Palm^T

91'-

FOURTH LETTER

N. WISEMAN, D.D.
ON THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF
SATISFACTIONS. (concluded.)

BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A.
OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

|Vlhg'4^ pat

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

BAXTER, PBINTBB, OXFORD.

A
FOURTH LETTER,

Sir,
In my last Letter little more was done than to
state your doctrine of Satisfaction, and to point out
a few of its consequences. 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 possibihty of escape, it may
be advisable to examine in detail the various
arguments which yourself and other Romish con
troversialists 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 Satis
faction. According to the Catechism of Trent,
" Satisfaction is compensation for the injury done
" to another*," and more particularly " that com-
• Ita satisfactio nihil aliud est quam injuriae alteri illatse
compensatio. Pars ii. c. 85.
A 2

LETTER IV.

"pensation, 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 offending
" God''." You yourself and other Roman theolo
gians 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 discharged 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 temporary punishment, appropriate
" to the guilt which had been incurred; audit is
" on this part of the punishment alone, that, ac-
" cording to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can
" be made to God." (Lectures ii. 41.)
What are your arguments in support of this
doctrine ?
1. You appeal to our " natural feelings" in
proof that calamities 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 suffering
" Cum homo pro peccatis commissis Deo aliquid persolvit.
Ibid. ' Solutio est debiti quod eontractum est ex delicto seu
ofFens^ Dei. De Poenit. t. ii. p. 2.

LETTER IV.

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 to 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, seem
" connected with the necessity of purifications
" and works, painful or disagreeable, or with suf-
" ferings sent by Divine Providence, as inflictions
" justly deserved. Thus, we remark constantly
" in the Old Law visible demonstrations of re-
" pentance and sorrow, after sin has been forgiven."
(Lectures 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.
11.); 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 mentioned, the

6 LETTER IV.
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 obvious 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 for-
" give, 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 at
tempt 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 clear, that penitential works in both
these instances were intended to obtain remission
of the guilt and punishment of sin not yet pardoned,
and that there is not the remotest ground for
imagining, 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, xii.)

LETTER IV. 7
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 ways," 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 forgiven
after they had performed penitential works, where
as your 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 theo
logians deny, notwithstanding all their pretended
advocacy of that branch of Repentance. The
examples of Job and of the men of Nineveh
establish this doctrine, while they are wholly op
posed 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 pro
mise 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

8 LETTER IV.
" God, from the beginning, forgiving sins with the
" reservation of some smaller punishment, and at
" the same time, his chosen servants, instructed
" by him, acting under the conviction, that by
" penitential 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 ex-
" piation are continued in the New Testament."
(Lectures ii. 44.)
I deny that the reserve of temporal punishments
in some instances under the former dispensations,
after sin has been remitted, implies any similar
mode of dealing under the New Testament ; be
cause under former dispensations, God visibly ruled
the world by a system of temporal rewards and
punishments ; and had notorious sin escaped with
out any penalty, (except in cases where God him
self prescribed a way of remission, 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
riot visibly govern the world by temporal rewards
and 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 dis
pensations. But besides this, I deny that there is any thing

LETTER IV. 9
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 Eve 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 oi sin, not merely remission 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 temporal 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 vahdity of this
objection here ; because it would lead to a length
ened 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

10 LETTER IV.
he does not give the slightest hint that we are tc
fast for the purpose of procuring 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 thai
" 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 oi
" Nineveh shall arise in judgment against that
" generation, because at the preaching of Jonas,
" they did penance in that way?" (Ibid.)
All very true, and at the same time destructive
of your doctrine. For if our Saviour proposed as
an example, those who " believed that penance in
" sackcloth and ashes was efficacious for the for-
" giveness of sin," 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 " satisfaction
" can be made to God." (p. 41.) I ask you there
fore in your own words ; " Does he, on any single
" occasion, hmit 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,

LETTER IV. 1 I
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 suffer-
' ings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which
' is the Church?' (Coloss. i. 24.) What is want-
' ing of Christ's sufferings 1 And this to be
' suppHed by man, and in his flesh ! What sort of
' doctrine call we this ? Is it in favour 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 doctrine ? Suppose if you please, that
" much is to be done by man," and " that suffering
" is the [a] means whereby this application is
" made." Does this prove that suffering is the
means of obtaining remission of the temporal penal
ties of pardoned sins ? 1 see no connexion whatever

