\\\

mer

SECOND LETTER

N. WISEMAN, D.D.

FOUNDATION OF THE ROMISH DOCTRINES

SATISFACTIONS, INDULGENCES, PURGATORY,

SUFFRAGES FOR THE DEAD. . , -

BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, MA.
OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER ;
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
1841.

BAXTEU, PRINTER, OXFORD,

A SECOND LETTER,
Sfc.

Sir,
You have yourself commenced the present con
troversy, and can therefore have no reason to com
plain if I pursue the path which you have opened.
You have afforded an opportunity for entering
on a discussion and refutation of doctrines com
monly and authoritatively taught in your Com
munion ; an opportunity which seems to bear the
impress of a Providential design, and of which
I avail myself with the utmost joy, under the
expectation that, amidst the excitement which
evidently pervades the minds of Romanists in
this country, and the spirit of enquiry which exists
amongst them, and which cannot in all instances
be repressed, the doctrines of Scripture, of Tradi
tion, of the Roman Church herself (rightly under
stood), 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
A 2

^1 LETTER n.
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
1 hope, that no measufes 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 conscious of strength, it will
courageously meet its opponents in the field-of con
troversy. 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 Uni
versity of the highest Church principles, and the
Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spencer, which was on the
point of bringing back the latter unhappy indivi
dual to the fold of Christ from which he had strayed.
This most valued convert of yours came to this
University brimfuU of expectation that he should
obtain some valuable accessions to your ranks — and
he narrowly escaped being converted himself to
the very Church he came to assail.
There cannot be any impropriety, any spirit of
unprovoked aggression, in continuing my comments
on the errors and superstitions of your Church,

LETTER II. .'l
when it is remembered, that the Press has, for
years, been teeming with the controversial publi
cations of Romanists, inviting attention to the
pretended merits of their religion, and assailing
those of the Catholic Church in England ; 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 spiritual ; and when no views, however moderate,
however orthodox, 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 Catholic 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, re
flected 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

LEITER II.

judgment, I admit,) you have imagined, I say, that
this movement was destined to promote your
objects, and to bring converts to you. You have
been buoying yourselves up with this hope, not with
out occasional misgivings that it might prove
delusive in the end. You have indeed been com
pelled 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 prog
nostics, 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 indis
cretion of mind — from the hasty writing or think
ing of men undisciplined in the crafty and cautious
language of Jesuitism — from any thing but 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 intention to afford
countenance to your errors and superstitions, but,

LETTEll II.

on the contrary, a hearty wish to adopt the very
best and soundest methods of refuting them. It
may be, that the popular line of argument 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 strength
ening and beautifying of their own Church, and
that they have not turned aside to assail your
errors. But this, Sir, however it may excite
transitory hopes, cannot long mislead you. Already
you are beginning 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 develope the truth more fully, and will
teach the world what sort of reason you have to
rejoice at the spread of Church principles.
In my former Letter, your doctrine of Indulg
ences and Purgatory was briefly noticed, with a
view to shew, that the tenets authorized in the
Church of Rome had not been unfairly represented
I must now invite your attention to some further
observations 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 prin
ciple, which is as it were the foundation-stone, the
very vital essence of the whole. I mean, your

8 LETTER II.
doctrine of a debt still remaining due to Divine
Justice after the remission of sin — the doctrine of
temporal punishments to Ibe endured for sin after its
eternal penalty has been remitted. It is the
doctrine of your Church, that by the Divine Law,
temporal 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 5'^our own
writings a very clear and accurate exposition of the
doctrine in question — an exposition which is per
fectly in accordance with the tenets of all your
divines on this subject.
" Now let us come to the remaining part of the
" Sacrament [of Penance]. We believe that upon
" this forgiveness of sins [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 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

