudentius, Hymn, de Exequiis, Oper. torn. i. p. 362, 363. ed* 
 Arevalo. 
 o Chrysost. Homil de Hern et Prosd. torn. ii. p. 639. Ed. Ben, 
 p Homil. xxxi al. xxxii. in Matt. torn. vii. p. 361. 
 q Homil. in illud « De dormientibus,' torn. i. p. 766. 
 ' Hom. i. in 2 Cor. tom x. p 426. 
 • Hom. iii. in Phil, tom xi. p. 216. 
 
LETTER VL 39 
 
 *^4iymns and psalms sun^ on this account ? All these things 
 *^ are signs of rejoicing*."* 
 
 Isidore of Pelusiuna, a disciple of Chrysostom, incidentally 
 teaches the same doctrine^ where he speaks of a certain person, 
 *' having heard that that wise man" (Ammonms Bishop of 
 Pelusium) '' had fallen asleep, and been received into heavenly 
 ^^ places. ^^"^ In another place, writing to Theophilus on the 
 -death of a Christian named Timotheus, he says, " The blessed 
 ^^ Timotheus, thy brother, hath departed from men . . . ascend- 
 ^^ ing to heaven in his soul ; and as I believe, mingling with the 
 *^ exultations of the divine and heavenly powers.^^'' 8t. Jerome, 
 in his epitaph on Nepotianus, says that '' he is ivith Christ, and 
 '' joined with the choir of the saints.''^ Of Lea who had lately 
 died, he says : '^ For her short labour, she now enjoys eternal 
 ^' felicity ; she is received hy the choir's of angels, and 
 ^' cherished in Abraham's bosom.''''' In his epitaph on Paula he 
 says, that ^^she now enjoys these good things, ^ which eye hath 
 ^' not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of 
 '^ man.' "* It is quite impossible that if St. Jerome had held 
 the doctrine of Purgatory, he could have thus described the 
 ■condition of the departed righteous. 
 
 Although St. Augustine, in some parts of his works speaks, 
 with doubt and hesitation, of a fire which shall save some of 
 those who depart this life in sins whitjh are not of a very 
 grievous nature, he, nevertheless, constantly teaches, that the 
 just or righteous are received into joy after the present life. 
 We have already seen some proofs of this (p. 27, 28). He 
 elsewhere maintains, that "^ if, after the human generation in 
 "^ Adam, a soul be regenerated in Christ, and belongeth to 
 ^^-his society, it will have rest after the death of the body, and 
 '' will receive again the body unto glory. These things con- 
 ^^ corning the soul, I most firmly hold.'"^ ^^ All souls," he siys, 
 ^'*^have, when they depart from this life, their different re^ep- 
 ^^ tions. The good have joy ; the evil, torments. But when 
 ^^ the resurrection shall have taken place, the joy of the 
 '^ GOOD WILL BE GREATER, and the tormouts of the wicked 
 ■^^more grievous, because they will be tortured with the body. 
 
 t Horn. iv. in Hebr. torn. xii. p. 46. 
 
 u Isidorus Pelus. Epist. lib. 11. Ep. 127. p. 179. ed. Paris, 1638. 
 
 X Epist. cli. p. 197. 
 
 y Hleron. Epist. xxxv. ad Heliodorum (al. 111.) tom. iv. pars ii. p. 
 269. ed. Bened. 
 
 z Epist. XX. ad ]VIarcellam (al. 24.) Ibid. p. 52. 
 
 a Epist. Ixxxv. ad Eustoch. (al. 27.) Ibid p. 688. 
 
 b Aug-ustlnus, De Origlne anlmse hominis, Epist. clxvi. (al. 28.) 
 tom. ii. Oper. p. 585. 
 
40 LKTTfeR iri. 
 
 '^ The holy Patriarchs , Prophets, Apostles Martyrs, and the 
 
 ^' GOOD AND FAITHFUL, HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN PEACE ; yet all 
 
 " are yet to receive, at the end, what God hath promised .... 
 "The rest which is given immediately after death, is then 
 •' received by every one who deserves it, when he dies. The 
 ' Patriarchs received it first : behold how long is their rest : 
 "afterwards the Prophets received it: more recently the Apos- 
 
 'tles ; still more lately the holy Martyrs : and now every day, 
 " good helieversy^ According to St. Augustine, therefore, the 
 departed righteous are with the Prophets, Apostles, and Mar- 
 tyrs , and consequently are in a state of joy, and suffer no tor- 
 ment or evil whatever. 
 
 I must pass, over various other proofs from this eminent 
 Father, and proceed to adduce the clear and satisfactory lan- 
 guage of St. Cyril of Alexandria. " The Evangelist probably 
 *' said designedly and necessarily, not simply that he (our 
 '^ Lord) ^ died,' but that he ' commended his spirit,' i. e. to the 
 '' Father, according to what was said by him : ' Father, into 
 '^ thy hands I commend my spirit ;' and the force of this lan- 
 ^* guage laid the commencement and foundation of a good hope 
 ^« for us. For I think it should be held, and very reasonably 
 " too, that the souls of the holy, when they are departing from 
 '^ their earthly bodies, are ' commended into the hands' of a 
 " most dear Father, through the goodness and mercy of God ; 
 " and are not, as some of the unbelieving have thought, waiting 
 " amidst the tombs, expecting sepulchral rites ; nor like the 
 " souls of sinners, are thrust into a place of immense punish- 
 " ment, that is, into Hell ; but rather hasten away into the 
 " hands of the Father of all, and of Jesus Christ our Saviour, 
 ^^ who hath restored this way to us. For he delivered his soul 
 '^ into his Father's hands, that we also might have glorious 
 
 ' hopes, firmly thinking and believing that when we have suffered 
 ^'bodily death, we shall be in the hands of God, and in a far 
 '' better state than when we were in the flesh. Wherefore the 
 '' wise Paul writeth to us. 'I wish to be dissolved, and to be 
 
 ' Habent erg6 omnes animse . . . cum de sseculo exierint diver- 
 eas receptiones suas : habent g-audium bona?, malse tormenta. Sed 
 cum facta fucrit resurrectio, et bonorum gaudium amplius erit, et 
 malorum tormenta graviora : quando cum corpore torquebuntur. 
 Recepti sunt in pace sancti Patriarchse, Prophetse, Apostoli, Mar- 
 1 yres, boni fideles, omnes tamen adhuc in fine accepturi sunt quod 
 promisit Deus . . . Requiem quse continuo jDOst mortem datur, si 
 ea dignus est, tunc accipit quisque cum moritur. Priores accepe- 
 runt Patriarchce : videte ex quo requiescunt : posteriores Prophetse ; 
 recentius Apostoli, multo recentiores sancti Martyres, quotidieboni 
 fideles. August. Tract, xlix. in Joan. tom. iii. pars ii. p. 623. ed. 
 Bened. 
 
LETTER VI. 41 
 
 'fwith Christ.""^ *^ Formerly, indeed, human souls, having 
 f' put off their bodies, were cast into subterranean prisons, and 
 *^ filled the receptacles of death therein ; but after that Christ 
 *^ commended his spirit to his Father, he hath changed this 
 " way for us. For now we do not descend to Hell, but rather 
 " shall follow him ; and committing our souls to him as a 
 *^ faithful Creator, we shall live for a while in good hope, for 
 '' Christ shall at length raise us ail."« 
 
 Julian Pomerius, a learned presbyter of the fifth century/ 
 remarks, that our " contest is at an end when, after this life, 
 ^^ certain victory succeeds to contest; that all the soldiers of 
 *' Christ who through God's assistance, have indefatigably re- 
 ^' sisted their enemies to the end of this present life, may reign 
 '^ in joy in their own country, after their laborious pilgrimage is 
 '' at an end."s The author of the works attributed to St. Dio- 
 nysius the Areopagite, which were much approved in the 
 Church, and were composed about the fifth century, says, that the 
 '^ pious coming to the end of his contests in this life, is filled with 
 ^^ holy rejoicing, and with exceeding happiness enters on the 
 ^' pathway of his resurrection."^ He adds, that the just go to 
 Abraham's bosom, which he thinks " is the divine and happy 
 '^ lot of the blessed Patriarchs, and of all other saints, which 
 " receives all those who resemble God into perpetual and most 
 '^ happy perfection therein."^ A work attributed to Justin 
 Martyr, but which seems to have been written also in the 
 fifth century, furnishes another evidence of the prevalence of 
 sound doctrine. '^ After the departure of souls from the body, 
 ^' the just are immediately separated from the unjust ; for they 
 '' are brought by the angels to their fitting places. And the 
 '' souls of the just are brought to Paradise, where they enjoy the 
 " converse and view of the angels and archangels, and even that 
 " of our Saviour Christ himself, by vision, according to that 
 '^ which was said, ' We are absent from the body and present 
 '' with the Lord.' "^^ 
 
 Aretas, Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, in the Sixth Cen- 
 tury^ says, that '^ the souls which are at rest in the bosom of 
 Mraham, are deservedly happy in the hope of those (heavenly) 
 
 «i Cyril. Alexandrinus, Comment, in Joan. lib. xii. p. 1069. torn. 
 iv, Oper. ed. Auburt. 
 
 e De Recta Fide, torn. v. Oper. pars ii. p. 176. 
 
 f See Ceillier, torn. xv. p. 451. 
 
 g Julian. Pomerius De Vita Comtemplativa, lib. 1. cap. i. (attri- 
 buted to Prosper of Aquitaine.) 
 
 h Dionys. Areop. Eccl. Hier. cap. vii. p. 141. Oper. ed. 1615. 
 
 i Ibid. p. 147. ^ *- ^ 
 
 k Qusest. et Resp. ad Orthodox. Qu. Ixxv, 
 
42 LETTER VI. 
 
 things which are contemplated by the intellect as in a glass ; for 
 it has been said by many of the saints, that every good man is 
 allotted a fitting place, whence also he may form a certain con- 
 jecture of his future glory .^ 
 
 St. Eligius, Bishop of Noyon in the seventh century, taught 
 the same doctrine ; ^^ that when the soul is severed from the 
 '^ body, it is immediately, according to its merits, placed in 
 ^' Paradise; or certainly, for its sins, is precipitated into Hell."" 
 St. Theophylact affirms, that '^ the souls of the just are in the 
 " hand of God ; but those of the wicked are carried hence like 
 *' that of the rich man."° 
 
 In addition to these evidences of the Church's belief in refer- 
 ence to the blessedness of the departed faithful, it would be 
 easy to produde abundant authorities in opposition to the notions 
 on which the doctrine of Purgatory is based — to shew that it 
 was not believed that any penalties, whether temporal or eter- 
 nal, await the righteous after this life ; or that any sins can be 
 remitted after death. 
 
 The illustrious Confessor, St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspa, 
 in commenting on Matt. xxi. 32. 36, '' ft shall not be forgiven 
 ^^ him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come," entirely 
 subverts the foundation on which the doctrine of Purgatory is 
 built. '' By these words," he says, '^ our Lord and Saviour 
 " did not intimate that any sins will he forgiven in the world to 
 " come, which have not been forgiven in this world, but shews 
 ^^ to those who rightly understand, that no other sins will be 
 " forgiven in the future world, but those only which, in this 
 ^^ world, have been forgiven in the true Catholic Church. For 
 ^' to her alone did the Lord give the power of binding and loos- 
 ^' ing, saying, ^ I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of 
 ^' Heaven,' &c. Whatever, therefore, the holy Church hath not 
 ^' loosed in this world, shall remain so indissoluble, that it can- 
 '^ not by any means be loosed in the future world.°" 
 
 St. Gregory Nazianzen directly and formally denies that 
 there is any Purgatory in the next life. After speaking of the 
 scourges by which God purifies men in this life, he adds : '' It 
 '' is better to be chastised and purged now, (in life) than to be 
 ^^ delivered to that torture (after death) ; since then shall be 
 
 1 Aretas, Comment, in cap. vi. Apocalyps. 
 
 m Elig-ius, De rectitud. Catholic. Conversationis, inter Augnistini 
 Opera, torn. vi. Append, col. 274. 
 
 n Theophylact. Comment, in Matt. viii. 
 
 o Hoc verbo Dominus et salvator noster non aliqua peccata insin- 
 uavit futuro sajculo dimittenda, qua? in hoc sseculo dimissa non 
 fuerint, &c. Fulg-entius, De Remissione Peccatorum, lib. i. cap. 
 24. 
 
LETTER VI. 43 
 
 * the time of pumshment, not of expurgation."? St. John 
 Chrysostom says that " the fire shall not hurt the sou] which is 
 '^pure.'"! 
 
 In fine the Fathers condemn the doctrine that any panish^ 
 ments are due to remitted sins, '^ When the guilt is removed/' 
 says Tertullian, ^'^the punishment is so likewise."^ "Where 
 ^' there is grace there is remission^" says Chrysostom ; " where 
 ^^ there is remission^ there is no "punishment ^^ Augustine 
 enquires, '' Why is it saidj ^ thy sins are covered ?' It is, that 
 " they may not he seen. For why was God to see sins, unless 
 ^^ to punish them."^ 
 
 ^^ Whaty^^ says Fulgentius, '^ do we suppose cannot be re- 
 '^ mitted to us, when the Lord ' pardons all our iniquities ?' 
 *^ What do we imagine cannot be healed in us, when the Lord 
 ^' ' healeth all our infirmities ?' Or how can he who is healed 
 " and justified be in want of any thing, when he is ^ satisfied 
 " with good things ?' Or how can it be supposed that he does not 
 '^ enjoy the benefit of complete remission^ who is ^ crowned with 
 ^^ mercy and loving^kindness .'*' "" 
 
 St. Bernard says : " He so wholly pardoned, and so liberally 
 ^' forgave every injury, that he now does not condemn by re- 
 '^ venging, nor confounds by upbraiding, nor loves less by im- 
 puting. Some there are who forgive injury so as not to 
 revenge it, but still they upbraid. Others there are who are 
 silent, though somewhat remains deeply rooted in their 
 " minds, and they retain inward rancour. In neither case is 
 " there a full pardon. Far from these is the benignant nature 
 "of the Godhead. He acts with liberality: he forgives 
 '' entirely."^ 
 
 Surely such a doctrine is calculated to inspire hope, and con- 
 solation, and gratitude to God. We hold that when God for- 
 gives the justified sinner, he forgives entirely. He reserves 
 no torments. He entertains no " wrath." He seeks for no 
 *^ revenging tortures." He receives the trembling and unprofit-. 
 able outcast into his bosom, and clothes him with garments of 
 
 p Orat. xvi. torn. i. p. 304, 305. 
 q Horn. viii. De Pognitentia, torn. ii. p. 3^0. 
 
 r Excmpto scilicet reatu, eximitur et poena. Tertul. De Baptis- 
 mo, cap. V. p. 226. ed. Rigaltii. 
 
 B"0~i-j -yxp ^ocpn;, crvyz'^^^pna-is, oVou Ji ff-u^ZclLflO"*,-, owJs^/* xcK«(r<j, Hom. viiii. 
 
 ia Epist. ad Rom, tom. ix. p. 502. 
 
 t Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit ? Ut non viderentur. Quid enint, 
 erat Dei videre peccata, nisi punire peccata ? August. Enarrat. ii. 
 in Ps. xxxi tom. iv. 
 
 u Fulgentius, Epist. xii. ad Venantiam, De Pcenitentia. Bibl. 
 ?atr. 
 
 X Bernard. Serm. De Frag-mentis, col. 300 Oner, ed, Paris. 1586 
 
 e( 
 
 se 
 
44 LETTER VI. 
 
 joy. He may require works of repentance, and may impose 
 afflictions before he justifies the sinner ; but justification and 
 sanctification infer the cessation of all wrath, and a full satisfac- 
 tion oi Divine justice. The just have therefore nothing to fear 
 from God's justice, while they continue in a state of justification. 
 They have nothing to dread from it in this world or beyond the 
 grave. 
 
 The holy Scriptures, and the united voice of Catholic tradi- 
 tion, confirm this doctrine. They proclaim rest, and peace, 
 and joy to the departed faithful, even from the moment in 
 which the soul departs from the body. The opinions of one or 
 two individual writers in the fifth or sixth centuries, cannot 
 have any weight against such authority. 
 