12 LETTER IV.
between such a conclusion, and those to which you
have actually come. Suppose that sufferings in
flicted by God (of which the Apostle speaks) con
form 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
our dull northern understandings.
III. I now come to your proofs from Tradition,
omitting various 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
" beginning, we find nothing so prominently in-
" culcated, either in the writings of the early
" Fathers, or in the discipline of the universal
" Church, as this necessity of doing penance and
" making satisfaction to God. It is the basis of
" the system, known by the name of the peni-
" tential canons, in which those who had trans-
" gressed were condemned to different punishments,
" according to the measure of their offences. . . .
" This system surely must have had its root in
" the strong conviction of the early Church, that

LETTER IV. 13
" 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 Satis-
" faction?" (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 be
lieved 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, per
formed 6e/bre Absolution was given, or the penitent
restored to Communion''. After 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 wholly subversive of your doctrine.
The primitive Church required penitential works
before the remission of sin, therefore she believed
i See Morinus de Poenitentia, lib. ix. c. 3, I5, 17, where he
proves, that except in very peculiar and extreme cases. Abso
lution was given after Satisfaction had been performed, even
up to the tmelfth century.

14 LETTER IV.
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 believe them necessary for the
remission of temporal penalties, or else held that
they were unavailing. Be assured. Sir, that you
will not find me amongst those modern " writers"
to whom you allude, " who have treated of the
" practice of the Cathohc Church upon this point,
" as derived from the Fathers," and who, as you
say, " fairly give it up." (p. 49.)
The passages which you proceed to quote from
the Fathers are all condemnatory of your doc
trine and practice, and directly establish that
which I shall presently maintain in opposition to
yours. St. Cyprian, you say, writes 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 satis-
" faction 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 reward." (p. 50.)

LETTER IV. 15
I do not offer any remarks on the inaccurate and
garbled nature 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 satisfactions were therefore widely
different from yours. You believe that sin and its
eternal punishment are remitted before 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 vehemently 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 regarding the penitential
" canons; we have them laying it down as the
" principle of those laws, that satisfaction was
" necesary to expiate offences committed." (p. 50.)
Certainly, Sir, they held penitential works ne
cessary for the remission of sins in general, not
merely for the remission of its temporal penalties,
which is, you assure us, " the Catholic doctrine."
(p. 41.) Therefore, by your own shewing, the Fa
thers 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 :

1 6 LETTER IV.
" It is not enough that the sinner change his
" ways, and depart from his evil works, unless by
" penitential sorrow, by humble tears, by the sacri-
" fice of a contrite heart, and by alms-deeds, he
" make satisfaction to God for what he has com-
" mitted." (p. 50.)
Here is not a single word of Satisfaction as remit
ting only the temporal penalties of sin. The peni
tential works here recommended as necessary, were
for the purpose of obtaining pardon of " what the
" sinner has committed," i. e. of his sin, his whole
sin, guilt as well as punishment, eternal as well as
temporal punishment.
" In the following words we have our doctrine
" clearly laid down, that God, after he has par-
" doned sin, still punishes it in his justice. ' Wash
" me from my sin,' said David. — Implore 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 un-
" punished : but that thou mayest 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

LETTER IV. 17
It is not the Romish. St. Augustine is not speaking
of pardoned sin. He does not recommend punish
ments for pardoned sin. He warns sinners not to
depend on the mercy of God for the pardon of their
sms, while His justice requires their punishment ;
and in order to avert the latter — ihe full punishment
of sin, not merely its temporal punishment, — he
advises them to punish themselves 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. There
fore 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 doctrine.
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 inconclusive-
ness of all your arguments in favour of the Romish
doctrine of Satisfaction, I proceed to establish the
Catholic doctrine on this subject, taught by Scrip
ture, 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 own most eminent divines. B

18 LETTER IV.
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 requisite in every case of repentance, but
in general, that some 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 un
profitable. Our Lord himself lays it down as a
principle, " 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

LETTER IV. 19
Fathers often call Satisfactions",) 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 performance of good works ; so
there is no difficulty in supposing that He also re
serves the power of saving penitents (in some pecu
liar cases) without works of penitence. But these are
special exceptions from the ordinary course of his
government. The doctrine Avhich 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 fast, it is called a public fast.
" Such was that fast which the whole multitude of
" When the Fathers speak of " Satisfactions" and of " satis
fying God," they did not mean that man can pay the debt which
is due for his .nn, and which the merits of Christ alone can
discharge : their meaning was, that man may, through Divine
grace, do works expressive 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. contented 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 Diviije favour. Dallseus, de Pcenis,
1. vii. c. 4. furnishes many examples.
b2