LETTER II. 9
" down the doctrine clearly and intelligibly ; that
" it is only with regard to the reserved degree of
" temporal punishment that we believe the Chris-
" tian 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 remission of sin, retains a lesser
" chastisement in his power, to be inflicted on the
" sinner. 2. That penitential works, fasting, alms-
" deeds, contrite weeping, and fervent prayer, have
" the power of averting that punishment. 3. 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 assumption of such
" penitential works, as his revealed truth assures
" us have efficacy before him."
" These propositions contain the Catholic doctrine
" concerning Satisfaction \"
This, Sir, is a very fair and correct statement of
the doctrines taught in all parts of your Church",
" Lectures on principal doctrines and practices of the
Catholic Church, vol. ii. p. 41, 42.
" Ibid. p. 47.
« Vide Catechism. Concil. Trident. Pars ii. De Pcsnitentiae
Sacramento, c. xc; Bellarmin. De PoenitentiEe, 1. iv. c. ii.

10

LETTER II.

and it is quite consistent 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 remitted with the guilt [of sin] by God,
" and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing
" but the faith by which they lay hold on Christ's
" satisfaction for them ; Let him be Anathema.
" If any 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
" undertaken), 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 loose 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, temporal
" punishment remains, for the most part, to be
Tournely, De Poenit. t. ii p. .3; Bouvier, De Poenit. p. 128, &c.
280; Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. ii. p. 205; Milner, End
of Controversy, Letter xiii ; 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. 11
" discharged, after eternal punishment has been
" removed; Let him be Anathema''."
It might naturally be objected to this doctrine,
that the Sacrament of Baptism also remits sin, and
yet there is no reserve of temporal punishment iu
this case ; so that it seems unreasonable to suppose
that when sins are remitted by the sacrament of
Penitence, 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 Uivine clemency, not to pardon
" 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 fall into more grievous sins, laying
" up for ourselves wrath in the day of wrath"."
I trust. Sir, you will admit that I have endea
voured to give the fullest and most authentic
exposition of the doctrine of your Church in
•* Concil. Trident. Sessio xiv.
° Sessio xiv. cap. viii.

12

LETTER II.

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 exactly harmonize with the
doctrines of the Council of Trent. There can
therefore be no mistake as to what the belief of
Romanists really is on these points.
Now, Sir, I have already said, that a large body
of your doctrines and practices to which we object,
depends on the doctrine of temporal punishment,
and the necessity of satisfying for it by penitential
works. This is stated correctly by one of your
titular bishops, Dr. Hornyhold, 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 pu-
" nished by the death of his children after his sins
" were forgiven, 2 Kings xii. ; and other instances
" of temporal calamities inflicted for offences
" though pardoned. And this method of temporal
^' pain IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR FAITH OS tO
" sacramental Satisfaction, Indulgences, Purgatory,
" and Prayer for the dead'."
It does not appear evident at first view, how
your doctrine of Satisfaction, Purgatory, Indulg
ences, Masses, and Suffrages or Prayers for the
dead, are connected together ; and how vitally they
' Hornyhold, Real Principles of Catholics, p. 277, 278.
Ed. London, 1749-

LETTER II. 13
all depend on the doctrine of temporal penalties
above mentioned. Bear with me then, while I
trace the mutual connexion 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 punish
ment has been remitted in the Sacrament of Penance.
This is the first step.
Secondly, you maintain, that such temporal
punishment may be averted by Satisfactions or
works of penance, such as fasting, 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 doctrine of Purgatory.
Fourthly, you believe, that the Church has the
power of remitting such temporal punishments in
this hfe 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 Indul
gences are given are really fulfilled, and as there
may be other reasons for questioning whether a real

14 LETTER II.
remission of temporal punishment has been ob
tained by Indulgences in any particular case, it is
necessary to continue works of Satisfaction, as if
Indulgences had not been granted, and to obtain
the Suffrages or Prayers of the Church, especiaUy
the sacrifice of the Mass, which you believe to have
great efficacy in remitting the temporal punish
ments of the living and dead.
Sixthly, you believe, that one person may perform
satisfactory works for another, and thus obtain the
remission or diminution of his temporal- punish
ment in this life or in Purgatory, and that he may
also acquire the remissions of temporal punish
ment 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 Satisfac
tions, your Indulgences, your Masses for the dead.
Confraternities, privileged altars, scapularies, and
beads, medals, and crucifixes, with the whole para
phernalia 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

LETTER II.