 I shall only add in conclusion, that the Catholic Church has 
 never defined the doctrme of Purgatory, or by any formal act 
 expressed her belief in it ; for the Council of Florence was not 
 CEcumenical, having been held when the rival, and more nu- 
 merous Council of Basle was sitting ; and accordingly its 
 authority is doubtful even amongst Romanists ; besides which, 
 it has always been rejected by the Eastern Church. And as 
 for the Council of Trent, it was not only rejected by a great 
 portion of the West, and by the whole Eastern Churches ; but 
 it does not even represent the judgment of the Roman Churches; 
 inasmuch as its decrees were received on a blind principle of 
 obedience, without examination or discussion. This I have 
 endeavoured to shew in my Treatise on the Church, (vol. ii. p. 
 237, &c.) I therefore deny that its decrees are binding on 
 Romanists ; and I now invite you to prove, if you can, that the 
 Roman Clergy are bound to receive its decisions as de Jide, 
 except by the discipline of their Church, which imposes on its 
 Clergy the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV. 
 
 I remain, Sir, yours, &c. 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER. 
 Oxford, JVov, 26, 184L 
 
SEVENTH LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D. D 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES, 
 
 BT THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A. 
 
 OP WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD, 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, 
 
 110 BALTIMOBS STBEET. 
 
 1843. 
 
A SEVENTH LETTER, &c. 
 
 § 1. Practical influence of Indulgences amongst Romanists. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Comparatively few of those who receive or dispute the 
 doctrine of Indulgences, are aware of the profound influence 
 which it exercises in the Communion of the Church of Rome. 
 I have already stated that works of piety and charity are made 
 to depend very much on Indulgences ;^ but this subject is of so 
 much importance, and is so closely connected with a vast mass 
 of abuses and superstitions of various kinds, that it merits a more 
 extended examination. 
 
 An Indulgence, according to Romanists, is a remission of the 
 penalties due to remitted sin either in this life or in Purgatory ; 
 and it is obtained by performing certain conditions prescribed by 
 the authority which grants the Indulgence. Thus much may 
 suffice at present, in order to enable us to comprehend the 
 working of the system, which shall be considered under various 
 heads. 
 
 I. Privileged Altars. The following description is given 
 by the learned Thiers of the origin and uses of annexing In- 
 dulgences to attendance at particular Altars — a practice which 
 he considers more recent than the Council of Trent. " The 
 first notion apparently came from some mendicant Monk, who 
 judging that this devotion could not be indifferent to his convent, 
 solicited its establishment, or caused it to be solicited, at Rome 
 .... He there procured a Brief for a privileged altar, for 
 which he obtained the approbation of his Ordinary, who was 
 perhaps an accommodating and obliging person. He then had 
 it printed, posted up, and published everywhere ; caused tab- 
 lets to be made, with the inscription Privileged Altar in 
 large letters ; set ihem above the altar designed for Indulgences ; 
 on the doors of his church ; and over the principal gate of his 
 convent ; caused the bells to ring and chime in an extraordi- 
 nary manner ; sent billets to every house ; confessors invited 
 devotees to the ceremony ; the office was solemnly peiformed^ 
 
 a Letter L p. 23, &c. 
 
4 LETTER VII. 
 
 the church magnificently adorned^ and the privileged altar 
 above all ; the Indulgences were proclaimed ; the people came 
 in crowds to gain them, confessed, communicated, and asked 
 for masses at the privileged altar ; the monks who had pre- 
 viously been poor, had something to spare ; the community was 
 augmented to dispose of this ; in a word, they derived advan- 
 tage from this new invention. 
 
 '^ Nothing more was requisite to excite the holy jealousy of 
 other mendicants .... They wrote, sent, solicited at the 
 Court of Rome, and at length obtained them .... From the 
 churches of the mendicants they passed to those of the other regu- 
 lars ; thence to some of the estated Monks, to parishes, to Collegi- 
 ate and even Cathedral churches. It was perceived that they 
 brought masses to the mendicants, and that the payments for 
 these masses were a great assistance in supporting communities. 
 Other regulars judged that this was a method not to be neg- 
 lected : they, like the mendicants, set up titles of privileged 
 altars ; some even went beyond these titles, and added, here 
 
 A SOUI. IS DELIVERED FROM PURGATORY AT EVERY MASS, and 
 
 others, while mass was said at their privileged altars (especially 
 from the Consecration to the end of the Communion) let off 
 little fire-works in the rear, in order to mark that at this mo- 
 ment a soul went out of Purgatory straight into Heaven ! This 
 I have seen practised in a celebrated church, and all Paris might 
 have seen it as well as me. 
 
 ^^As there are always some Monks in monasteries, some 
 Priests in parishes, some Canons or Chaplains in Collegiate and 
 Cathedral churches, who have a little more skill than others to 
 insinuate themselves into the minds of worthy people, who also 
 know the rubrics and ceremonies, how to dress altars, to make 
 bouquets of flowers, to clean and fold the ornaments, and to ring 
 the bells better than others, they are usually charged with the 
 Sacristy, the Register, and the Mass-account ; and in order to 
 deserve well of their communities .... one of their first cares 
 is, to have a chapel dedicated to some new Saint; a new relic ; 
 or some extraordinary Image ; but particularly a privileged 
 altar, in order to make masses come to the Sacristy, under pre- 
 text of gaining Indulgences and delivering souls from Purgatory. 
 The more sensible and enlightened communities, parishes and 
 chapters pretend not to perceive these spiritual artifices, and when 
 they are spoken to with a view to stop their course, or at least 
 to banish the abuses and superstitions which are but too fre- 
 quently met in them, they reply with an indifferent tone and in 
 a negligent manner, ' That they have nothing to do with such 
 matters ; that it is Father this, or Mr. that, who has the care 
 
LETTER Vn. 5 
 
 of it ; that they let him alone^ do not wish to annoy him — that 
 he intends well, and that his only object is to engage good per- 
 sons in practices of piety.' 
 
 ^' They have however, no objection that their Sacristies 
 should profit by the emoluments which arise from this, and to 
 see themselves thus relieved from the expense of providing for 
 the ornaments, lights, and repairs of their churches. This is 
 the utility of privileged Altars."^ 
 
 Such is one specimen of the practical working of the system 
 of Indulgences. It brings large pecuniary profits to particular 
 Churches; and it therefore becomes a matter of great import- 
 ance to the clergy, to obtain the annexation of Indulg-ences to 
 the highest possible amount to attendance in their churches. 
 Accordingly there seems to be a continual struggle to outbid 
 each other in the number and variety of Indulgences. 
 
 II. Privileged Churches. The same object is also attaia- 
 ed by procuring the annexation of Indulgences to attendance at 
 particular churches. Rodriguez, according- to Thiers, states 
 that there are so many Indulgences at the Church of St. John 
 Lateran at Rome, that '^ God alone could count them." It ap- 
 pears from this writer and from the Jesuit Santarel, that the 
 churches at Rome have generally extensive Indulgences annexed 
 to them ; and Thiers adds, that the greater part of the religious, 
 orders, and regular congregations, as well as many confraterni- 
 ties, enjoy all these Indulgences :^ Thiers mentions many in- 
 stances of such Indulgences annexed to particular churches 
 elsewhere, which are, of course, as beneficial as privileged altars 
 to the pecuniary interests of the Clergy. 
 
 III. Confraternities and Associations. The Roman 
 Church authorizes an infinite multitude of voluntary associa- 
 tions of individuals for various purposes, connected more or less, 
 with religious or Ecclesiastical objects, and rewards their mem- 
 bers by the grants of Indulgences. This system is entirely 
 unknown in the English and the Oriental Churches, as it was 
 also in the primitive ages. Its efiiciency however is so unques- 
 tionable, that no association for any religious purpose, however 
 good, is ever formed amongst Romanists, which does not 
 speedily seek for Indulgences as necessary to its success. 
 
 Thus for example, in 1822 an Association was formed at 
 Lyons '' for the propagation of the Faith," with a view to aid 
 Missionaries in foreign countries by their prayers and pecuniary 
 subscriptions. One would have thought that these objects 
 
 b J. B. Thiers, Trait6 des SujDerstitior.s, Liv. vii. ch. xviii. 
 c J. B. Thiers, Liv. vii. ch. xiii. 
 
 19* 
 
6 LETTER VII. 
 
 would alone have been sufficient to engage the co-operation of 
 all pious and sincere members of that Communion ; and that 
 all that was necessary was to recommend it to general attention 
 on motives of Christian charity and of contributing to the glory of 
 God. This was not sufficient : it would have been inoperative 
 without the aid of the system we are now considering. '' Pius 
 VII," says Bouvier^ " regarded this institution as salutary, and 
 in order to encourage it, he granted to it^ in 1823, the follow- 
 ing Indulgences, <^c."'^ 
 
 Thus again, the Confraternity of the Holy Sacrament, estab- 
 lished for the purpose of paying respect to the holy Eucharist, 
 and of providing the necessary ornaments, and supplying lamps 
 to burn in the churches, of attending the Sacrament in procession 
 through the streets, assisting at certain ceremonies with torches, 
 and performing various acts in honour of the Eucharist, was 
 not only approved by Paul III. in 1539, but Indidgences were 
 annexed to all the particular actions which its members were 
 to perform.® 
 
 Again, if it be thought desirable to institute catechizing under 
 any improved system, like that invented by Oilier cure of St. 
 Sulpice in the seventeenth century, Indidgences are obtained 
 for all who attend such instructions, and receive Confirmation 
 and Communion/ 
 
 Confraternities are also established for aiding poor persons 
 during pilgrimages, for honouring the name of God, and of 
 Jesus Christy for supporting hospitals, for giving marriage por- 
 tions to poor young women, for aiding the poor and infirm, for 
 visiting poor lunatics, for offering certain prayers every month 
 and providing for the burial of poor persons, for instructing the 
 ignorant in church every Sunday, for ransoming captives, &c.s 
 All these associations are indebted to Indulgences for no small 
 portion of their success. There is scarcely a charitable institu- 
 tion, or a good work of any kind to which they are not annexed. 
 
 IV. Devotions. This is closely connected with the preced- 
 ing branch of our subject, for multitudes of Confraternities are 
 established especially with a view to promote the practice of 
 certain devotions or religious exercises. Thus the Confraternity 
 of the Rosary is established for the purpose of repeating the 
 Rosary in honour of the blessed Virgin, visiting the altars dedi- 
 cated to its honour, especially on the festivals of the Virgin, 
 hearing hymns in her honour, causing others to recite the 
 Rosary, &c. It has been continually enriched with new Indul- 
 gences by the various Popes.^^ 
 
 d Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 361, 362. 
 e Bouvier, p. 317, 318. f Ibid. p. 363, 364. g Ibid. p. 325, &c. 
 li Ibid, p. 292, &c. 
 
LETTER Vir. 7 
 
 The Confraternity of the Scapular which is instituted in 
 honour of the Virgin, and the members of which carry on their 
 persons a piece of blessed cloth (called Scapular), to the posses- 
 sion of which various spiritual privileges are annexed, have 
 also innumerable Indulgences for receiving this cloth ; pronoun- 
 cing the name of Jesus ; assisting at religious processions ; 
 visiting devoutly the chapels of the Confraternity ; reciting the 
 little office of the Virgin, with acts of contrition ; repeating 
 Litanies containing invocations of Saints ; repeating the Lord's 
 Prayer and Ave Maria seven times a day in honour of the 
 Virgin, &c. &c/ 
 
 In like manner the Confraternities for the perpetual adora- 
 tion of the Sacrament -^ for the honour of the holy Virgin of 
 Help •} for w^orshipping the heart of Jesus and of Mary ; for 
 offering the prayers of the ''^holy hour" every Thursday \^ for 
 promoting certain religious exercises in colleges under the di- 
 rection of the Jesuits ;^ and for worshipping and invoking par- 
 ticular Saints, such as St. John Baptist, St. Joseph, the Twelve 
 Apostles, St. Benedict, St. Roch, the Holy Angels, &c. Stc.,"" 
 are all supported by Indulgences. 
 
 But besides this, if it be thought desirable to promote and 
 encourage any new prayer or act of M^orship of God or of the 
 Saints, the mode adopted is to annex Indulgences to the practice. 
 All the superstitious w^orship of the Saints is upheld by this 
 means, as well as many other rites which are more or less tol- 
 erable or exceptionable. Such as, acts of worship to the hearts 
 of Jesus and Mary ;p the repetition of prayers to the Virgin 
 when the bell sounds "i the repetition of the Gloria Patri, of the 
 Ave Maria,^ of ejaculations to the Eucharist ; visiting the Eu- 
 charist ; kneeling at the elevation of the Host ; walking in pro- 
 cession after the same ; repetition of hymns in honour of the 
 Eucharist ; invoking the names of Jesus and Mary and Joseph ; 
 praying before a crucifix ; repeating Paters and Aves, for the 
 dead ; Litanies and prayers to the Virgin and Saints and An- 
 gels; the dedication of the month of May to the Virgin, &c. 
 &c.^ Ecclesiastics are rewarded with Indulgences for saying 
 prayers :^ Monks and Nuns for taking the vows, and entering 
 on Retreats '^"^ the Laity for discharging their religious duties. 
 The whole frame of religion depends to a great extent on 
 Indulgences. 
 
 i Bouvier, 
 I Ibid, 
 n Ibid. 
 P Ibid, 
 r Ibid. 
 I Ibid. 
 
 er, p. 301, &c. 
 
 k Ibid. p. 323. 
 
 p. 325. 
 
 m Ibid. p. 339. 
 
 p. 349. 
 
 o Ibid. p. 368. 
 
 p. 203. 
 
 q Ibid. p. 209. 
 
 p. 215. 
 
 s Ibid. p. 215—261 
 
 p. 263. 
 
 « Ibid. p. 266. 
 
S LETTER VII. 
 
 In addition to this/there are innumerable Indulgences attstcF?- 
 ed to the use of Rosaries^ beads, medals, &c. with the repetition 
 of a prescribed number of Paters and Aves in honour of our 
 Lord, ^f of His five wounds," of His '^ blood," of the *' Sacred 
 heart." There are ordinary chaplets of the Virgin; blessed 
 Crosses and medals; Brigittine chaplets; Indulgeneed chaplets 
 Brigittized, &c. ; to all of which Indulgences are annexed,^ 
 and the use of which depends mainly on the doctrine under 
 consideration. 
 
 V. Good Works. Not only acts of religious devotion to the 
 Saints and to God are approved by the grants of Indulgences, 
 but also various works, of charity, piety, or utility ; such a& 
 resignation to the will of God/ prayer for the dying, teaching 
 Christian doctrine^ mental prayer,^ visiting prisoners, almsgiv- 
 ing, &c. Amongst such works, to which Indulgences have 
 been applied, may be further mentioned, crusades against infi- 
 dels and heretics, or the payment of sums of money in aid of 
 such objects. From this source the Pontiffs derived large 
 profits during the middle ages.^ The erection of churches 
 and convents or contributions for their erection, is another sub- 
 ject of Indulgences ;^ and without doubt, many of the splendid 
 churches erected under the Papal dominion, and especially St, 
 Peter's itself, were built with the funds derived from Indul- 
 gences. The erection of bridges and other useful buildings is 
 also considered a sufiicient reason to induce the grant of Indul- 
 gences. 
 