20 LETTER IV.
" 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 atonement, a time of reconciliation, 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 them-
" selves 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 thereof by the preaching of the
" Prophets, or otherwise when they saw present
" danger hang over their heads. This sorrow-
" fulness of heart joined with fasting, they uttered
" sometimes by their outward behaviour and gesture
" of body, putting on sackcloth, sprinkling thera-
" selves 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

LETTER IV. 21
" reward of it, and behold with the eye of their
" mind the horror of hell, they tremble, they
" quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrow-
" fulness 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 occu-
" pied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly
" with an earnest desire to be delivered from this
" danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of
" meat and drink is laid apart, and loathsomeness
" of all worldly things and pleasures cometh in
" place ; so that nothing then liketh them more,
" than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with
" words and behaviour of body, to shew themselves
" weary of this life. Thus did David fast 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,
" Nehemiah, and many others in the Old Testa-
" ment, fast^." ' Sermon of Fasting, Part I.

22 LETTER IV.
" 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 outward shew
" only." .... Amongst the ends of fasting the fol
lowing is mentioned: "That our fast be a testimony
" and witness with us before God, of our humble
" submission to his high Majesty, when we confess
" and acknowledge our sins unto him, and are
" inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart,
" bewailing 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, putting 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."'"
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 help-
" ing the poor, is the means to keep the soul pure
" and clean in the sight of God. We are taught
" therefore by this, that merciful alms-dealing is
f Sermon of Fasting, Part II.

LETTER IV. 23
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 alms
giving 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 that are afflicted. The wise
preacher, the Son of Sirach, confirmeth the same,
when he saith, ' that as water quencheth burn
ing 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 and help
the afflicted, by the which we may purge our
sins and heal our wounded souls'"."
In the Homily which treats particularly of Re-
3ntance, it is stated, that God requires in real
3nitents not only to forsake their sins, but to give
leir hearts, souls, and bodies to the service of
od. " 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 with fasting .... whereunto he doth add,
weeping and mowrjimgr, .which do contain an out
ward profession of repentance, which is very
needful and necessary'."
" Sermon of Alms-deeds, Part II.
' Sermon of Repentance, Part I.

24 LETTER IV.
" If we will have the wrath of God pacified, we
" must in no wise dissemble, but turn unto him
" again 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 unfeignedly sorry for their
" offences  will from henceforwards with all
" diligence give themselves to innocency, pureness
" of life, and true godliness. We have the Nine-
" vites 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 I
" 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 Augsburgh', 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, 8fc.; yet we no where find
" in holy Scripture that eternal punishments are
" not remitted except on account of the punish-

1^ Part II.
' Deinde sequi debent opera, quae sunt fructus poenitentiae.
Conf. August, c. xii.

LETTER IV. 25
" ment of purgatory or canonical satisfactions'",
" &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 penitential works of fasting, alms-giving, and
prayer, are all regarded 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 directly to prove, that such
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 mourn-
" ing: 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
™ Quanquam igitur sentimus, quod poenitentia debeat bonos
fructus parere propter gloriam et mandatum Dei, et boni
fructus haberit mandata Dei, vera jejunia, verae orationes, verae
eleemosyn», &c. Apol. Conf. August, vi. (De Confessione et
Satisfactione.) See also the Confessio Helvetica, cap. xiv.

26 LETTER IV.
" that he had said he would do unto them ; and
" he did it not." (Jonah iii. 10.) That is, he for
gave their sin, not^merely its temporal penalties.
" Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust
" and ashes." (Job xlii. 6.) Job did then peniten
tial works to obtain pardon of his sin, (see ch. xl.
xii.); 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 recog
nises 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 repentance." (Matt. iii.
7.) In this case, " fruits of repentance" are men
tioned as the means of escaping " the wrath to
" come," that is, of obtaining remission of the guilt
and eternal punishment of sin.
" I keep under my body and bring it into sub-
" jection ; lest that by any means, when I have
" preached to others, I myself should be a cast-
" away." (1 Cor. ix. 27.) This passage obviously
does not speak of Satisfactions for sins, but of
mortification 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