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 chil
dren, 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 furnish for believing, that by
a general law of God, temporal penalties remain
due to Divine justice after sin has been remitted,
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 for-
" given sins, and so justified the sinner as to place
" him once more in a state of grace, he still
" reserves the infliction of some degree of punish-
" ment for his transgressions? We say, that un-
" doubtedly 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, however he
" may think himself in a state of favour before
44 God — however he mav flatter himself that his

16

LETTER II.

" sins are taken away — 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 feelings 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 impression
" that he does visit the sins of men on their heads,
" although they may have endeavoured, with rea-
" sonable hope, to obtain their forgiveness. ... It
" is impossible not, more or less, to connect the
" idea of suffering inflicted, with that of sin com-
" mitted s."
You will excuse me, Sir, if I cannot admit the
propriety of making any appeal, in the flrst instance,
to our natural feelings, where a grand principle
of religion is in question. If our natural 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 ;
F Lecuires on the Doctrines, &c. of the Catholic Church,
vol ii. p. 42.

LETTER II. 17
if they are put forward in the flrst instance to bias
our minds, you must permit me to say, that, con
sidering our natural inclination to evil, and the
temptations of the Devil by which we are per
petually assailed, such a method seems eminently
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 prin
ciple has been revealed by God.
But, Sir, I 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 perishing 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 Sin trium
phant 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

18 LETTER II.
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 resur-
" rection; and others had trial of cruel mockings and
" scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprison-
" ment : 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 wandered 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: " Blessed 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 per-
" secuted they the prophets which were before
" 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, 1 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
" rebuked of Him : for whom the Lord loveth He
" chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he re-

LETTER II. 19
" ceiveth." 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
" temptations : that the trial of your faith, being
" much more precious than of gold that perisheth
" though it be tried with fire, might be 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 procure for them
a greater degree of glory, honour, and praise in
the eternal and heavenly kingdom of Christ. And,
Sir, this might have been anticipated from the hfe
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 par
took of human nature was so severely afflicted with
temporal as well as spiritual sorrows and calamities
as He who redeemed 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 hirn 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
B 2

20 LETTER II.
Romanists generally, in their consideration of the
afflictions of good men, seem inclined to forget
the reasons assigned for them by the word of God,
and to suppose that they are all intended as punish
ments 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 educates his children for
higher glory by a more rigid discipline. In op
position to such errors, 1 lay down the following
proposition as an Article of CathoUc faith deduced
directly from the word of God : " That temporal
" afflictions and calamities 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 punish-
" ment for his sins." — You assert, that " our natural
" feelings prompt us to consider our domestic and
" personal afflictions, as sent by God for our trans-
" gressions" — that "it is impossible not, more or
" less, to connect the idea of suffering inflicted, with
" that of sin committed." I have no doubt, Sir,
that yourself and other Romanists are in the habit
of regarding such temporal afflictions of the justi
fied as punishments for their past sins ; but I must
say, that any one who enters into the spirit of the

LETTER II. 21
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 dif
ferent light. The carnal and ignorant may see in
them nothing but exactions of Divine justice, pe
nalties 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 en
dured, 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 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 appreciate
the Divine 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 afflic
tive dispensations may be removed from them — of
those who regard his graces as calamities, his
works of love as punishments.
You spend your lives in endeavouring to avert
these temporal afflictions, which you regard as so