 In fine, pilgrimages to Rome at the Jubilee for the purpose 
 of visiting the principal churches are encouraged by the grant 
 of Indulgences.*^ Up to the period of the Reformation the same 
 privileges might be obtained by pecuniary payments in lieu of 
 actual visitation of the city of Rprae/^ but from the time of the 
 
 X See these Indulgences in Bouvier, p. 160—200. 
 
 y Bouvier, p. 235. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 211. 
 
 a Ibid. p. 16. Fleury^ Discours vi. sur I'Histoire Eccl. § 2, 6 ; 
 Tournely, De Poenit. torn. ii. p. 308. " Do I mean to say that dur- 
 ing* the middle ages and later, no abuse took place in the practice 
 of Indulgences ? Most certainly not. Flagrant and too frequent 
 abuses doubtless occurred through the avarice, and rapacity, and 
 impiety, of men; especially when Indulgence was granted to the 
 contributors towards charitable or religious foundations." Wise- 
 man, Controv. Lect. ii. 88. It apears from Amort, Theologia, tom. 
 XV. p. 229. that the Indulgence of the Crusade is still in force in 
 Spain, and is productive ot pecuniary advantages. 
 
 b Bouvier, p. 27. Tournely, DePoenit. tom. ii. p. 302. Bellarmin. 
 de Indulg. lib. i. c. 12^ 
 
 c Ibid, p. 370, &c. d Jbid. p. 380. 
 
LETTER VII. 9 
 
 Council of Trent those privileges have been extended to other 
 Churches without payment.® 
 
 Thus much may suffice to shew how vast is the practical 
 importance of the question now before us. I do not say that 
 Indulgences form the sole motive to all religious acts in Roman- 
 ism ; but it is perfectly in vain to deny, with these facts before 
 us, that they constitute a great and most important motive to 
 such acts. If they do not, then why is it, that acts and prac- 
 tices in themselves most laudable, or most necessary, or 
 most immediately resulting from the principles of Christian 
 piety or charity, cannot subsist without Indulgences ? Bou- 
 vier Bishop of Mans says that " the prospect of Indulgences 
 engages the faithful to frequent the Sacraments, to be more 
 watchful over themselves, to correct their faults, and to live 
 better. It is this which the Roman Pontiffs ordinarily propose 
 to themselves in the numerous orrants of Indulo^ences which 
 they are continually making, and especially in the solemnities 
 of the jubilee."^ So influential, indeed, are Indulgences on the 
 practice of Romanists, that they have been and are still abso- 
 lutely overrun with forged and spurious Indulgences. Their 
 writers have found it necessary to expose the falsity of numbers 
 of grants. s Their Chief Authorities have been obliged to sup- 
 press them in large masses.^ Their bishops are obliged to be 
 on their guard, and to watch narrowly lest spurious Indulgences 
 should be put forward.^ Everything, in short, proclaims the 
 vast practical influence of the system of Indulgences. 
 
 In truth, if we consider what the doctrine of Romanists really 
 is, we shall see immediately the reasons which must induce 
 them most eagerly to desire Indulgences, and most zealously to 
 practise all the works to which they are annexed. You hold, 
 then, that after the guilt and eternal punishment of sin is remo- 
 ved by the Sacrament of Penance, temporal penalties still re- 
 main due to the Divine justice either in this world or in the 
 next. You believe that the afflictions of life are part of this 
 temporal penalty; that Christians are bound to spend their lives 
 in painful voluntary penances in order to satisfy God ; that after 
 
 e Ibid. 
 
 f See Bouvier, p. 27. 
 
 g Thiers spends two hundred and fifty pages of his work in shew- 
 ing- that multitudes of Indulgences generally received in the Roman 
 Communion are spurious or null. Traite des Superstit. tom. iv. 
 liv. vii. 
 
 ii Bouvier, p. 38; Amort, De Indulgentiis, Disp. vii. p. 242. tom. 
 XV. Theologise ; Thiers, Traite des SuperstHions, lib. vii. c. 2. 
 
 i Benedict, xiv. De Synodo Dioeces. L. xiii. c. 18 ; Bouvier, p. 36, 
 &c. 
 
10 LETTER VII. 
 
 this life, punishments of the most horrible description are to 
 complete the amount of suffering not discharged in this life ; 
 that the justified soul is perhaps for thousands of years still sub- 
 ject to the wrath and justice of God, and suffering tortures far 
 exceeding any that can be endured in this life. With such 
 opinions. Indulgences, which remit a portion or the whole of 
 this temporal punishment, must of course become the objects of 
 most intense desire ; and as your writers contrive very ingeni- 
 ously to render it doubtful, whether in any particular case, the 
 Indulgence has been really and certainly attained,^ the conse- 
 quence is, that Romanists are bound by their own principles ta 
 continue during their whole lives, the labour to attain Indulgen- 
 ces, in the hope that some may at last be really placed to their 
 account, and may thus diminish the tortures of Purgatory. 
 
 Another motive to the acquisition of Indulgences is, that they 
 are, in general, made applicable to the dead;^ so that the living 
 may, by performing certain works, to which Indulgences are 
 annexed, obtain relief for their departed friends and relatives^ 
 who are supposed to be enduring tortures in Purgatory. This 
 is without doubt a most powerful motive, and combined with 
 what has been already said, will sufficiently shew the extreme 
 desire which Romanists must have to obtain Indulgences, and 
 the strength of the motive which must influence them to per- 
 form works to which Indulgences are annexed. 
 
 § 2. The Romish doctrine of Indulgences refuted. 
 
 We are now to consider the basis on which all this system 
 depends — the doctrine of Indulgences and its proofs. I shall 
 avail myself without scruple of your statement of that doctrine, 
 because it is strictly in harmony with the general belief of 
 Romanists. 
 
 An Indulgence then is: ^^A remission by the Church in 
 virtue of the keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, 
 of a portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to 
 sin. The infinite merits of Christ form the fund from whence 
 this remission is derived : but besides, the Church holds that 
 by the Communion of Saints, penitential works performed by 
 the just, beyond what their sins might exact, are available to 
 other members of Christ's mystical body."°^ 
 
 It See above. Letter iii. p. 7. 8. 
 
 1 Bouvier, p. 70, &c. 
 
 m Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 71 ; Ligx)rio, Theologia Mo- 
 ralis, lib. vi. n. 531 ; Tournely, de Poenit. tom, ii. p. 251 ; Bellar- 
 min. de Indulgentiis, lib, i, c. 1; Bouvier* de P(»nitentia> p. 290; 
 
LETTER VIL 11 
 
 I. It is plain that this doctrine depends entirely on the sup- 
 position^ that temporal penalties remain due to the divine justice 
 for remitted sin; for if no such penalties are to be endured. 
 Indulgences with the object of averting them, must be wholly 
 useless and absurd. Now it has been already shewn, that 
 there is no proof that God exacts any penalties of the kind 
 under the Christian dispensation ;^ and that so far from any 
 debt still remainiug due to His justice after sin has been remit- 
 ted, and the sinner justified ; the Roman Church herself holds, 
 that a state of justification implies the closest union with God, 
 and acceptance into His favour and love ; and consequently the 
 previous satisfaction of all claims of His justice ;° for it would 
 be impossible to imagine for a moment, that God could receive 
 to His love, those against whom His justice had still heavy de- 
 mands, and who were still subject to His wrath. The union of 
 the justified with God, and the rich graces which they receive 
 from Him, prove beyond all doubt that He is fully reconciled 
 to them, and that his justice has no further demands. And this 
 being the case. Indulgences (in the Romish sense) must be 
 useless and pernicious impostures. 
 
 II. I cannot but remark on the almost incredible blindness of 
 those who attempt to prove the Romish doctrine of Indulgences 
 from Scripture, to the fact, that their own doctrine is entirely 
 subversive of the attempt. 
 
 You yourself arg-ue with many others ,p that the power of 
 granting Indulgences or remissions of temporal penalties, ^' is 
 included in the commission given by Christ to His Apostles to 
 forgive or retain sins."*i 
 
 But you forget, that according to the doctrine of the Council 
 of Trent, and of all your writers, temporal penalties remain due, 
 after sin is remitted by virtue of the authority here conferred. 
 You forget that you have yourself asserted, that ^' upon this 
 forgiveness of sins, ^^ authorized by the above passage, ''^that is, 
 after the remission of that eternal debt, which God by his jus- 
 tice awards to transgressions against His law. He has been 
 pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior or temporary pun- 
 ts^menf /'"^ and you seem to forget that this very principle is 
 the basis on which the necessity of Satisfactions or Penances, 
 
 Trevern, Discuss. Amic. tom. ii. p. 232; Faith of Catholics, p. 349 ; 
 Milner, End of Controv. Lett. xlii. ; Hornyhold, Real principles of 
 Cath. p. 278; Walenburch. Controv. tom, ii. p. 20; Amort, TheoL 
 Mor. tom. xv. p. 1. 
 
 n Letter ii. p. 15, &c. 
 
 o Wiseman, p. 39, Letter vi. p. 16, 17. 
 
 p Contr. Lect. ii. 72 : Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, tom. ii. p. 227. 
 
 q John XX. 23. r Contr. Lect. p. 41. 
 
12 LETTER Vir. 
 
 the belief in Purgatory, and even the doctrine of Indulg:ence8f 
 itself, are built. But observe, that if this principle be true and 
 sound, the Church cannot have the power of remitting temporal 
 penalties, because they remain due after her power of remission 
 conferred in Holy Scripture has been exercised; and conse- 
 quently. Indulgences, in your sense, are impostures. On the 
 other hand, if the power of remitting sin given in Holy Scrip- 
 ture does include the power of removing its temporal penalties, 
 there are no temporal penalties due to remitted sin ; and conse- 
 quently Penances for remitted sins are worse than superfluous ', 
 and Indulgences, with the view of remitting such penalties,, 
 are equally fallacious and absurd. 
 
 The same observations are applicable to the other texts from 
 which the poWer of the Church to grant Indulgences is dedu- 
 ced by Romish theologians : I mean the promise of our Lord ta 
 St. Peter, ^^ I will give thee the keys, &c. And whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind in earth," &c. which was afterwards extended to 
 the Church. 
 
 It is argued from these passages,^ that as the power here 
 given is general and without exception, it must include the 
 power of remitting the temporal penalties of sin, as well as its 
 eternal penalties. 
 
 I have only to remark, that if it does include such a power, 
 then it follows, that Absolution remits the temporal penalties of 
 sin ; that such penalties are therefore no longer due to remitted 
 sin, and that there is no necessity for Satisfactions or Indulgen- 
 ces to avert those temporal penalties. If, on the other hand, 
 no such power is given by these passages, Indulgences, which 
 are acts of that power, are unauthorized and unlawful. 
 
 Your doctrine of Satisfaction- then renders it impossible for 
 you to maintain, that the above texts include any power to 
 remit temporal penalties by Indulgences. But besides this, 
 there is another proof that you do not yourselves believe these 
 texts to include any such power, because you hold that the 
 Sacrament of Penance was announced and instituted in them : 
 you believe therefore that the powers comprised in them were 
 conferred on Priests, and yet none of your Priests can grant 
 Indulgences. Is it not plain therefore, either that these texts 
 do not, in your opinion, confer the power of granting Indulgen- 
 ces ; or else that you prevent Priests from discharging powers, 
 which you believe them to possess de jure divino ? The last 
 alternative you will not of course receive : it therefore follows, 
 that you do not believe the above texts to include the power of 
 granting Indulgences. 
 
 • Bouvier, Traitc des Indulg*. p. 11 ; Trevern, ubi supra* 
 
I 
 
 LETTER VII. 13 
 
 The only example of an Indulgence which you and other 
 Romish divines pretend to discover in Holy Scripture, is in the 
 case of the incestuous Corinthian, in which " the term of pun- 
 ishment is abridged and the sentence reversed, before the 
 completion of the awarded retribution is arrived ; and this was 
 in consequence of the very great sorrow manifested by the peni- 
 tent, which was considered an equivalent for the remaining por- 
 tion ;" and this is you say, " precisely what we should call ^u 
 Indulgence^ 
 
 This case is disposed of in a moment, by considering that an 
 Indulgence is, according to Romanists, " a relaxation of tem- 
 poral penalties due to remitted sin." But the penalties imposed 
 in this case were not for remitted sin. When St. Paul com- 
 manded *^ such an one to be delivered to Satan," (1 Cor. v, 5 ) 
 he was still apparently in the commission of most grievous sin ; 
 and as such, St. Paul speaks of him (verse 13.) as " that 
 wicked person." Consequently his punishm.ent was not inflicted 
 after his sin had been remitted; and therefore the remission of 
 that punishment on his repentance was not an Indulgence in 
 your sense of the term, but a remission of the penalty inflicted, 
 accompanied by an act of forgiveness of sin,, as the Apostle 
 intimates (2 Cor. ii. 7. 10.) where he forgives the offender, in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, and authorizes the Church at Corinth 
 to do so likewise, as the offender had given signs of real peni- 
 tence. 
 
 We next turn to the proofs for Indulgences from Christian 
 Antiquity ; and here again I shall take the liberty of noticing 
 those which you have selected as the most conclusive. 
 
 Your proofs then are derived from the practice of the primi- 
 tive Church in relaxing the penances imposed according to the 
 Canons, on those who had confessed their sins and sought to be 
 restored to the communion of the Church. 
 
 You allege, that ^* there are the strongest reasons to believe, 
 that in most cases absolution preceded the allotment of this 
 penance, or at least that it was granted during the time of its 
 performance,'^^ because the custom of the Roman and other 
 Churches was, to admit penitents yearly to Communion on 
 Holy Thursday, '' a circumstance incompatible with the idea 
 of their receiving no pardon till the conclusion of their penance."^ 
 
 The answer to this is, that the penitents reconciled on Holy 
 Thursday in each year, were those who had comj)leted their 
 canonical penance. 
 
 t Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p. 75, 
 " Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p. 76. 
 
 20 
 
14 LETTER VII. 
 
 You next assert rightly, that the Church reserved to herself 
 the right of mitigating the canonical penances, on account of 
 '' extiaordinary sorrow and fervour mani^'^sted by the penitent ; 
 or on account of" the approach of persecution, when the peni- 
 tents would have an opportunity of testifying their sorrow by 
 patient endurance, and where it was thought inexpedient to 
 leave them unfortified by the Eucharist ;" or in case the peni- 
 tents were " in danger of death," in which case they were, on 
 recovery, to conclude their time of penance ; or sometimes 
 ^' when intercession was made in favour of the repenting sinner 
 by persons justly possessing influence with the Pastors of the 
 Church ;" or in fine, when penitents obtained letters of recom- 
 mendation to mercy from the martyrs imprisoned for the name 
 of Jesus Christ.^ In all these cases the Church mitigated the 
 penances which had been imposed on sinners, and restored them 
 to Communion. Without doubt, innumerable proofs of all this 
 may be brought from the Fathers and the Councils ; but it can 
 be of no avail to the advocates of Indulgences in the Romish 
 sense of the term. For be it remembered, that according to 
 Romanists, an Indulgence is the remission of temporal penalties 
 due to remitted sin» The sin is therefore pardoned and absolved 
 before the Indulgence can be obtained. But in all the instances 
 ever cited from the primitive ages, the Indulgence was a neces- 
 sary 'preliminary to absolution : absolution was only granted in 
 consequence of Indulgence ; and therefore these ancient Indul- 
 gences were not reini^sions of temporal penalties due to absolved 
 or remitted sin. This is conclusive against your doctrine of 
 Indulgences. 
 
 The truth is, that Indulgences were always in primitive times 
 regarded simply as relaxations of penances imposed for sins, 
 either by way of remission or by commuting them for some less 
 penances. No one ever thought of regarding them as remissions 
 of temporal penalties due to God's justice for remitted sins. 
 Maldonatus has stated, that the Indulgences granted by the 
 Roman Pontiffs themselves always profess to remit the "^ en- 
 joined penance."^ They do not themselves pretend to remit 
 the temporal penalties due to God's justice for remitted sin ; nor 
 to relieve souls in Purgatory. These latter uses of Indulgences 
 are merel}- the inventions of Theologians, which are not sanc- 
 tioned either by the doctrines of antiquity, or by the form of 
 Indulgences themselves. 
 
 X Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p. 77 — SI. 
 
 y Maldonatus, de Sacramontis, torn. ii. p- 18. It is said that this 
 clause has been omitted in modern grants of Indulgences ; doubt- 
 less because it too plainly shewed the real and ancient objects of 
 those remissions. 
 