LETTER IV. 27
guilt of sin : " Lest I myself should be a cast-
" away," " Wherefore O king, let my counsel be ac-
" ceptable 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. 27.) " By
^^ xnercj and truth iniquity is purged." (Prov. xvi.
6.) " Alms do deliver from death, and suffereth
"not to come into darkness." (Tobias iv. 11.)
" Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold
" all things are clean unto ?jou." (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 now 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 morti
fications, are conducive to the remission of the
whole sin, i. e. both the guilt and the punishment
of sin. And here I mean to avail myself of the
proofs collected by your own writers to estabhsh
your doctrine of Satisfaction, all of which directly
refute your error, and estabhsh the truth for which
I am contending. In citing the following passages
from the " Faith of Catholics," by the popish

28 LETTER IV.
priests Berington and Kirk", I am far from pledg
ing myself to their accuracy ; but they will be
quite sufficient in arguing with you, since you
acknowledge your own obligations to the work
in question", which in fact furnishes all your
writers with their whole stock of citations from
the Fathers.
Tertullian, A.D. 200. Having spoken of the
public confession of sin before the Church, he thus
proceeds, " I admit it is hard to make this con-
" fession; but suffering is the consequence of sin.
" This suffering ends, and spiritual health begins,
" 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 engaged ?
" say : / have sinned against God, and am in
' ' danger of perishing everlastingly : wherefore, that
" I may obtain forgiveness , I thus punish myselfP."
Can any words be more decisively opposed to your
doctrine than these? You believe that penances
do not remit sin or its everlasting punishment.

" Faith of Catholics, &c. London, 1830.
" " The useful compilation of Messrs. Kirk and Berington,
from which I have in general drawn my quotations of the
Fathers." Wiseman's Lectures, vol. i. p. ix.
P Tertullian, De Poenitentia, c. x, xi.

letter IV. 29
You hold that they only remit the temporal
penalties of forgiven sin.
St. Cyprian, A.D. 250. " Let us turn with
' our whole mind to the Lord, and, expressing our
' repentance with true 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 vs appease, as he himself admo-
' nishes, his indignation'^,"
Council of Nice, A.D. 325. "In all cases
' the disposition 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 shorten
ing the time of their penance, and admitting them
at an early period to absolution.) Observe in this
case, that penitential works are necessary to mani.'
fest a sincere conversion, and therefore that sin
cannot be remitted without them.
St. Pacianus, a. D. 370. " Be not slow in
" having recourse to the means of salvation: lower
" the mind by grief: clothe the body in sackcloth ;
"strew ashes on the head; fast; implore the

1 Cyprian. De Lapsis, p. 19L
' Can. xii. Cone. Gen. t ii. p. 35.

30 letter iv.
" prayers of the faithful. As you spare hot 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 sinner"," Satisfaction then is a mean of
obtaining 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 they 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 be cancelled^."
St. Augustine, A. D. 400. " To no one has he
" (God) granted the liberty of sinning, although in
" mercy he may forgive past sins if due satisfaction
" be not neglected ".
St. Leo, A. D. 450. " As for those Christians,

' Paraen. ad Poenit. Bibl. Patr. iv. 317.
' De Poenit. 1. ii. c. x.
" Enchirid. c. Ixx.

letter IV. 31
" who are said to have polluted themselves by food
" offered to idols, my answer is, that they be puri-
" fied by penitential satisfactions, which should be
" measured rather by the sorrovv of the heart, than
" by the length of the time\"
Such, Sir, are the passages which your writers
have culled from Antiquity, in proof that penitential
works or satisfactions only remit the 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 such 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 deceitful evil, a gentle ruin,
" under the name of mercy, has been accumulated
" on us. Contrary 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
^ Ep. cxxix. al. Ixxix. ad^Nicet. Aquil.

32 letter IV.
" 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 repent-
" ancey." The whole Treatise from which the above pas
sages 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
^ Cyprianus, De Lapsis.

letter IV. 33
doctrine of Satisfactions ; I have to produce evidence
from a quarter which you little expect, even from
the Council of Trent itself.
It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that
Satisfaction is necessary for the remission of sins —
necessary to a real repentance. Hear its words :
" The acts of the penitent himself, that is, Contri-
" tion. Confession, and Satisfaction, are as it were
" the matter of this sacrament ; which, inasmuch as
" they are required by the Divine institution to the
" completeness of the sacrament, and the full and
" perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called
"parts of repentance'^ '' Thus, you see. Satisfaction
is requisite to the remission of sin itself — not merely
to the remission of the temporal penalties of sin
already remitted. In another place the Council
teaches the same doctrine ; " It is agreeable to
" the Divine goodness that our sins should not be
"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 remis-
" sion of sins, three acts are requisite in the penitent,
" (constituting as it were the matter of the sacra-
" ment of Penitence,) that is to say. Contrition,
" Confession, and Satisfaction, which are called the
" three parts of Repenlafice. . . . Let him be Ana-
' Sessio xiv. cap. iii.
* Ib. c. viii.