22 LETTER II.
many exactions of God's justice. It is very true
that you regard them as punishments for sin, and
that they therefore appear to you in a most for
midable light. But still you really are endeavour
ing to avert what is not a punishment for sin,
but a mark of God's favour. The temporal afflic
tions of the righteous are seen by you in a false
light. You think them judgments, while they are
really mercies.
But you will answer, when thus pressed, that you
do admit that temporal evils are frequently in
tended for spiritual blessings, though you hold that
they are also often intended as punishments 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 doc
trine 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 punish
ment of sin remitted as regards its greater penalties,
may not be necessary to preserve ourselves from fall
ing again into sin, or necessary for the instruction of
others ? And here again is a reason why we should
not earnestly labour to avert such temporal evils ;

LETTER II. 23
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 supposed connection between temporal suf
fering and sin. If you persist in asserting that
temporal afflictions have a necessary connection
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 Scripture in support of your doctrine. And
here let me be permitted to state the question more
clearly. It is not in question then, whether temporal
penalties are, in the order of God's providence,
(especially under the former dispensations,) due to,
and inflicted on, sin; but whether they are, under
the Gospel, due to sin remitted 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 collection of scriptural ex
amples, to the fuller and more systematic argu
ment of Tournely. He collects " those places of

24

LETTER II.

" Scripture which signify that God, after the pardon
" of sin, still requires an avenging temporal punish-
" ment (ultricem poenam temporalem) from the
" penitent." " The example of David (2 Kings [Samuel] xii,)
" is especially remarkable. For although Nathan
" had heard from the prophet (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 despised me, and hast taken the wife of
" Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.' God remits
" on one side the guilt and eternal punishment;
" 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 Inno-
" vators and especially Daill6 commonly reply, but
" also for the punishment and chastisement of par-
" doned 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

LETTER II. 25
" more significant terms could Scripture have ex-
" pressed the cause?" (Tournely, De Pcenit. t. ii.
p. 4.)
You will admit. Sir, that this is as clear and
cogent an argument as can well be deduced from
this passage in favour of your view. Let us now
consider it more closely. It is obvious, therefore,
that God by Nathan remitted the extreme punish
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 proceed
ing characterizes the present 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 invisible, 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 indignation,
the most fatal results must have followed. The
justice of God would have been impugned. Sin
would have been encouraged.

26

LETTER II.

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 subsequent conduct of
David, which is fatal to your view. We learn frorn
it, that such temporal penalties inflicted for sin can
not be averted. Was the threatened punishment of
David averted by his prayers, fastings, tears, pro
strations, 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 punish
ments 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 satis
faction. 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 punishment is set forth
"to be discharged, and he is given the option
" of war, famine, or the plague." (Tournely, ibid.)
On this argument I must observe, first, that
there is no evidence whatever that God had par
doned 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, O Lord,

LETTER 11. 27
" take away the iniquity of thy servant : for 1 have
" done very foohshly." But all we kndw of the
result is, that God oflfered 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, pestilence, or famine,
the conclusion would be fatal to your doctrine. The
punishment was inflicted, and David instructed by
the case of Uriah, that such punishments could not
be averted by any works of satisfaction or penance,
submitted himself to the Divine wiU.
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 pro
nounced 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 contrary, the Lord said unto Moses,
in reply to his entreaties for their forgiveness.

28 LETTER II.
" 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 mentioned was not pardoned.
I return to Tournely. " In the Mth 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.) ' I 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 justiflcation of those
who had committed it, for He speaks of the con
gregation 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," (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 aU this evil

LETTER II. 29
" 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 disinheritance which God had threatened,
(ver. 12.) The temporal punishments then with
which they were visited, were not punishments of
sin remitted — punishments of the justifled. 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 Hebrews, 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 congre
gation, that you would hold up as a proof that
temporal penalties are inflicted on the believing and
justifled penitent ?
I return to your proofs. " Add to these those
" places of Scripture in which 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 com-