LETTER VII. 15 
 
 But there is another essential difference between Romish 
 Indulgences and those of primitive times. It is admitted by- 
 Romanists that Indulgences refer to the remission of satisfac- 
 tions due for sin ; but it has been proved in a former letter, that 
 according- to the doctrine of Scripture, Antiquity, and the 
 Roman Church herself, satisfactions are not merely for the 
 temporal 'penalties remaining due to sin, but for its guilt and 
 eternal penalties ;'^ consequently Indulgences do not refer merely 
 to the remission of its temporal penalties, but to that of its guilt 
 {culpa) and eternal penalties ; and therefore if they follow the 
 remission of sin, they are null and void. 
 
 The practice of the ancient Church having always been to 
 grant Indulgences as a preliminary to Absolution, it remains to 
 be considered how this discipline has come to be entirely rever 
 sed by the Roman Church, which now makes Absolution a 
 preliminary to Indulgences. 
 
 Indulgences then in the sense of remissions or commutations 
 of Canonical Penances, had been found in the time of the Cru- 
 sades most effective instruments, in influencing the actions of 
 Christians to such works as were thought highly beneficial to 
 the Popes, and to the Church generally. But about the same 
 time, notions were growing up amongst Latin theologians 
 which led to a change of practice with regard to Absolution and 
 Indulgences. ^' At the same time," says Fleury, " the practice 
 was introduced of giving Absolution, even after secret penitence, 
 immediately after confession and satisfaction imposed and ac- 
 cepted : whereas in antiquity it was not given unless at the 
 end, or at least after a great part of the penance had been ac- 
 complished. This change was founded on the reasonings of 
 the scholastic doctors, that external Absolution ought not to be 
 refused to him who, (one should believe,) had already received 
 it internally from God, in virtue of the contrition which he 
 appeared to have in his heart." Tournely^ speaks of this cus- 
 tom as introduced in the eleventh or twelfth century.'' 
 
 The immediate effect of this on Indulgences was twofold. 
 First, it made Absolution precede them, instead of being prece- 
 ded by them as formerly. Secondly, as the guilt and eternal 
 punishment were believed to be removed by contrition and Ab- 
 solution, Satisfactions or Penances were believed only to be for 
 
 z Letter iv. p. 18—37. 
 
 a Fleury, Discours iv. sur PHist. Eccl. § 15. 
 
 b Tournely, Tractatus de PcBnitentia, tom. ii. p. 36. Tournely 
 proves, p. 42, &c. that while public penitence was in use, Sacra- 
 mental Absolution from sins was given after satisfaction had been 
 completed. 
 
16 LETTER VII. 
 
 temporal punishments ; and Indulgences, being remissions of 
 those Satisfactions, were considered to act only on temporal 
 punishments likewise. And thus the present Romish practice 
 and doctrine were introduced, in opposition to those of primitive 
 times. These are not merely my statements : they are those 
 of Morinus^ one of your most learned and celebrated authors — 
 whose authority on questions of this nature is indisputable. 
 He actually fixes the date of your doctrine of Indulgences, as 
 not more ancient than the twelfth century.^ 
 
 Having thus briefly refuted the pretences on which the doc- 
 trine of Indulgences is advocated by Romanists^ and shewn its 
 origin ; it remains to adduce some further arguments in opposi- 
 tion to this error. 
 
 First then, tHe doctrine of Indulgences as taught by you and 
 commonly received by Romanists, has never been defined by 
 any Council ; for even the Council of Trent affirms nothing on 
 the subject except that Indulgences slto useful;^ and does not 
 assert that they are remissions of temporal penalties due to 
 remitted sin. 
 
 Secondly, the Eastern Church, and the ancient societies of 
 the Nestorians and Monophysites in the East, are strangers to 
 the Romish doctrine and practice in regard to Indulgences. 
 
 Thirdly, the doctrine of Idulgences is so far from contributing 
 to Christian Sanctity, that it is very injurious to it in several 
 respects. 
 
 In my first Letter it was alleged, that "Indulgences are 
 made to take the place which Scripture and Tradition assigns 
 only to considerations connected with the eternal slate ; that 
 they are presented to the consciences and hopes of your people, 
 to influence them to the performance of duties which ought only 
 to be urged on the motives of the love and fear of God."^ I 
 stated that ^^ your confraternities, your charitable and religious 
 works of all kinds, are virtually dependent on them."^ You 
 reply to this, that '^ the way in which the true value of the gift 
 may be estimated, is by its fruits" — that my last statement is a 
 '' powerful testimony" to the " value" of Indulgencess — that 
 
 c Morinus De Pcenitentia, lib. x. cap. 22. 
 
 ti Cum potestas conferendi Indulgentias k Christo Eccleaise con- 
 cessa sit ; atque hujusmodi potestate, divinit'is sibi tradita, anti- 
 quissimis etiam temporibus ilia usa fuerit : sacro-sancta synodus 
 Indulgentirum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem, et 
 sacrorum conciliorum auctoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum 
 esse docet et prsecipit : eosque anathemate damnat, qui aut inutilcs 
 esse asserunt, vel eas concedendi in Ecclesia potestatem esse negant 
 &c. Cone. Trid. Sessio xxv. 
 
 e Letter i. p. 23. f Ibid. p. 25. g Remarks, &c. p. 74. 
 
LETTER VII. 17 
 
 the country " will be most like the Church of God" in which 
 works of charity and piety^ even performed with the stimulant 
 of Indulgences, " are done, not the one in which they are neg- 
 lected."!^ 
 
 It would seem from these answers, as if it had never occur- 
 red to you, that the value of a work in God's sight is to be 
 estimated by its intention or motive. You yourselves allow, 
 that the good works of an unbeliever are not so pleasing to God 
 as to be meritorious of eternal life, because he is without pro- 
 per motives in performing them. He does not perform those 
 works to the glory of God. If unlawful motives or intentions 
 mingle with good ones in the performance of a good work by 
 any Christian, that w^ork is partly or wholly vitiated, and 
 becomes displeasing to God. 
 
 Now I maintain that the desire of gaining an Indulgence for 
 the remission of temporal penalties remaining due to the Divine 
 justice after sin has been pardoned, is an unlawful motive to the 
 performance of any work ; because it supposes, contrary to the 
 Catholic truth, that God is still unreconciled to those who are 
 in a state of grace ; that His justice has still demands, after it 
 has been satisfied by the due application of Christ's infinite 
 merits ; and that the justified are objects of his wrath and ven- 
 geance. Any work based on such impressions, or whose 
 motives include such impressions, cannot but be displeasing to 
 God. 
 
 But every work wrought to obtain an Indulgence must be 
 wrought with such views, for as Bouvier Bishop of Mans in- 
 forms us, ^^ All the authors agree that, in order to gain an 
 Indulgence, it is necessary to have a real intention of gaining 
 it ; whence they conclude that in doing a work to which an 
 Indulgence is attached, but without thinking of it, or having 
 had positively the intention of obtaining it, nothing is gained. "^ 
 Consequently, in the performance of all w^orks to which Indul- 
 gences are annexed, there must be an intention of gaining 
 Indulgences, this is, of obtaining remission of penalties remain- 
 ing due after sin is remitted and justification imparted. 
 
 And hence we may see at once the weakness of your defence 
 of Indulgences, Suppose if you please, that a greater number 
 of works are produced by Indulgences than would be performed 
 without them — does this really increase the sanctity of a Church ? 
 does it render it more like the Church of God ? No : such 
 works are actually more or less displeasing to God ; and be 
 their number what it may, the sanctity of Churches and of 
 
 h Ibid. p. 75. i Bouvier, Traite des Indulg". p 87. 
 
18 LETTER VII. 
 
 individuals is diminished by them instead of being increased. 
 It would have been far better for men to produce a small number 
 of works on pmx motives, well- pleasing to God, than to have 
 performed a multitude on impure and unsanctified motives. 
 
 But besides this, Indulgences as actually practised in the 
 Roman Churchy are positively injurious to religion, by encour- 
 aging a number of devotions which are of a superstitious or even 
 idolatrous character. The most objectionable prayers and ad- 
 dresses to Saints and Angels^ recognising them as the sources of 
 grace, the objects of our hope and confidence, and placing them 
 on a level with God ; the most vain repetitions of forms ; and 
 the practice of customs which are subversive of true and intel- 
 ligent devotion, are all supported by Indulgences, and made to 
 take the place of great religious duties. It is of such things 
 that Fleury so justly speaks in the following passage. 
 
 '^ New devotions introduced by some Monks have tended to 
 the same effect of diminishing the horror of sin, and causing 
 the reformation of morals to he neglected. One may carry a 
 scapular, and say every day the Rosary ^ or some Jamous prayer, 
 without pardoning one's enemies^ restoring property acquired by 
 evil means, or forsaking immorality. Such are the devotions 
 which the populace love : which do not engage them to 
 improvement. . . . Thence also comes external devotion to the 
 Sacrament. Men prefer to adore it when exposed to view, or 
 to follow it in procession, rather than prepare themselves to 
 communicate worthily. 
 
 " Since manual labour has ceased amongst the Monks, they 
 have exceedingly extolled mental prayer, which is in effect the 
 soul of religion, since it is the actual exercise of adoration in 
 spirit and in truth, prescribed by Jesus Christ Himself. But 
 it is easy to abuse it, and in this consisted chiefly the heresy of 
 the Massalians condemned in the fourth century. . . . The 
 Fratricelli of later times resembled them much, and amongst 
 Catholics even, mental prayer has served as a pretext for many 
 abuses. . . . God alone knows the employment of one who re- 
 mains for an hour or two on his knees with his arms crossed. 
 This lazy, and consequently equivocal devotion, has been the 
 most common for about five hundred years, particularly amongst 
 women, who are naturally more indolent and of a livelier ima- 
 gination."^ 
 
 Such are the devotions which Indulgences support and render 
 universal in the Roman Communion ; and while the belief in 
 Indulgences remains, so long will all those practices, thus sanc- 
 tioned and encouraged, continue to flourish in rank luxuriance, 
 
 k Fleury, Discours viii. sur I'Hist, Eccl. § 15. 
 
LETTER VII. 19 
 
 But you are disposed to deny, it seems, that Indulgences do 
 really form the motive to your various works. You assert that 
 '^ Confraternities, &c. do not depend upon Indulgences"^ — that 
 Indulgences are not ^^ proposed as motives of good works, or 
 considered such by Romanists.""^ 
 
 These assertions, however, will be of little avail against the 
 facts which have been produced. It has been shewn that the 
 desire of obtaining Indulgences must be a distinct motive in per- 
 forming works to which Indulgences are attached, in order to 
 obtain Indulgences. It has been shewn that all religious and 
 charitable works amongst you have Indulgences annexed ; and 
 it has been further shewn, that the desire for Indulgences is so 
 general, that the best works cannot be performed without their 
 aid ; that you are obliged to be continually on your guard against 
 forged and spurious Indulgences ; and that the doctrine of Ro- 
 manists necessarily obliges them to spend their lives in labours 
 to obtain Indulgences. This being so, it follows that the de- 
 sire of obtaining Indulgences, must enter into the motives which 
 influence Romanists in their works generally, and consequently 
 that those works are not well pleasing to God. 
 
 I have thus very cursorily touched on some of the principal 
 features of this important subject, but am ready to discuss it 
 with you at greater length, whenever it may suit your conve- 
 nience. 
 
 I remain. Sir, yours, &c. 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER, 
 
 Oxford, Jan. \Wi, 1842. 
 
 i Remarks, &c. p. 75. ^ Ibid. p. 76. 
 
AN 
 
 EIGHTH LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 N. WISEMAN, D.D 
 
 ON THE 
 
 WORSHIP OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A. 
 
 OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, 
 
 110 BALTIMORE STBEET. 
 
 1843. 
 
AN EIGHTH LETTER, &c. 
 
 Sir 
 
 There is no charge which Romanists are more ready to 
 repel with indignation and scorn than that oi idolatrous worship 
 of images and relics. When such a subject is even hinted at^ 
 we are absolutely overpowered with a torrent of invective, sar- 
 casm, ridicule ; with appeals to our common sense^ our charity^ 
 our decency ; with the boldest assertions of innocence ; nay 
 even with anathemas against idolatry. This extreme sensibility 
 on the subject of image-worship will, to the discerning mind, 
 indicate the consciousness of some unsoundness, some lurking 
 feeling that all is not as it should be. Were Romanism in 
 truth as free from idolatry as its advocates would have us be- 
 lieve, we should find them more at ease on the subject than 
 they seem to be. 
 
 Let us cite a few passages in illustration of what has been 
 said. 
 
 I shall first produce your own language. You are quite 
 indignant on this occasion. 
 
 '' Nor yet, my brethren, is this the worst feature of the case ; 
 for a graver and more awful charge is laid upon us in conse- 
 quence of our belief: we are even denounced as idolaters, be- 
 cause we pay a certain reverence, and, if you please, worship, 
 to the Saints of God, and because we honour their outward 
 emblems and representatives. Idolaters! Know ye, my breth- 
 ren, the import of this name ? that it is the most frightful 
 charge that can be laid to the score of any Christian ? Then^ 
 gracious God ! what must it be when flung as an accusation 
 upon those who have been baptized in the name of Christ, who 
 have tasted the sacred gift of His body, &c. Assuredly they 
 know not what they say who deliberately and directly make 
 this enormous charge ; and they have to answer for misrepre- 
 sentation, yea, for calumny of the blackest dye, who hesitate 
 not again and again to repeat, with heartless earnestness and 
 perseverance, this most odious of accusations, without being fully 
 assured (which they cannot be) in their consciences and before 
 God, that it really can be proved. . . . You will not open a single 
 Catholic writer, from the folio decrees of Councils, down to the 
 smallest catechism, placed in the hands of the youngest child- 
 
4 LETTER Vin. 
 
 ren, in which you will not find it expressly taught, tnat it 
 is sinful to pay the same homage or worship to the Saints, or 
 to the greatest of the Saints, or the highest of the Angels in 
 heaven, which we pay to God,"* &c. &c. 
 
 Let us next hear the Declaration of " the Vicars Apostolic." 
 
 ^^ Ignorance or malice has gone so far as to charge the Cath- 
 olic Church with idolatry in the worship of the Saints, and of 
 the images of Christ and of the Saints. The Catholic Church 
 teaches that idolatry is one of the greatest crimes that can be 
 committed against the majesty of God ; and every true member 
 of this Church shudders at the idea of such a crime, and feels 
 grievously injured by so horrid an imputation. ... To 
 xcorshi^o the iii>ages of Christ or of the Saints, the word is here 
 again understood by Catholics only of an inferior and relative 
 respect shewn to images. ... To condemn this relative 
 regard for images or pictures, would be to condemn the very 
 feelings of nature. To charge a Catholic with idolatry because 
 the term worship, meaning only an inferior and relative regard, 
 is found in the ancient and modern Liturgies of his Church, is 
 not consistent with candour or charily. The charge that the 
 Catholic Church sanctions the praying to images is a calumny, 
 and carries with it an imputation of stupidity too gross to be 
 noticed,"^ &c. 
 
 Dr. Baines shall speak next. 
 
 " You have been told that ' Romanists worship images, as 
 did the pagans of old, and that, like them, they give the glory 
 of the eternal God to the works of men's hands.' I know how 
 common such accusations are, and how otherwise respectable are 
 the sources from which they spring, or I should fear to insult 
 your understandings by supposing that any of you are capable 
 of believing them. For is it possible that in an age and coun- 
 try which claims to be so learned and enlightened, men should 
 be found capable of believing that the majority of the Christian 
 world are so ignorant, so debased, so stupid, so wicked, as to 
 give divine honours to a lifeless and senseless image ? Really, 
 my Christian brethren, I blush to think it should be neces- 
 sary to say that Catholics, as well as you, know the folly, 
 and detest as much as you, the impiety of giving divine honours 
 to a lifeless piece of wood or ivory. ... 1 shall then 
 merely add, in the words of St. Paul, in conformity with the 
 
 ;^ Wiseman,. Controv. Lectures, vol. ii. pp. 93, 94. I cannot but 
 admire the ingenuity of this disclaimer. You deny that divine 
 honours are due to the Saints or their images; but you forget to notice 
 our charge, that divine honours are paid to Images of Christ and to 
 the cross. 
 