34 LETTER IV.
" thema^r Here, Sir, your doctrine is anathema
tized by the Council of Trent ! you maintain that
sin is pardoned, remitted, forgiven, by Confession
and Absolution ; and that Satisfaction, which comes
afterwards, only remits its temporal 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
Satisfactions 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 generally current in your communion,
always exact from penitents in Confession an under
taking to do some works of Satisfaction — to per
form some penance or other ? You would think it un
lawful to give Absolution without having previously
imposed some such penances, and you believe that
the penitent must have the intention of executing
" Si quis negaverit, ad integram et perfectam peccatorum
remissionem requiri tres actus in poenitente, quasi materiam
Sacramenti poenitentiae, videlicet. Contrition em, Confessionem,
et Satisfactionem, quae tres poenitentiae partes dicuntur : aut
dixeritj duas tantiim esse poenitentiae partes, terrores scilicet in-
cussos conscientise, agnito peccato, et fidem conceptam ex
Evangelio vel absolutione, qui credit quis sibi per Christum
remissa peccata ; anathema sit. Sess. xiv. can. 4.

LETTER IV. 35
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.? 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 satisfac
tion in order to the remission of sin. So that
your own 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 theologians.
Morinus, in his celebrated work on Penance, re
marks, 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, but eternal; that
" they drew down the mercy of God on sinners,
" and obtained pardon of their crimes ^'" Mori-
c Alterum disciplinae penitentialis fundamentum, quod nobis
hujus libri initio explicandum proposuimus, hoc est axioma
Christianorum omnium animis ei Patribus insinuatum, Satis-
factiones ab Ecclesia impositas diligenter et strenu^ peractas
non tantiim poense temporariae sed etiam aeternae satisfactorias
esse, et expunctrices, animam purgare et emaculare, Dei miseri-

36 LETTER IV.
nus observes, that it was the hope of obtaining
remission of sins, that induced penitents in those
ages to undergo such long and severe penances ;
and that this doctrine 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 Absolu-
" tion to the penitent before, as interpreters of the
" Divine will, they had seen the sinner perform
" such a penance, that it was credible that God
" was already reconciled to him''." Morinus after
wards refers to Estius and Sylvius, as making the
same admissions ; and to Lensseus, an eminent
theologian of Louvain, whose work was approved
by that University. The latter, according to Mori-
cordiam in peccatores allicere, et scelerum veniam ab eo
impetrare.' Morinus, De discipl. Sacramenti Poenitentiae, lib.
iii. c. xi. p. 159. Ed. Bruxellis l685.
* Non dubito, inquit Joannes Maldonatus, quin oranes
veteres Authores satisfactionem agnoverint pro culpa. Nam
non putabant Deum culpam remittere peccatorum, priusquam
externis pcenitentiis Deum placassent : Neque sacerdotes puta
bant dare posse poenitenti Absolutionem, priusquam, quasi
interpretes Divinae voluntatis, viderent earn poenitentiam egisse
peccatorem, ut credibile esset Deum jam illi esse placatum.
Morinus, ibid.

LETTER IV. 37
nus, maintained, that Satisfactions were imposed,
" 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, excused, absolved ; a
" remedy applied for the recovery of salvation;
" eternal punishments expunged ; the fire of Hell
" extinguished^." The same author proves his
doctrine at great length from the Fathers. Morinus
also quotes Albaspinseus, 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 punish-
" ments," says, " Whether this opinion can agree
" with the most undeniable discipline of the an-
" cients, let others judge."
Thus you see, that what you adduce as " the
" Catholic doctrine of Satisfaction," is so far from
being so, that it has not even been approved by all
your own theologians. I admit indeed, that it is
now universally received amongst you, however incon-
' Verum eo proprie relatas fuisse (satisfactiones) ut Deo
satisfieret, ejusque indignantis ira placaretur, plenaque ista
ratione percipi posset abolitio peccatorum .... Per hoc idcirco
studium satisfactionis hominem relevari, mundari, excusari,
absolvi, ad salutem recuperandam remedium adhiberi, aeterna
supplicia expungi, gehennae ignem extingui," &c. Morinus,
ibid.

