It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent itself, that "Justification is not remission of sin merely, "but also sanctification, 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 gifts bestowed upon him at the same time, namely, faith, hope, "and charity P."

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

P Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. cap. vii.

"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 Deis)." Tournely says, "that "God after the pardon of sin still exacts a revenging temporal punishment from the penitent, (ultricem pœnam temporalem a pœnitente 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

66

66

66

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 punishing himself, by performing certain works propitiatory before God, avert his anger." (Lectures, ii. 48, 51.) And these, Sir, are not mere incautious expressions; they are the natural and necessary result of your doctrine, that remitted sins are still liable to the demands of Divine Justice. For the Scripture teaches us, that sin is the object of God's wrath and vengeance, and if any sin be still subject to the demands of his justice, it is equally subject to those of his wrath and vengeance. So that, according to your doc

Walenburch, Opera, t. ii. p. 19.
Tournely, De Pœnit. t. ii. p. 3.

trine, the justified and pardoned believer is still liable to God's wrath! The adopted, beloved, and sanctified child, is still subject to God's vengeance! God loves and hates, saves and destroys, at the same moment; and the same beings are at once reckoned with the elect and the reprobate, with angels and with devils! Can it be possible for absurdity, contradiction, and impiety to go beyond this? And yet this is the necessary, the inevitable consequence to which your doctrine leads.

Such, Sir, is your doctrine of temporal penalties for remitted sins-a doctrine unsupported by reason and experience, rejected by Scripture, contradictory to itself, and subversive of the Christian's hope of salvation. And yet it is on this doctrine that your whole body of doctrine concerning Satisfactions, 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 consideration, and beg to subscribe myself,

Your obedient Servant,

WILLIAM PALMER.

Oxford, April 24, 1841.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Just published, price One Shilling,

A LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. (calling 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 be continued.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.