 '' Declaration of Vicars Apostolic, 1826, Section, iv.. 
 
LETTER VIII. 5 
 
 repeated decisions of the Catholic Churchy and in unison with 
 the voice of every Catholic in the world, anathema to the man 
 who worships an image as God, or gives to it divine honours/ 
 or believes it to possess any portion of divine power or virtue, 
 or places his trust in it, or prays to it, or believes it to be any 
 thing more than a lifeless, senseless lump of matter. . . . 
 And, my brethren, I will add, without hesitation or fear, anath- 
 ema to myself if the doctrine I have here explained to you is 
 not the true and universally received doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church.'"! 
 
 But Sir, notwithstanding all these vehement protestations, it 
 is clear, by your own admissions and by those of other Roman- 
 ists, that the Roman Church is not so perfectly immaculate as 
 you would lead us to suppose. 
 
 We have first the following admission, '^Ishall be told that 
 the manner in which the poorer Catholics pray before her (the 
 Virgin's) images and those of the Saints, betrays a greater fer- 
 vour of devotion than they display at other times ; nay, that it 
 even indicates a superstitious trust in those outward symbols 
 themselves. This appearance may be partly /rwe."® 
 
 Nor is it merely that appearances are against you, a truth 
 which every traveller is ready to attest, but Roman Catholics 
 themselves are obliged to admit, that tho§e aippearances are not 
 fallacious *, in short, that ther^e are real abuses in the Roman 
 communion on this subject, 
 
 '^ Experience," says Van Espen, *^ has long ago taught how 
 difficult it is to guard against irreligious or superstitious worship, 
 in some degree savouring of idolatry, in this public and exter- 
 nal veneration of images and statutes, epecially when the base 
 gain of the priests mingles itself with it, combined with the 
 ignorance or excessive credulity of the people. . . . Indeed, 
 notwithstanding many decrees of Councils, and especially the 
 salutary regulations of the Council of Trent, so great and so 
 various is the superstitious, and (as it were^ idolatrous worship 
 of images and statues, amongst the common and unlearned peo- 
 ple, that the Galilean bishops (in the ninth century) do not seem 
 to have had unfounded apprehensions that the unlearned popu- 
 lace would be with difficulty withdrawn from the superstitious 
 worship and unfitting adoration of images, if their worship 
 
 c Dr. Baines, following the general doctrine of Roman Catholic 
 divines, denies that divine honour or Latriais due to imag-es simply 
 per se. This does not by any means imply that he refuses thena 
 such honour where they are considered as representing their orig-i^ 
 nals. This distinction will be noticed further on. 
 
 d P. A. Baines, D D., Sermon on Faith, Hope and Charii^. 
 
 e Wiseman, Letter to Newman, p. 24, 
 21 
 
6 LETTER VIII. 
 
 were allowed. • . . It is certain that the manifold super- 
 stitious worship of holy images owes, for the greater part if not 
 entirely, its origin, progress, and stability, to the filthy lucre 
 of priests, either secular or regular, which they seek from the 
 popular concourse and indiscreet affection of the people to cer- 
 tain images."^ 
 
 The same evils were acknowledged by the learned Gerson, 
 in the fifteenth century. '' Judge," said he, " whether so 
 great a variety of images and pictures in the Church be expe- 
 dient, and whether they do not sometimes pervert numbers of 
 the unlearned people to idolatry ."s 
 
 This, Sir, explains in some degree the irritation which 
 Romish authors^invariably display when the subject of idolatry 
 is mentioned. But let us examine the subject a little more 
 closely, and enquire whether superstitious and idolatrous prac- 
 tices in reference to images and relics are mere abuses in the 
 Church of Rome, or whether they are not taught, allowed, and 
 sanctioned by the highest authorities amongst you. 
 
 J undertake then to demonstrate that, notwithstanding all 
 your disclaimers, direct and formal idolatry — what you 
 
 YOURSELVES ADMIT TO BE IDOLATRY — IS AUTHORIZED AND 
 APPROVED IN YOUR COMMUNION, AND THAT YOU ARE PRE- 
 VENTED BY YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES FROM CONDEMNING IT. 
 
 First then, what is idolatry, according to Romanists ? 
 
 ^^It is the giving to man, or to any thing created, that hom- 
 age, that adoration, and that worship, which God hath reserved 
 unto Himself.'"^ " Idolatry pays divine honour to creatures."' 
 '^ Those only are idolaters who offer to a creature the honour 
 and worship due to God."^ Idolatry is, according to Ligorio, 
 ^'^when honour is given to the creature as to God. This is 
 done (as Lessius teacheth) not merely by sacrifice, but also 
 by any sign of honour, by which any one intends to sub- 
 mit himself to a creature as to God, e. g. by genuflexion, 
 offering incense, uncovering the head," &cj It is, according 
 to Amort, ^^ the adoration of a creature as God."'" Thomas 
 Aquinas remarks that idolatry is a species of superstition, 
 " which is chiefly practised when divine worship is attributed 
 to one to whom it is not due; but it ought to be paid only to 
 
 f Van Espen Opera, torn. ii. pp. 240, 241. ed. Lovan. 1732. 
 g Gerson, Defect. Eccl. n. 67. torn. i. Opera, p. 207, Ed. Paris. 
 1606. 
 
 h Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 93. 
 
 i Hornyhold, Real Principles of Catholica, p. 150. 
 
 k Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, torn. ii. p. 276. 
 
 1 Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, 1. iii. n. 12. 
 
 «' Amort, Theologia, tom. xx. p. 272. 
 
LETTER VIII. 7 
 
 the supreme, uncreated G«d."" I need not pursue this point 
 any further. All your writers, without a single exception, 
 agree that idolatry consists in offering to creatures that supreme 
 worship which is only due to God. Secondly. What, accord- 
 ing to Romanists, is the supreme worship due to God, or how 
 is it designated by them ? 
 
 Bellarmine says, " There are as many sorts of adoration or 
 worship as there are species of excellence. But, as far as re- 
 iates to the present purpose, there are three species of excel- 
 lence. The first is the Divine and infinite excellence, to which 
 corresponds the first species of worship, which is called by theo- 
 logians Latria."^ *' It is to be observed," says Tournely, 
 ^^ that there are three sorts of adoration or worship, Latria, 
 which is due to God only; Dulia, which is due to creatures; 
 Hyperdulia, which is bestowed on the blessed Virgin."? " The 
 words Latria and Dulia have been rightly employed to discri- 
 minate properly the supreme worship due to God only, from the 
 inferior worship with which Angels or Saints are honoured.'"! 
 ^^ There are some of the common people," said the Wallen- 
 burghs, " who often understand the word ^ adoration' as signi- 
 fying the highest honour due to God, which we call Latria, or 
 as meaning the adoration of Latria, which however has been 
 taught by no Council. Nay rather, the Second Synod of Nice 
 says that images are to be adored, but it adds, not with Latria.'^^^ 
 In like manner you cite the following words of St. Augustine, 
 as exhibiting the same distinction which is made by Romanists. 
 ^^ We venerate the martyrs . . . But with that worship which 
 the Greeks call kurpsia, and which in Latin cannot be expressed 
 by one word — as it is a worship properly due only to the Divi- 
 nity — with that worship we worship God alone y^ Trevern, in 
 remarking on a decree of the second Synod of Nice which Ro- 
 manists receive as oecumenical, says, "The Council distin- 
 guishes by these certain characters, the adoration due to God 
 alone, from those which may be paid to other objects : it calls 
 the first, the adoration of Latria, which pertains exclusively to 
 God:'' 
 
 I ought to apologize for pressing on the attention of the reader 
 a distinction so well known, and so universally received by all 
 your writers. If you are charged with paying idolatrous wor- 
 
 n Aquinas, Summa Theologise, Secunda Secundse, qusest. xciv. 
 art. 1. 
 
 o Bellarmin. de Sanct. Beatit. 1. i. c. xii. 
 
 p Tournely, De Incarnatione, p. 782. 
 
 q Perrone, De cultu Great, cap. i. Prael. Theol. tom. iv. p. 341. 
 
 r Wallenburch, Coiitrovers. tom. ii. p. 206. 
 
 s Wiseman, Controv. Lect. ii. 113. 
 
 t Trevern, Discuss. Amic. tom. ii. p. 323.. 
 
8 LETTER VHI. 
 
 ship 10 images or relies^ you are ready with your reply, '^ that^ 
 no calumny can be more gross, because the honour which you 
 give to images and relics, is infinitely inferior to, is altogether 
 different from, that true Latria which you only pay to God.'* 
 
 And, Sir, I am^ ready to concede, that as far as theory goes, 
 Romanists are not guilty of the monstrous absurdity of paying'- 
 divine worship or Latria to stocks and stones per se, or even to 
 Saints and Angels when they are represented. To do themf 
 justice, Romanists are careful enough, in their theological wri- 
 tings, and especially in controversies with us, to draw distinc- 
 tions between the Latria which they pay to God, and the Hy- 
 perdulia, and the Dulia whiah they pay to the Virgin, and to- 
 all other Saints and their images. I do not charge you then 
 with advocating in theory, the lawfulness of offering divine ha- 
 iiours to the images or relics of the Saints,"^ nor do I say, that 
 you teach the people to pray to images. There is quite enough 
 in your principles and practice to excite our most serious alarm 
 for your condition, without imputing to you any thing which^ 
 you can fairly rebut and deny. 
 
 But what I do mean to assert and maintain is this; that La- 
 tria — the very honour due to God alone by your own confes- 
 sion, is paid to creatures in the Church of Rome — that this^ 
 worship has been openly avowed and recommended by your 
 most eminent divines — that it is a lawful practice amongst you 
 sanctioned by authority — that it has never been censured — that 
 it cannot be condemned by any Romanist. 
 
 But to descend to particulars ; I undertake to demonstrate, 
 that, according to the doctrine of your most eminent theologians> 
 approved by the Roman Church, Latria, or Divine woi^ship iS' 
 due to the following creatures. Iraages o^ Christ; of the Tri- 
 nity ; of God the Father. Relics of the blood of Christ ; of 
 His nails ; His hair ; His flesh ; of the true Gross ; of the nails 
 which fastened him to it ; of the spear ; the scourge ; the reed ; 
 the sponge; of the napkin of Veronica ; of the linen cloth in^ 
 which our Lord was wound ; of the coat without seam ; of the 
 purple robe ; of the pillar to which He was bound when He 
 was scourged ; of the inscription on the Cross. Images of the 
 true Cross of any material, such as wood, metal, or ivory. Th& 
 blessed Virgin, and her images and relics. The Scriptures. 
 To all these created objects, Latria or the honour due to God 
 only, is formally, expressly, and professedly paid in the Roman 
 Communion. 
 
 These points shall be immediately established by quotations 
 from your most eminent divines ; and as you are for ever assert- 
 
 " I must except the Viro-in, for as it will hereafter be seen, sonfke 
 Romish theolog-ians are oropinion that Latria ia due to her. 
 
LETTER Vill. 9 
 
 ing that the decrees of the Council of Trent in regard to images 
 have entirely prevented the possibility of idolatry, I shall only 
 cite from writers who have lived since that Council was cele- 
 brated. 
 
 1. I shall commence with Azorius. 
 
 " The first question is. Whether the Cross and Image of 
 Christ our Lord ought to be adored with the worship of Latria ? 
 There are four opinions of the doctors, but in my judgment they 
 may be reduced to two, as I shall hereafter say. 
 
 ^^ The first opinion denies it ; so that, according to this opi- 
 nion, the worship of Latria is referred, as to its term, to Christ, 
 contained in the image only by thought or meditation ; and the 
 Image or Cross is only that, in which, or by which, we worship 
 Christ, so that it may be truly said, we do not worship the Cross 
 or the Image of Christ with Latria, but Christ himself in the 
 Cross or I mage ."^ 
 
 He remarks that Alexander, Durandus, Holcot, and Miran- 
 dula, are all said to have been of this opinion. 
 
 ^' The second opinion afiirms that they, (the Images and 
 
 Cross,) OUGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED WITH THE ADORATION OF 
 
 Latria. that is, with the same worship, honour, and venera- 
 tion, with which Christ, whose image it is, is worshipped ; for 
 it saith, that in a Cross or Image three things may be considered ; 
 First, the mere substance of the sign or image in its own nature 
 and per se, which is matter, i. e. wood, gold, silver, or stone; 
 and in this respect it is not capable of veneration or worship. 
 The second is, the figure, relation, and order, by which a sign, 
 or image is referred to the original which it represents ; for 
 what represents and what is represented, are mutually related : 
 in which way also the worship of Latria is by no means due; 
 because this order and relation is something created, really dis- 
 tinct from Christ, the prototype and original. The third is, 
 that the image actually refers to and represents Christ, and in 
 THIS MANNER, saith Cajetau, the worship or Latria, is due 
 TO IT 5 so that the worship is referred as well to the image 
 which represents, as to Christ whose similitude it bears."y 
 
 This opinion he says, '• is received by the common consent of 
 Theologians, as St. Thomas, Alexander de Hales, Bonaventure, 
 
 X Azorii Institut. Moral, torn. i. lib. ix. c. vi. 
 
 y Secunda opinio aflBrmat coli debere adoratione Latrise, hoc est 
 codem cultu, honore, et veneratione qua colitur (.^hristus, cujus est 
 imago : ait cnim, in Cruce vel Inaag-ine posse tria ronsiderari .... 
 Tertium est, Imaginem actu Christum ipsum referre et reprsesentare, 
 et hoc modo inquit Cajetanus 3. par. 9. 25. Art. 3. cuitus Latrise 
 ei est debitus. Ita ut cuitus turn ad imaginem repreesentantem, 
 um ad Christum cujus similitudinem gerit, referatur. Azorius, 
 ubi supra. 
 21* 
 
10 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Ricardus, Albertus Magnus, Paludanus, Almain, Marsilius, 
 Major, Capreolus, and the other more recent writers." 
 
 " The third opinion is that of Gabriel Biel, who asserts that 
 worship is due to the cross and Image of Christ, but not that of 
 Latria properly, but improperly and in a general signification, 
 or by a sort of analogy and similitude." 
 
 '^ The fourth opinion distinguishes in this manner. When 
 the image is worshipped on account of that which it represents, 
 it is the worship of Latria; but when on account of itself . . . 
 it ^ not the worship of Latria but Dulia."^ 
 
 It may be observed here, that Latria is admitted in some sense 
 to be due to the Cross or Image of Christ by the advocates of 
 three out of four opinions, which, according to Azorius, exist 
 amongst Romish theologians. 
 
 Azorius, who upholds the second opinion, then considers the 
 objections which may be advanced against it from the decrees 
 of the second Nicene Synod, and remarks that " the Synod sug- 
 gests that a two-fold worship is to be paid to a Cross; of La,- 
 TRiA, on account of the original which it represents, and of Du- 
 
 lia, on account of the sanctity as it were inherent in it 
 
 On the other hand it is the constant judgment of Theologians 
 that the image should be honoured and worshipped with the 
 same honour and veneration with the original ; and the Council 
 of Trent seems to intimate this, Sess. xxv. In decreto fidei 
 de sacris imaginibus." So that the image of Christ is to be 
 adored with Latria. 
 
 We have thus seen, that the true Cross of Christ and the 
 Image of Christ are to be adored with Latria. Let us next see 
 what is said of other matters. 
 
 Azorius enquires, '^Whether, as a Cross of any material is 
 worthy of the worship of Latria, so also the nails, spear, 
 scourges, sponge, and crown of thorns, made of any materials, 
 ought to be worshipped with Latria. St. Thomas replies, 
 that a Cross of any material ought to be worshipped with 
 Latria, because not only the Cross on which Jesus Christ hung, 
 is worthy of that worship because it touched Christ ; but also 
 inasmuch as it is a Cross, that is, a sign and image of Christ 
 hanging on the Cross ; but the other instruments of our Lord's 
 Passion only deserve the worship of Latria, because they 
 touched the body of Christ."^ 
 
 z Azorius, uhi supra. 
 
 a Quseritur, An quemadmodum Crux cujuslibet materjse cultu 
 Latrise digna est, sic etiam clavi, lancea, flag-clla, spongia et corona 
 spinea ex alia quselibet materia confecta, cultu Latria) coli debeant. 
 S.Thomas . . . respoud^t, Crucem ex qualibet materia constantem. 
 