30 LETTER 11.
" mandments, therefore we have been dehvered
" for a spoil, and unto captivity, and unto death,
" and for a proverb of reproach to all the nations
" among which we are dispersed. Deal not with
" me according to my sins and my father's, &c.' "
(Tournely, ibid.)
There is no evidence whatever that Tobias, in
offering this prayer, believed that his sins had
been pardoned. On the contrary, 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
full measure of penalty due to them. This passage
therefore cannot afford any support to your
doctrine of a portion of the punishment due to
sin remaining after the greater part of its penalties
have been remitted, and after the sin has been
remitted, and the sinner justifled 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,' " 8fc.
(Tournely, ibid.)
I 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 needless

LETTER II. 31
for my purpose to do so ; because it is evident from
these words and from the whole context, that the
three children believed 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 cor-
" recteth ; even as a father the son in whom he
" delighteth.' The same is said, Hebr. xii. 6. and
" Rev. iii. 19." (Tournely, ibid.)
Certainly, the Lord does intend temporal afflic
tions 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 sweeten 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 ? I am content to leave this
to the conscience of my readers, and of yourself.
But I must now endeavour to collect your re
maining arguments from Scripture, for the purpose
of seeing the utmost extent 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

32 LETTER II.
" 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 remitted *.
In reply to this we may most fully admit, that
death is the penalty of original sin; but we deny
that any argument can be draw^n 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
Adam imputed to them, and not for any sin com
mitted by themselves. So that sins which we our
selves commit, may be free from any temporal
penalties after their remission. All then that can
be collected from the fact alleged by Bellarmine is,
that God might, if he pleased, inflict temporal
penalties on our actual sins after they were re
mitted. This we fully concede in the abstract,
though we do not conceive it consistent with the
actual scheme of redemption. 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
' Bellarmin. De Pcenitentia, lib. iv. c. ii.

LETTER II. 33
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 wfll deny that
Moses and Aaron were restored to the favour of
God after their sin at Meribah '.
To this it may be repUed, that as Moses and
Aaron had not beUeved God " to sanctify him in
" the eyes of the children of Israel," (Numb. xx.
12.) and had thus publicly 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 rewards 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 dispensations. The con
duct 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 Uterally 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
X Bellarmine, ibid.

34 LETTER II.
" 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''."
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 other died in
sanctity ! What foUy is this ! The plain reason of
the miracle was to shew that this penalty was dis
tinctly the work of God — to furnish an undeniable
proof of his punishment 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 temporal
penalties of sin not pardoned, or they relate to
^ ibid. Bouvier, Bishop of Maus, adds one other argument,
from the circumstance of Adam's sufl'ering death for his sin,
though that sin had doubtless been pardoned. (De Poenit. p.
128.) But it must be remembered, that in this case God was
bound by his own positive promise, " In tbe 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 punishment of Adam
proves nothing.

LETTER II. 35
circumstances 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 discussion 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 your
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 Indulgences, built upon it, cannot
be articles of faith ; and the Council of Trent

' Veron, in his Kegula Fidei, cap. i. sect. 2. says, that " two
things must be united in order that any doctrine should be au
article of the CathoUc faith: one, that it be revealed of God by
the prophets, apostles, or canonical authors ; the other, that it
he proposed by the Church."
"• 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.)

36 LETTER II.
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 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 writings. You say, " It is only with
" regard to the reserved degree of temporal pu-
" nishment that we believe the Christian can
" satisfy the justice of God".". . . " This scheme
" of God's justice was not a part of the imperfect
" law, but the unvarying ordinance of his dispens-
" ation anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and amply
" confirmed by Christ in the Gospel.". . . " It con-
" sequently becomes a part of true repentance
" to try to satisfy this Divine justice by the volun-
" tary assumption of such penitential works.". . .
" Lectures on the principal doctrines, &c. of the Catholic
Church, vol. ii. p. 42,

LETTER 11. 37
" These propositions contain the Catholic doctrine
" concerning Satisfaction °." I need scarcely say,
that the language of all writers of your Communion
is exactly similar ; 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
Divine 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 doc
trine is absolutely subversive of its own foundation,
and of the foundation of the Christian's hopes.
And besides this. Divine justice which demands
an inflnite punishment for sin, cannot receive any
finite or limited punishments in part-payment of
the debt due to it. It demands an infinite punish
ment — a punishment not made up of parts — a
punishment infinitely greater than all that human
imagination could even conceive. To imagine there
fore that the punishment 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 Infinite justice can
" ibid. p. 47.