38 LETTER IV.
sistent it be with Cathohc antiquitjs and with the
Council of Trent. All your modern approved
writers agree, that Satisfaction obtains only the
remission of temporal punishments; the sin itself
having been previously remitted. This is the doc
trine 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 conclusions 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.
II. It was also proved, that, according to your
doctrine, God is actuated by contradictory dis
positions towards the justified ; that he is at once
satisfied and dissatisfied, pleased and displeased;
that he loves and hates the same persons at the
same moment.
III. It was further proved, that, according to
your doctrine, a Christian is bound to pass his
whole life in enduring self-inflicted torments and
laborious works, under an uncertain hope of
appeasing the wrath of God.

LETTER IV. 39
IV. It was also shewn, that you are not satisfied
with imposing this grievous burden on. Christians,
but that you teach them to consider themselves
alienated from God, exposed to his wrath, venge
ance, and hatred, during their whole lives, and
even at the hour of death.
V. It has been shewn, that your doctrine
renders it impossible 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 England, that
penitential works are a part of true Repentance,
and as such, remit sin both as to its guilt and its
punishment [culpa and poena). Consequently your
doctrine of Satisfaction, which asserts that peni
tential works are only useful for the remission of
temporal penalties, is directly erroneous, and ap
proximates 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 Absolu
tions are, generally speaking, invalid.

40 LETTER IV.
IX. Scripture and Tradition teach, that peni
tential 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 f, and on this principle give Absolution
before Satisfaction. Therefore your received doc
trine 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 behoved by all your people.
From which 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
' Satisfactio, seu poenitentia a Confessario data, est necessaria
necessitate non sacramenti sed praecepti  est pars sacra
menti non essentialis, sed integralis tantum. Ligorio, Theol.
Mor. t. vi. p. 122. Communis theologorum sententia post
Concilium Tridentinum assignat tres actus poenitentis, nerape
contritionem, confessionem, et satisfactionem pro materia
proxima Sacramenti Poenitentiae ; duos quidem priores pro
materia essentiali; tertium verb, nempe satisfactionem, pro
materia integrante. Tournely, De Poenit. t. i. p. 108. Sine
ilia (satisfactione) valet absolutio data poenitenti contrito et
confesso, ut ostendemus suo loco inferius. Ib. p. 118.

LETTER IV. 41
themselves be fit monitors to others? Can those
who quote passages from the Scriptures and the
Fathers in favour of doctrines which they utterly
subvert, be qualified either by learning or by
intelhgence to guide our opinions ? Where is that
boasted infallibility of received doctrines amongst
you ; when it has been shewn, that Scripture,
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 communion 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 principles may be maintained
by those who are members of the Church of
England ; when, in short, our Churches are es
sentially Cathohc, and your own separation from
our Catholic and Apostolic Churches is conse
quently without excuse ; how extreme 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 1
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
Oxford, May II, I84I. WILLIAM PALMER.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Just published,
A LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. (calling himself Bishop of
Melipotamus,) containing REMARKS on his LETTER to l\Ji .
NEWMAN. (Second Edition.) Pnce Is.
A SECOND lIetTBR to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the FOUNDATION
of the ROMISH DOCTRINES of SATISFACTION, INDULG
ENCES, PURGATORY, and SUFFRAGES for the DEAD.
Price \s.
A THIRD LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH
DOCTRINE of SATISFACTIONS. Price Is.
Preparing for Publication,
A FIFTH LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. in REPLY to his
REMARKS on LETTER I ; with additional proofs of the IDOL
ATRY and SUPERSTITION of ROMANISM.
*jt* This Series of Letters will be continued.

Lately published,
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

The APOSTOLICAL JURISDICTION and SUCCESSION of the
EPISCOPACY in the BRITISH CHURCHES vindicated against
the Objecrions of Dr. WISEMAN in the DUBLIN REVIEW.
Price 6s.
*,* The above contains a reply to Tracts 18 and 19 of " the Tracts
published under the Superintendence of the Catholic Institute of Great
Britain."

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 8743