LETTER VIIL 11 
 
 Hence it follows that any relics of such instruments are to he 
 adored with Latria, though images of them are not to be so. 
 
 Another question is, '' Whether, if any portion of the blood 
 shed in the death of Christ, which Christ did not resume when 
 He came to life, should exist any where, it ought to be worship- 
 ped with Latria. From what St. Thomas has taught, it is 
 deduced, that it ought to be worshipped; because, although 
 separated from the Divine Word, it yet touched the body of 
 Christ ; so that if any of His hairs existed any where, or any 
 little particles of his flesh separated by circumcision, they would 
 deserve the worship of Latria."^ 
 
 There are many all-eged relics of our Saviour in existence, 
 such as hairs, drops of His blood, parings of His nails, the pre- 
 puce, the napkin of St. Veronica, &c. &c. ; all of which are, 
 according to this doctrine, to be worshipped with Latria. 
 
 In fine, Azorius states his own belief to be, that the worship 
 due to images is, '^ Latria, if we worship the image of Christ; 
 Hyperdulia if it be the image of the Virgin ; or Dulia if we 
 worship the images of the Saints dwelling in heaven. "<^ 
 
 2. The next Theologian to whom I shall appeal is Cabrera. 
 
 In speaking of the different opinions of Roman Catholic 
 Divines on this point, he says, that the '^ First is, that images 
 are to be adored on account of the prototype ; yet not with the 
 same adoration, but with another inferior." He cites some 
 writers who held this opinion, and who thought that the image 
 of Christ should not be adored with Latria, or else that Latria 
 should be only offered to it analogicd .^^^ 
 
 '^ The second opinion teaches that the same adoration alto- 
 gether should be exhibited to the images and the things they 
 represent ; so that the Image of Christ is to be adored with the 
 Latria with which Christ Himself is worshipped ; that of the 
 Virgin with Hyperdulia ; and so of the rest. 
 
 coli debere Latria, quia eo cultu noa solum <Jrax <jua Christus 
 pependit digna est, eo quod Christum tetigerit; sed etiam quate- 
 nus Crux est, hoc est signum et imago Christi in Cruee pendentis ; 
 at vero csetera Dominicse passionis instrumenta solum cultuni 
 Latrise merentur quia Christi corpus tetigerunt. Azorius, Ibid. 
 
 b Quferitur, An si alicubi superesset aliqua portio sanguinis in 
 morte Christi effusi, quam Christ-us redivivus non resumpserit, coli 
 deberet Latria? Ex his quse tradidit S. Thomas .... deducitur 
 coli debere, quia etsi a Verbo Divino esset reipsa disjunctus, tetigit 
 tamen corpus Christi ; ut si aliqui capilli ejusdem uspiam extarent, 
 aut aliquse exiguse particulse carnis per circumcisionem abscissae, 
 cultum Latrise mererentur. Azorius, Ibid. 
 
 c Si sit imago Christi, est Latrise : si Deiparge, hyperduliae : si 
 aliorum sanctorum cum Christo in ccelo viventium, duiise. Ibid. 
 
 d Pet. de Cabrera, in iii. part S. Thomse, Commeu. torn. ii. p. 
 639. Ed. 1602. 
 
n ^.ETTER VIII. 
 
 This, he says, is the doctrine of St. Thomas, Cajetan^ 
 Capreolus, Paludanus, Ferrariensis, St. Antoninus, Soto, '^ and 
 almost all the ancient Theologians;^'' of Alexander Alensis, 
 Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, Richard St. Victor, Dionysius 
 Carthusianus, Major, Marsilius, Waldensis, Tunecremata, 
 Angestus against Luther, Ciichtovaeus^ Turrianus^ Vasquez, 
 '^ and many others more recently."® 
 
 This doctrine is, according to Cabrera, proved from the 
 Council of Trent, from **^ the Seventh Synod, ^^ from the Fathers, 
 &c. ; and he maintains that it is "most true, most pious, and 
 very consonant to the decrees of faith. "^ 
 
 Cabrera replies to all the objections which are alleged from 
 the Councils of Nice and Trent, and establishes the above doc- 
 trine from both of those Councils.s He even maintains that it 
 is dejide. 
 
 ^' From this explanation of the Council of Nice, collected 
 from the Fathers, it seems to follow that it is a dogma of the 
 faith, that the image of Christ and the Cross also, are to be 
 adored with Latria; although it seems to many in this age, 
 that it has not yet been defined by a Council, but only that 
 images should be honoured with due veneration ; but that it has 
 not been defined what this veneration should be."^ 
 
 With more particular reference to the Cross, Cabrera dedu- 
 ces from St. Thomas Aquinas the following conclusions. 
 
 ""First — The Cross on which Christ was crucified is to be 
 adored with Latria, both because it represents the form of 
 Christ extended on it, and because it was sanctified by the con- 
 tact of the members of Christ, and bathed in His blood."' The 
 proof is as follows : " The adoration of Latria is due to that 
 thing in which the hope of salvation is placed, but the hope of 
 salvation is placed in the Cross of Christ, according to that 
 hymn of the Church, ' O Crux ave, spes unica,' &c. There- 
 fore, &c. Secondly, because we speak to it (the Cross) and 
 entreat it, as if it were Christ crucified Himself."^ 
 
 e lb p. 641. 
 
 f lb. p. 644. 
 
 g lb. p. 646. 
 
 b Ex hac explicatione Concilii Nicseni coUecti ex Patribus videtur 
 sequi, esse dog-ma fidei, quod Christi imag-o et similiter Crux sit 
 adoranda Latria p. 647. 
 
 i Prima conclusio. Crux in qua Christus crucifixus est, utroque 
 mode adoranda est Latria, et quia reprtBsentat formam Christi in ea 
 extensi, et quia contactii membrorum Christi sanctificata est, et ejus 
 sanguine perfusa, p. 65K 
 
 k llli rei debetur adoratio Latria? in qua spes salutis ponitur, sed 
 in Christi cruce ponitur salutis spes, juxta illud quod canit Ecclesia, 
 O Crux ave spes unica &c. Ergo. Secundo, quia earn alloquimur 
 et deprecamur quasi ipsum Crucifixum. Ibid. 
 
LETTER Vm. la 
 
 " Secondly — The image of the Cross of Christ, of any mate- 
 Tials, is to be adored with L atria,'" &c. 
 
 It may be here observed, that the above argument from the 
 language applied to the Cross would equally go to prove that 
 the Virgin and Saints are adored with Latria, as I have produ- 
 ced in my first and fifth Letter many addresses to them, which 
 fully equal what Aquinas cites in reference to the Cross. We 
 may therefore claim Aquinas himself as a testimony to the 
 idolatrous character of those addresses to the Saints. 
 
 Cabrera establishes the first of the above conclusions from 
 Scripture and the Fathers, " whence," he says, " it is evident 
 that the Cross on which Christ hung is to be adored with 
 Latria, on account of the contact of the members of Christ ; 
 because, on this consideration alone, (setting aside its being an 
 image) it is a relic of Christ our Lord ; but it is certain that relics 
 are to be adored, as will appear in Article 6. Whence, as the 
 adoration of Latria seems to me to have been defined as a 
 matter of faith, to be due to the images of Christ, so also I 
 think of His CrosS' And a most cogent reason may also be 
 deduced from the received custom of the Church, which addres- 
 ses the Cross itself as she does Christ crucified."" 
 
 He observes that the opinion of those who deny that Latria 
 is due to the Cross, or that honour is only due to it in remem- 
 brance of Christ, is erroneous, and ought to be rejected. 
 
 Cabrera maintains that the second conclusion, cited above, m 
 *^^ also to be held as a matter offaith,^^H, e. that a Cross of any 
 material is to be adored with Latria. 
 
 With reference to the images of the nails, &c., he holds^ 
 with Aquinas, that they are not to be worshipped with Latria. 
 He reserves that worship for those objects themselves. /'^In 
 the third degree are those things which by contact with oup 
 Lord partook of His holiness, and remained dignified even in 
 the estimation of believers ; as the Cross, nails, thorns, spear, 
 &c. ; and these are to be adored with Latria. "° 
 
 1 Secunda conclusio. EfSgies Crucia Christi in quacumque alia 
 materia, est adoranda Latria. Ibid. 
 
 m Undo sicut nobis visa est definita adoratio Latrise de imagini- 
 bus Christi secundum fidem, sic etiam de Cruce. Et habetur etiam 
 argumentum firmissimum ex consuetudine recepta ab Ecclesia, 
 quae . . . ipsam Crucem alloquitur atque ipsum Christum cruci- 
 fixum. p. 653. 
 
 n Secunda conclusio D. Thoma? est similiter defide tenenda definita 
 in 6 Synodo can. 73 and 77. 7 Synodo, et 8 Synodo.^ Ibid. 
 
 o In tertio gradu sunt ilia, quee ex contactu Domini sanctitatem 
 ejus participaverunt, et manserunt dignificata etiam in sestimationg 
 fidelium, ut crux, clavi, spinse, lancea, &c. Et h^c sunt adorand^^ 
 Latria. p. 654. 
 
14 LETTER VIII. 
 
 It might be naturally imagined that if the Cross was to be 
 adored with Latria on account of its contact with Christy other 
 objects might be regarded as entitled to the same worship. And 
 here of course the Blessed Virgin will at once occur to the 
 mind. Accordingly we find that there are various theologians 
 who are of opinion that she is entitled to Latria. Cabrera shall 
 speak on this very important point. 
 
 After citing from Thomas Aquinas the following conclusion, 
 '^The Mother of Christ is not to be adored with Latria^ but 
 with hyperdulia/' he observes that, "^ The first part of this 
 conclusion is a dogma of faith, since the opposite is the heresy 
 of the Collyridians, (as Epiphanius relates, Haer. 78 et 79), 
 who worshippe^d the Blessed Virgin as God, and offered sacri- 
 fices to her ... But whether, by reason of her contact with 
 the body of Christ and the consanguinity which she had with 
 Christ, she may be in some way adored with Latria, has not 
 been defined by the Church, but is a matter of controversy with 
 theologians. On the affirmative side, the first argument is,. 
 that the insignia of Christ's Passion, such as the Cross, spear, 
 crown of thorns, &c. are adored with Latria on account of their 
 contact ; but the Virgin Mother of God was more closely united 
 with Christ than the Cross, &c. Secondly, because she was 
 the Mother of Christ, and therefore should be adored with the 
 same veneration as the King Himself. Thirdly, because ti- 
 tles are given to the blessed Virgin which are only due to God; 
 therefore Latria ought to be paid her with these titles ; or if it 
 be not, the titles should not be either," &c.p 
 
 It may here be observed that according to the generally re- 
 ceived principle that the same honour is due to images and re- 
 lics as to their originals, it follows that the images and relics 
 of the Virgin are to be adored with Latria. 
 
 Cabrera produces the arguments of Aquinas in opposition, and 
 thus continues. ^^ Cajetan understands this to be the opinion 
 
 p An vero ratione contactus corporis Christi, et propter sanguinis 
 conjunction em, quam cum Christo habuit, possit aliqua ratione 
 adorari Latvia^ non est ab Ecclesia definitum, sed est positum in 
 controversia theologorum. Pro parte atfirmativa est primum argu- 
 mentum ; quia ratione contactus adorantur Latria insignia passionis 
 Christi, ut Crux, leancea, corona spinea, &c. Sed Deipara Virgt) 
 fuit Christo conjunctior quam crux, &c. Ergo. Secundo, quia fuit 
 mater Christi; ergo adoranda est eadem veneratione. qua Rex. 
 Tertio, quia beatissimse Virgini tribuuntur tituli qui solo Deo deben- 
 tur, ergo cum hujusmodi titulis debet illi exhiberi Latria, aut si 
 Latria non deferatur, neque tituli debent defer ri, &c. Cabrera, p. 
 665. 
 
 The second of these reasons will remind you of the language and 
 illustrate the meaning of the Tipperary farmer mentioned in my 
 first Letter. 
 
LETTER VIII. 15 
 
 of St. Thomas, not absolutely and simply, but by reason of 
 scandal or danger ; in the absence of which he admits that thei 
 blessed Virgin may be worshipped with the adoration of Latria 
 in respect of her contact alone. Other theologians are of opinion 
 that she may be adored with Latria, not merely on account of 
 contaety but also on account of her maternity and con- 
 sanguinity ."^ 
 
 It may be easily inferred from the following sentiments of 
 Alphonso de Ligorio, that there must be a large number of 
 persons in the Roman Communion who would be disposed to 
 receive the doctrine that Latria is due to the blessed Virgin. 
 '^ When an opinion honourable to the holy Virgin is discussed, 
 if this opinion be neither repugnant to faith, nor to the decisions 
 of the Church, and that it has some foundation, some support ; 
 to reject, to combat it, merely because the other sentiment may 
 be also true, demonstrates very little either love or respect for 
 the Mother of God.'"^ Since then the opinion that Latria is 
 due to the Virgin on account of her contact and consangruinity 
 with our Lord may be lawfully held by Romanists, it cannot 
 be doubtful that the votaries of the Virgin must regard it as a 
 sort of duty to adopt, or at least to favour that opinion. 
 
 Cabrera himself does not agree with this opinion, but he does 
 not presume to censure it. 
 
 It further appears from his statement, that the name of Jesus 
 and the Scriptures are, according to some theologians, to be 
 worshipped with Latria. 
 
 " It is doubted, with regard to this and the preceding articles, 
 what is to be said of the worship of the name of Jesus, of the 
 names of God, and of the Holy Scripture. Some answer in the 
 very same manner as regards images, because they are signs 
 and notes, to which therefore the same adoration is due as to 
 the things signified^^ 
 
 3. Gregory de Valentia maintains the following position. 
 '^ Images are to be honoured with the same honour as their 
 prototypes, and therefore the images of Christ's humanity are to 
 be worshipped with Latria."^ 
 
 q Hanc D. Thomse sententiam intelligit Cajetanus hie non absolute 
 et simpliciter, sed ratione scandali aut periculi, quo cessante conce- 
 dit posse B. Virg-inem cell adoratione Latrise ratione solius contac- 
 tus. Alii theologi opinantur non solum ratione contactus, verum 
 etiam ratione maternitatis propter sanguinis conjunctionem posse 
 adorari Latria. p. 655. 
 
 r Glories of Mary, chap, v, 
 
 s Cabrera, ubi supra, p. 656. 
 
 t Gregorius de Valentia, Comment, in D. Thorn, torn. iv. p. 339. 
 Ed. Lugd. 1619. 
 
16 LETTER VIII. 
 
 '* The question is whether the wood of the Cross and other 
 things which are, as it were, relics of Christy as the Sudarium, 
 particles of His blood, and such like things, which are custom- 
 arily shewn, ought to be honoured with L atria. ... I reply, 
 as of the images of Christ, whatever it be that is held on no 
 light grounds to have had the habit of tonching Christ, is most 
 rightly honoured with Latria, not per se, but per aliud, as St, 
 Thomas explains it . . . The very wood of the Cross ought to 
 he honoured with Latria. So also the linen cloth or Sudarium 
 of Christ is to be adored with Latria, and the nails, spear, &c. 
 — So also any relics of the blood of Christ. But as far as re- 
 lates to the Cross which is customarily formed of various ma- 
 terials, in imita^tion of that Cross on which Christ hung; it is 
 also to be adored with Latria.'"^ 
 
 4. Gretser, one of your most celebrated Theologians, writes 
 thus. 
 
 " We have thus far shewn that the Cross of the Lord is to 
 be worshipped: it is now to be explained more particularly 
 with what species of worship not only the original Cross, but 
 its images and signs, are to be adored. . . . We assert, in ac- 
 cordance with the opinion which is more common, and gene- 
 rally received in the schools^ that the Cross is to be worshipped 
 with Latria, that is with Divine worship, not indeed per se, 
 but per aliud ; not absolutely, but with respect and relation to 
 its prototype. To which opinion St. Thomas subscribes, and 
 many of those who follow his doctrine^ as Cajetan, Capreolus, 
 Gregory de Valenlia, and others not a few."^ He then proves 
 this doctrine at great length from tradition. 
 