38 LETTEll II.
require what is, in comparison, less than the least
of things, in addition to an infinite penalty.
But Divine Justice has received an adequate
sacrifice. The merits of our Saviour Christ, 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 calamities will befal them,
according to the promise of Christ ; but not regard
ing those calamities as exactions of God's justice
partially satisfled. They know that unrepented sin
may again make them liable to God's judgments in
this world and in eternity. But they firmly believe
that an infinite atonement has been made for sins
which demanded an infinite punishment, and as
they believe that Divine ^Ms^ice has thus 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 foundation of their hope of sal
vation would be shattered to pieces.
But, Sir, dangerous and pernicious as your doc
trine on this point has been proved, I have not yet
disclosed its crowning absurdity and wickedness.

LETTER II. 39
It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent itself,
that " Justiflcation is not remission of sin merely,
" but also sancliflcation, and the renewal of the
" inner man by the voluntary reception of grace
" and divine gifts ; so that he who was 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 gills bestowed
" upon him at the same time, namely, /ai//i, hope,
" and charity V."
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 the glorious privileges of a " child of God."
And yet. Sir, in the face of this most undoubted
truth — in the face of their own belief, and the
belief of the Roman Church — your writers have the
almost incredible folly and wickedness 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 following proofs.
Your celebrated controversialists. Bishops Adrian
and Peter de Walenburch, write thus: " Since
" holy Scripture shews by many examples, that
" God after remitting the guilt and eternal punish-
i" Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. cap. vii.

40 LETTER II.
" ment of sins, chastises sinners with temporal
" punishments, Catholics think that voluntary
" afflictions undertaken from the love of God and
" faith working by love appease the wrath of God
" {placare iram Dei'i)." Tournely says, " that
" God after the pardon of sin still exacts a re-
" venging temporal punishment from the penitent,
" {ultricem poenam temporalem a poenitente adhuc
" reposcere'^ .)" Your own expressions 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 out-
" rage 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." You afterwards
state your belief " that the sinner may, by punish-
" ing himself, by performing certain works propi-
" tiatory before God, avert his anger." (Lectures,
ii. 48, 51.) And these. Sir, are not mere in
cautious 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 equaUy subject to those of his wrath
and vengeance. So that, according to your doc-
1 Walenburch, Opera, t. ii. p. 19.
' Tournely, De Poenit. t. ii. p. 3.

LETTER II. 41
trine, the justified and pardoned believer is stUl
liable to God's wrath ! The adopted, beloved, and
sanctified child, is still subject to God's venge
ance ! 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 doctrine leads.
Such, Sir, is your doctrine of temporal penalties
for remitted sins — a doctrine unsupported by rea
son and experience, rejected by Scripture, contra
dictory 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 Satis
factions, Purgatory, 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 by
you for the remission of temporal penalties ? What
necessity is there for Purgatory to complete those
penalties not discharged 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 con
sideration, and beg to subscribe myself.
Your obedient Servant,
WILLIAM PALMER.
Oxford, April 24, 1841,

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
.lust published, price One Shilling,
A LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. ccalling himself Bishop of
Melipotamus,) containing REMARKS on his LETTER to Mr.
NEWMAN.
Preparing for publication,
A THIRD LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH
DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION.
This Series of Letters will Oe continued.

BAXTER, PIllNJ-EFl, OXKORD,

8685

ifi4s^(^