 Gretser affirms that the same worship is due to all the in- 
 struments of our Lord's suffering — *^ the nails with which 
 Christ was fixed to the Cross ; the spear which pierced His 
 
 u Qasestio est utrum etiam lignum qrucis et alise quasi Christi 
 reliquia3, ut sudarium, particulse sanguinis, et similia guse ostendi 
 sclent, debeant honorari Latria. . . . Rcspondeo, similiter ac de 
 Christi imaginibus, quicquid est tale, qtiod non leviter existimatur 
 habere ejusmodi habitudinem contactus ad Christum, rectissime 
 honorari Latria, non per se, sed per aliud, ut Divus Thomas explicat. 
 . . . Lignum ipsum crucis . . . honorari debet Latria. . . . Sic 
 etiam Latria adorandum est Linteum sjve sudarium Christi, et clavi, 
 et lancea, &c. . . . Sic et sanguinis Christi reliquia) aliquae. . . . 
 Q,uod vero attinet ad crucem quse in similitudinem ejus crucis in 
 qua Christus pepehdit formari solet ex variis materiis ; adoranda ilia 
 quoque est Latria. Greg, de Valent. uhi supra, p. 343, 
 
 X Asserimus autem cum sententia communiori, et in scholis magia 
 trita, crucem colendam esse Latria, hoc est, cultu Divino, non 
 quidem per se, sed per aliud, &c. Jac. Gretserus, De Cruce, tom. 
 i. p. 169. 1. i. c. 57. 
 
LETTER Vm. 17 
 
 side^ the sponge with which He was given to drink^ the title of 
 the Cross,, the pillar to which he was bound when beaten with 
 rodSj and other instruments of the Lord's Passion consecrated 
 by the touch or the blood of Christ."^ To all of these the same 
 worship is due. And we learn further from this writer, that 
 these instruments are still in existence, and are worshipped in 
 various parts of the world. The nails are to be found in vari- 
 ous places.^ There are relics of the title of the Cross at Rome 
 and Toulouse.'^ Many thorns and fragments of the crown of 
 thorns still subsist.^ The column to which our Lord was tied 
 is to be found in the Church of St. Praxedes at Rome, besides 
 many fragments of the same which are shewn elsewhere.*^ The 
 reed and sponge are at St. John Lateran, though part of the 
 latter is also in France.'^ The spear is at Paris, and in other 
 places.® The napkin of Veronica, with which our Lord dried 
 His face, and on which its impress remained, is at Turin, to- 
 gether with the linen cloth in which He was wrapped in the 
 tomb.^ The coat without seam still exists, it seems, at Paris, 
 Treves, and elsewhere,s not to speak of the purple rohe^ and 
 many other similar relics, all of which, together with those 
 above mentioned, are, according to the doctrine of Aquinas and 
 of the great body of Roman Catholic theologians, to be worship- 
 ped with Latria or Divine woTship. 
 
 5. Vasquez maintains at length and with great learning, that 
 the image must be worshipped with the very same act of wor- 
 ship as the original. ''^It is an exceedingly common and ancient 
 doctrine of the divines, which I think true, that the motion of 
 adoration towards the image, so passes into its prototype and 
 original, that both are included under the same veneration ; so 
 that, not even in thoiaght can the image be adored per se without 
 the original, or separated from it."^ He affirms that ^^ the an- 
 cient scholastics . . . say absolutely that the images of Christ 
 and of the Trinity, are to be worshipped with the adoration of 
 Latria."^ 
 
 y Gretser, ubi supra, c. 54. p. 161. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 284. 
 a Ibid. p. 286, 287. b Ibid. p. 288, 289. c Ibid. p. 290. 
 
 d Ibid. p. 290. e Ibid. p. 291-293. ^ Ibid. p. 295-297. 
 
 g Gretser, ubi supra, p. 300. 
 
 h Ibid. p. 301. 
 
 i Vasquez, i)e cultu Adorationis Libri ires, 1. ii. disp. viii. c. 3. p. 
 283. Ed. Mogijnt. 1594. 
 
 k Veteres scholastici . . . absolute dicunt imagines Christi 
 et Trinitatis esse colendas adoratione Latrise. Disp. ix. c. i. p. 
 374. 
 
 22 
 
18 LETTER VIII. 
 
 6. Jacobus de Graffiis, Penitentiary at Naples, affirmed that 
 ^^ We should bestow Latria on the inaage of God, or of Christ, 
 or the sign of the Cross."^ 
 
 7. The same doctrine is taught by Francis de Sales. '^ In 
 so far as (the Cross represents Christ crucified, and has been 
 sprinkled with His blood, it is to be adored with the same 
 adoration as Christ Himself, that is, with Latria.""" 
 
 8. Bellarmine recognises the doctrine of Aquinas as existing 
 in the Church. He states that '' there are three opinions," as 
 to the sort of worship due to images, the second of which is, 
 '^ that the same honour is due to the image as to the original ; 
 and therefore that the image of Christ is to be adored with 
 Latria."" He argues indeed that '' as far as regards the manner 
 o£ speaking, it sliould not be said (especially in Sermons to the 
 people) that any images ought to be adored with Latria, but on 
 the contrary that they ought not to be so adored. "° But it is 
 evident that he is only urging the necessity of caution in the 
 use of language, so as to avoid giving offence. He does not 
 attempt to shew that there is any error or sin in offering relative 
 divine worship to the images of Christ. He argues that it is 
 unadvisable to speak of offering such honours, because the 
 Councils and Fathers have not used such language ; because it 
 may be danorerous to the people ; and because '^^ This mode of 
 speaking offends the years of (some) Catholics, and affords to 
 heretics an occasion for blaspheming more boldly y^^^ But as for 
 the thing itself, he is of opinion that '^ it may be admitted that 
 images may be worshipped improprie or per accidens, with the 
 same sort of worship as their original ;"q or, as he explains it, 
 that the image of Christ may be adored with the worship due 
 to Christ Himself, not per se, but as it represents and is in the 
 place of its original.'^ In fine, he shews that his view is in 
 
 1 Ut unamquamque imag-inem eodem cultu quo ille cujus imago 
 est veneremur, id est, ut imagini Dei, vel Christi, vel etiam crucis 
 signo prout Dominicam passionem ad mentem revocat, Latriam 
 impartiamur. Jac. de Graffiis. Decisiones Aurese, Pars i. 1. ii. c. ii. 
 p. 115. Ed. Taurini, 1597. 
 
 '" Franc. Sales, in Tract. Apolog-ia? de Vexillo Crucis prsefixo. 
 
 n Bellarminus, De Reliquiis Sanct. lib. ii. c. xx. 
 
 o Secunda proposltio, Quantum ad inodum loquendi : prsesertim 
 in concione ad populum, non est diccndum imagines ullas adorari 
 debere Latria, sed e contrario non debere sic adorari. Ibid. c. xxii. 
 
 P Quinto, iste modus loquendi offendit aures Catholicorum, et 
 prsebet occasionem harcticis liberius blasphemandi. Ibid. 
 
 T Terlia propositio : Si de re ipsa ag-atur, admitti potest, imagines 
 posse coli improprie, vel per accidens, eodem genere cultus, quo ex- 
 emplar ipsum colitur. cap. xxiii. 
 
 ' Ac primum, quod imago possit coli improprie eo culta quo 
 
LETTER VIII. 19 
 
 accordance with that of Aquinas and the schoolmen generally : 
 thus recognising their authority, and attesting the preva- 
 lence of their doctrine in the Church of Rome. 
 
 ^ I shall pass over various proofs of the prevalence of such 
 views which might be deduced from the writings of Turrianus, 
 Stapleton, Costerus^ Tannerus/ and others of your theologians, 
 in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and proceed to 
 testimonies of a later date. 
 
 9. Amort, in his Theology, published under the auspices of 
 Pope Benedict XIY. in 1752, distinctly maintains this doctrine. 
 In reply to the question : '' What is sufficient and requisite in 
 order that the worship of Latria (respectively at least) be 
 exhibited to any thing," answers thus : '' It is sufficient and 
 requisite that God desired to be honoured with an excellent 
 worship VI that thing or image, as the immediate instruments 
 af our salvation and of His own glory. . . . It is moreover 
 requisite that the thing should have been adopted by Christ to 
 share in His glory, and commanded to be honoured, and that 
 this should have been manifested to us by some sign either tacit 
 or express. But this was manifested to us concerning all the 
 parts of His body assumed to glory in the resurrection, and con- 
 cerning His five wounds which He retained in glory, and 
 concerning the Cross. . . . Since therefore Christ glories 
 in His wounds and His Cross, and Christians also glory in it, it 
 was fitting that God should desire the other instruments, 
 (i. e. the nails, sponge, &c.) of our salvation and His glory, 
 (assumed to glory,) to be held by us in exceeding reverence,''* &c. 
 Hence it appears that the Cross and other instruments of 
 Christ's Passion are to be adored with Latria, according to the 
 doctrine of Aquinas. The same author allows that images of 
 
 God and of the Holy Trinity may be publicly worshipped, 
 provided that they are made in a certain manner ;" and the con- 
 
 ipsum exemplar, probatur : nam aliquando imago accipitur pro ipso 
 exemplari, et ea, quee fierent circa ipsum exemplar si adesset prsesens, 
 fiunt circa imaginem, mentetamen defixa in exemplari. . . . Tunc 
 autem proprie nuUus honor deferiur imagini, sed soli exemplari : 
 tamen improprie dici potest ipsa etiam imago honorari. 
 
 Quod autein possit imago adorari adoratione ipsius exemplaris, 
 proprie quidem, sed per accidens, probatur : nam aliquando . . . 
 consideramus exemplar ut objective relucet in imagine : et ipsum sic 
 reprsesentatum, et quasi vestitum imagine veneramur, &c. Ibid- 
 
 « Turrianus, apud Cabrer. p. 641 ; Stapleton, Prompt. Cathol. 
 part. i. p. 292; Coster. Enchirid. p. 438, 439; Tanner, in 2 2, Thorn, 
 disp 4. th. 48. 
 
 t Amort. Theologia, torn. xxi. p. 235-237. 
 
 i^ Ibid. p. 237. 
 
20 LETTER VIII. 
 
 text renders it evident that he considers. Latria to be the proper 
 worship due to such images. 
 
 10. The doctrine of Dens on this subject is of peculiar im- 
 portance, as his work is an esteemed manual of the Romish 
 priesthood in these countries at the present day. I shall there- 
 fore quote from this^writer at some length. 
 
 '' With what worship are the images of Christ and the 
 Saints to be venerated ? 
 
 *"' St. Thomas replies to the question, that images may be 
 honoured with the same ruorship with which their prototypes are 
 honoured, but only with a relative or respective w^orship : 
 whence the images of Saints are worshipped with the respec- 
 tive worship of Dulia ; those of the blessed Virgin with the 
 relative worship of Hyperdulia ; those of Christ and of God 
 with the respective ivorship of Latria [Christi et Dei respective 
 Latriae cultu.] Many however maintain that this respective 
 worship given to images ought to be less than the worship given 
 to their prototypes : and hence they infer that the worship of 
 Latria is due to no image. They depend on the seventh Synod^ 
 which says that Latria is not to be given to images because it 
 befits the Divine nature only. But others explain the seventh 
 Synod (as speaking) of ahsolnte Latria, which is not due to the 
 images of Christ, although the respective worship of Latria be 
 due to them ; and they are adored with honour less than that 
 due to the prototype : which doctrines are not repugnant to each 
 other. However it may be, let it be enough for us against the 
 Sectaries, that all Catholics teach and prove that images of 
 the Saints are to be venerated.'^ 
 
 " With what worship are relics honoured ? 
 
 '^ In a mode and with a worship like that with which the 
 images of Christ and the Saints are worshipped (according to 
 w^hat was said, Num. xxvii.) and thus, with the same ivorship 
 with which the person whose relics they are, but a relative or 
 respective worship. . . . Objection 2. A pious son does not ho- 
 nour the instruments of contumely with which his father was 
 slain : therefore a Christian ought not to worship the Cross, or 
 the other instruments of the death of Christ, or of the martyrs. 
 ... I deny it. . . . We worship the Cross, cVc. . . . inas- 
 much as they were the instruments of the victorious Passion 
 and exaltation, which were also sanctified by the contact of th^ 
 Body of Christ or of the Saints/ 
 
 X Dens, Theologia, tom. v. p. 45. 
 y Ibid. p. 47. 
 
LETTER Vnr. 21 
 
 " Is the blessed Virgin to be honoured with the respective 
 worship of Latvia, on account of the contact of Christ, as the 
 Cross of Christ is adored ? . . . Thomas replies in the ne- 
 gative. The diflFerence is, because the Cross is an inanimate 
 thing, the worship of which is in itself only respective," &c.^ 
 
 11. I shall now produce an example of the sort of instruction 
 which is given to the people on such subjects at the present 
 day. The following extracts are made from a Catechism of 
 " Christian doctrine," printed at Florence in 1837. 
 
 " M. What is adoration ? [Vadorazione.] 
 
 ^^ D. An act of religion, with which we worship the Divine 
 Majesty, and submit ourselves to Him in acknowledgment of 
 His supreme dominion. 
 
 ''M. Of what kind is it? 
 
 " D. Of three kinds; Latria, which is paid to God ; Hyperdu- 
 lia, which is paid to the Virgin ; Dulia, which is paid to the 
 Saints. 
 
 *^ M. Ought we to pay any adoration at all to the images of 
 Christ, or of the Virgin, or of the Saints ? 
 
 ^' D. If we consider them only in themselves as a sacred and 
 blessed thing, we shew them that respect only which we feel 
 towards a sacred and blessed thing; but considered as the re- 
 presentative of a Saint, we ought to adore them with the same 
 kind of adoration with which we adore the Saint which they re- 
 
 12. In fine, the Roman Pontifical fully confirms and autho- 
 rizes the same doctrine. It expressly asserts that '' Latria is 
 due to the Cross, ^^^ i.e. to an image of the Cross, a position 
 which contains the doctrine of Aquinas and the schoolmen, that 
 the same worship is due to an image as to the original ; and 
 from which it follows that images of the Trinity, of God, of 
 
 z Ibid. p. 48. 
 
 a " Considerate come rappresentative di un Santo, si debbono 
 adorare con quell" adorazione, con cui si adora quel Santo che rap- 
 presentano." Dottrina Gristiana composta dal Sacerdote Francesco 
 Baldini Paroco dei SS. V'ito e Modesto All 'Incisa. Firenze, nella 
 Stamperia Brazzini, 1837. 
 
 b Ille qui g-ladium Imperatori paefert, et alius crucem Leguti, 
 portans simul ire debent. Crux Legati quia debetur ei Latria erit 
 a dexteris, et g-ladius Imperatoris a sinistris. Ordo ad recipiendum 
 procession. Imperat. Pontificale Romanum Clementis VIII. p. 
 672. Ed. Rom. 1595; Pont. Rom. Urban. VIII. Parsiii. p, 109. Paris. 
 1664 ; Pont. Rom. p. 571. Typis Vaticanis, 1745. 
 
 22* 
 
22 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Christ, and of the Cross, as well as relics of the Cross, are to 
 be worshipped with Latria. 
 
 Ft has now been proved that idolatrous worship of im- 
 ages AND RELICS, has been authorized and sanctioned by the 
 leading Divines of the Roman Communion from the time of the 
 Council of Trent to the present day. Here none of the sub- 
 terfuges so commonly resorted to by Romanists can avail them. 
 It is in vain that they exclaim -^ that they pay no divine ho- 
 nours to the images or relics of the Saints.'''' We reply, that 
 this is not our charge. We only charge their Divines with re- 
 commending the worship of images of Christ, of God, of the 
 Trinity, of the jCross, of the Virgin : and relics of Christ, of 
 the true Cross, and of the instruments of the Passion. It is in 
 vain also that they protest '^ that they do not offer Divine ho- 
 nours to images. We understand their distinctions. They do 
 not worship images per se, or as they are so much wood or 
 stone; they worship them as representatives of their originals. 
 They can therefore deny that they worship images, while at 
 the same lime they do in reality worship them most devotedly. 
 It is in vain also that they assure us that they do not worship ima- 
 ges/^ as Gods," or *^ for Gods," or '^ instead of God ;" for we know 
 that they do not believe that an image of God is itself God ; and 
 do not worship it as such. They worship it however as the 
 representative of God : and in this view give. to it the honours 
 due to God Himself. Such are the subterfuges to which Ro- 
 manists are driven in their attempt to elude the charge of idol- 
 atry. 
 
 But it may be alleged, that such doctrines are merely discus- 
 sed in the theological schools, and never enter into popular in- 
 struction ; that consequently there is no idolatry in fact prac- 
 tised amongst the people. 
 
 Now in the first place it will be observed, that I have quoted 
 a Catechism intended for popular instruction, and printed only 
 five years ago, in which it is plainly inculcated that the same 
 kind of adoration is due to an image as to its original. From 
 which it follows, that divine honours are due to certain images. 
 I would next remark, that the doctrines above mentioned have 
 never been restricted to the schools ; for Bellarmine thinks it 
 necessary to recommend that in sermons to the people it should 
 not be said that Latria is due to images ;<= and on the other hand, 
 Vasquez is of opinion that, in popular discourses, the method of 
 the old schoolmen, who absolutely affirmed that Latria is due 
 
 c Bellarmin. Dc Reliquiis Sanct. 1. ii. c xxii. 
 
LETTER VIII. 23. 
 
 to them, is preferable.^ Cabrera also supposes that these doc- 
 trines.are known to the people.^ There is in fact no sort of at- 
 tempt to conceal them ; except indeed from the opponents of 
 Romanism. 
 
 Supposing however that they were not expressly taught to 
 the people, the danger of idolatry would scarcely be in the slight- 
 est dearree diminished. For it is undeniable that RomanistS: 
 are taught to ^' worship" and " adore" images: the use of those 
 words is continual. But^ according to the " Declaration of the 
 Vicars Apostolic," " the words ^ adoration' and ^ worship' are 
 equally referred, sometimes to God, and sometimes to crea- 
 tures."^ Veron says that "certainly the people understand 
 by the word ^ adoration' the absolute worship o/*Latria ;"s and 
 the Wallemburghs affirm that the people " often understand 
 the word "^ adoration' as signifying the highest honour due only 
 to God, which we call Latria."^ Hence it follows necessarily 
 that the perpetual inculcation in the Roman Communion of the 
 worship and adoration of images leads the people into idolatry. 
 
 The mere profession of the Christian religion is no more an 
 infallible safeguard against idolatry than it is against heresy or 
 any other sin. Bossuet himself admits that " there might be 
 some reason to fear for the ignorant," that the use of images 
 would lead them to " idolatry."^ That man is naturally in- 
 clined to this sin is evident from the fact^ that the gr^at majo- 
 rity of the world has been at all times actually involved in it, 
 and that even the chosen people of God under the former dis- 
 pensation became, to a great extent^ worshippers of false gods. 
 Hence there can be no sort of assurance that the mere profession 
 of true religion affords any security against idolatry. 
 
 But it is frequently alleged that the Council of Trent enacted 
 certain decrees on the subject of images and relics which re- 
 moved all danger of idolatrous worship. To this I have to an- 
 swer first, that all the writers whom T have cited lived after 
 the Council of Trent, and were so far from admitting that their 
 doctrine was condemned in that Council, that they continually 
 adduce the decrees of Trent in confirmation of their own views. 
 
 d Vasquez, De Cultu Adorationis Libri Tres, 1. ii. disp. ix. c. i. p. 
 374. 
 
 e Cabrera, in iii. part S. Thomae. tom. ii. p. 655.. Ed. 1602. 
 
 f Declaration, &c. Sect. iv. 
 
 g Certe populus intelligit adorationis nomine cul turn Latrise 
 absolutum ; iste autem sine dubio non redditur nisi soli Deo. Veron,^ 
 Regula Fidei, § viii. 
 
 t Wallenburch, Controvers. tom. ii. p. 206. 
 
 i, Veron, ubi supra. 
 
24 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Secondly, it is evident on examination, that the Council of Trent 
 made no decision against the doctrines of Aquinas and the 
 schoolmen on these points. Thirdly, Veron, after mentioning 
 the different doctrines of the schoolmen as to the worship of 
 images and relics, says, that the Council of Trent observes a 
 prudent silence as to these opinions, " and teaches nothing else 
 but that « rfwe honour and veneration is to be rendered to them.' 
 Wherefore none of the aforesaid (doctrines) is de fide : there- 
 fore let them be kept within the bounds of the schools. You 
 are not obliged to subscribe to any of them in order to be a Ca- 
 tholic. Subscribe the Council of Trent only,"^ &c. So that, 
 notwithstanding the decrees of the Council of Trent, members 
 of the Roman Communion are at perfect liberty to maintain 
 that Divine honours are due to certain images and relics. 
 
 From what has been said it follows necessarily that you 
 CANNOT WARN YOUR PEOPLE agaiust offering relative Latria 
 or Divine honours to the images and relics which I have men- 
 tioned, AS AGAINST A SIN. For in the first place, the Council 
 of Trent has not made any decision against the practice. Se- 
 condly, your most eminent theologians have generally main- 
 tained it, and have never been censured for so doing by any 
 Popes, Councils, or Bishops. Thirdly, those theologians have 
 maintained that their doctrine is supported by the Fathers^ by 
 theological reasons, by the general consent of theologians, by 
 the practice of the Roman Church, and by several General 
 Councils, including that of Trent ; and according to the doctrine 
 of probability generally received by Romanists, it is perfectly 
 safe to receive any doctrine supported by such grave reasons, 
 Fourthly, the doctrine of Aquinas and the schoolmen is regu- 
 larly maintained in your schools at the present day. Hence it 
 is plain that you cannot by any possibility teach your people 
 that the above-mentioned idolatrous worship of images and relics 
 is a sin. You are on the contrary obliged to admit to them that 
 it is lawful, and that it is not idolatrous. 
 
 Hence w^e may turn over all your Treatises on Doctrinal and 
 Moral Theology ; all your directions to Confessors ; all your 
 Catechisms and books of devotion ; and never find in any of 
 them any condemnation of the practice of offering Latria to the 
 images and relics which I have mentioned. It is true, that 
 some of your writers argue against it : but none of them ven- 
 ture to condemn it ; or to say that it is sinful ; or that it is in 
 any degree idolatrous. It forms no subject of confession : no 
 penitent is ever questioned on the point : no one is ever put to 
 penance for offering Divine honours to created objects. Idolatry 
 
 k Veron, vM supra. 
 
LETTER Vlir. 25 
 
 iSj perhaps^ the most prevalent of your sins, and it is that which 
 is the most easily tolerated. It would seem to be the object of 
 your writers to close every avenue by which a conviction of 
 danger on this point could be brought home to the consciences 
 of your people. Every doubt and scruple is set at rest by the 
 assurances of your theologians, that Idolatry consists in wor- 
 shipping images as if they were " other Gods," in opposition 
 to the only true God^ — or in worshipping the images of false 
 gods like those of the Heathen — or in imagining that the Di- 
 vinity is present in images — or in offering sacrifice to images.""' 
 They are told, that there is no danger of idolatry amongst 
 Christians : — '^ Now that Christianity has reigned amongst us 
 for so many centuries, what danger can be seen in images, when 
 the faithful learn from their infancy that they are forbidden ' to 
 ask any grace from them, or to place their confidence in them,' 
 , . . and that if they prostrate themselves, and bend their knees 
 before them, it is only to the originals, i. e. to Jesus Christ and 
 the Saints, that this suppliant posture is referred ?"° Thus 
 Romanists are encouraged to commit acts of the most fearful 
 Idolatry without the slightest compunction or trouble of con- 
 science. They aie satisfied that they cannot commit Idolatry ; 
 and, therefore, indulge in it without any check or control what- 
 ever. 
 
 I have now accomplished the object which was proposed in 
 this Letter. I have shewn that Idolatry is approved and autho- 
 rized in the Church of Rome ; that it is practised without any 
 censure or effectual resistance ; that your people are allowed to 
 commit this most fearful of all sins without impediment or scra-. 
 ple. What are we to conclude from this? 
 
 First, may it not be most reasonably inferred, that if the. au- 
 thorities of your Communion do not actually themselves prac- 
 tise Idolatry, they are surrounded by an overwhelming mass of 
 Idolatry ; that the people and their priests are to a great extent 
 given over to that dreadful sin ? Surely, nothing but the power 
 and number of those who are inclined to Idolatry could prevent 
 your Rulers from vindicating the rights of their Creator, if they 
 really believed that those rights were infringed. We must 
 therefore conclude, either that your Rulers, as well as your 
 divines and people, approve of idolatrous worship; or else, that 
 through fear of man, they connive at what they know to be most 
 damnable sin. In either case, what are we to think of the sanc- 
 tity of the Roman Church ? What are we to think of the safety, 
 
 1 Trevern, Discuss. Amic^le, torn. ii. p. 336, 339. 
 
 BQ Ibid. p. 341. 
 
 R Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, tom. ii. p. 352, 
 
26 LETTER Vlfl. 
 
 of its members ? And what are we to think of those who for- 
 sake a Communion in which Idolatry is not practised, to enter 
 one in which it is approved, sanctioned, and practised without 
 the least check or control ? 
 
 Secondly, from what has been said, we cannot doubt the ne- 
 cessity of THE Reformation. If the only result of that move- 
 ment had been to expel from amongst us the doctrines of Aqui- 
 nas and the schoolmen on the worship of images and relics, and 
 to enable us to oppose an effectual and open resistance to those 
 doctrines by pronouncing them sinful and idolatrous, an incal- 
 culable benejit would have been obtained — a benefit which was 
 more than sufficient to counterbalance numerous evils and dis- 
 advantages. 
 
 Thirdly, we may learn to judge more fairly of the Reform- 
 ers. They were brought up in the midst of a system deeply 
 tinged with Idolatry, both in doctrine and practice. They un- 
 derstood by experience, and saw in all its unveiled deformity, 
 what we can only learn imperfectly from scarce and ancient 
 writings, or from modern compositions, in which the utmost care 
 is taken to conceal the real state of things. Their language 
 and their actions, therefore, sometimes appear to us exaggerated 
 or uncharitable, when the fault lies rather in our own ignorance 
 or credulity. Were we possessed of their practical knowledge,, 
 we should perhaps exceed them ourselves, in the energy of our 
 denunciations. 
 
 Fourthly, we can sympathize with the feelings and princi- 
 ples of Bishop Jewell and other English Reformers, who were 
 jealous of the use of images, and of certain vestments or cere- 
 monies connected more or less, in their own minds, with idol- 
 atrous practices. Certainly the Cross and the images of our 
 Lord had been worshipped with idolatrous honours; and we 
 cannot therefore wonder at the indignation which was some- 
 times expressed on matters which we, in our ignorance of the 
 fearful abuses connected with them, may regard as innocent, 
 lawful, or even pious and venerable. 
 
 Fifthly, if some errors or defects can be pointed out in the 
 doctrine or discipline of societies which are separated from the 
 Roman Communion, yet still they cannot be greater evils than 
 the existence of Idolatry in that Communion. If some per- 
 sons deny the necessity of Episcopacy ; their error is not greater 
 than that of maintaining that the I3ishop of Rome is cle jure 
 dlvino the Head of the Church. If some sects undervalue Con- 
 firmation : Rome gives but half of the Eucharist. If the wor- 
 ship of others is meagre or uninteresting, Rome sanctions the 
 adoration of creatures with Divine honours. Ifrepentanpe is 
 
LETTER VIII. 27 
 
 almost reduced to a name by some^ Rome deprives the penitent 
 of all consolation^ and pursues the justified and pardoned beyond 
 the grave Avith the tortures of hell, if some Churches are di- 
 vided on trivial points and by carnal spirits^ Rome enforces 
 unity and silence on points where the most sacred interests of 
 the truth and the glory of God are compromised. If there are 
 needless disputes on words in some communities, Rome per- 
 mits heresy and idolatry within her own bosom. If some 
 have schismatically separated from the Church, Rome has 
 wrongfully expelled many from her communion. If there 
 be a spirit of incredulity in some; Rome encourages fa- 
 bulous miracles, and impostures of every kind. If some 
 persons seem in theory to supersede the office of the min- 
 istry, by the assertion of an unlimited right of interpreting the 
 Bible according to the dictates of their private judgment, Rome 
 discourages the perusal of the Scriptures, and withdraws them 
 from the Church. If the ministry in some communities is des 
 polled of much of its legitimate influence, Rome invests it with 
 absolute and inquisitorial power, and teaches the people to bow 
 before it with a superstitious and almost slavish veneration. If 
 some persons are hostile even to the most harmless ceremonies, 
 Rome encourages a system of display and worldly pomp in the 
 celebration of worship. If enthusiasm and fanaticism are com- 
 mon in sects, Rome invests the wildest fanaticism with saintly 
 dignity, and holds it up to the worship of the faithful. If sordid 
 self-interest has commonly been at the foundation of sects, 
 Rome has permitted discipline to be relaxed, and superstition 
 and idolatry to be disseminated more and more widely, for the 
 pecuniary advantage of its priesthood, and for the promotion of 
 its own interests. There are, in short, very few of the preva* 
 lent evils of religion beyond the Roman Communion, which 
 may not be contrasted with evils of as great an amount, or even 
 still greater, within that Communion. 
 
 In conclusion, I would observe, that if any members of the 
 Church of England are ever disturbed on findinor that some 
 Others of its members have advanced unsound positions, and that 
 such persons have not been censured as they deserve ; still they 
 should remember that we at least can openly resist and denounce 
 false doctrines, and thus guard the faithful against their recep- 
 tion ; while in the Church of Rome Idolatry exercises imre- 
 sisUd sway ; and priest and people are consigned to its abomina- 
 tions, without a single warning voice to tell them that they are 
 in the ways of sin and of eternal death. I do not mean to say 
 that all members of the Church of Rome are obliged to commit 
 this crime ; nor do I pretend to say that all actually do commit 
 
28 LETTER VIII. 
 
 it. God alone knows the extent to which it prevails ; but it is 
 certain that there is no safeguard whatever against it in the 
 Roman Communion except the special grace of God ; and we 
 therefore fervently hope and pray that this grace may abound, 
 to the deliverance of many souls from so great and terrible a 
 clanger. 
 
 I remain. Sir, yours in Christ', 
 
 WILLIAM PALMER. 
 
 Oxford, March Sth, 1842. 
 
 6 8 3 ^ 
 
■/■ ' ■■ ^ N 1 1 ft "^ ■/. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 A^^'^/- ^^<^. aX^''^/^. 
 
 .0^ - 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 0"^ >." Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION i 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
 Cranberry Township PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
 y 
 
 \ 
 
■^/ 
 
 '*, '* , 
 
 ,v 
 
 x^'' '% 
 
 
 
 -:^ ' ^ * * s ^ ^O 
 
 n- 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 ^ ^ci^. 
 
 -:^^ 
 
 ^0C. 
 
 ■i 
 
 \-.^^ ^ 
 
 o,y ^. 
 
 xf>. 
 
 '> 
 
 V r^ 
 
 
 
 .^^^■ ^. 
 
 .^<^. 
 
 .0 
 
 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 318 442 6 
 
 iraikhi'.i'.i 
 
 itliHinr.fiiiis 
 
 ; i Mint 
 1. ■■'■'.'{]> 
 
 iiuuu';* 
 
 f ill 
 
 '■ ' ' ► J 'i •' • ' 1 
 
 . .r- ..t'.r.vp 
 '■: ■ '".".111 
 
 .■ :■ ■ ,i:H|tj