In my preceding Letters your Controversial Lectures were frequently referred to for statements and proofs of Romish doctrines, not with any particular view of calling on you for a defence of those Lectures, but merely because they contain a recent and tolerably authentic exposition of Romish tenets. In future, however, a more sparing use shall be made of your productions, since it appears from the conclusion of your "Remarks" on my first Letter, that you "have, on principle, declined answering several attacks on your Controversial Lectures; and that it will require particular reasons to induce you to alter your past course." I beg you distinctly to understand, that it has not been my object to "attack your Controversial Lectures," but to contend against the system of which they furnish a convenient expo

sition. This explanation will, I trust, have the effect of enabling you, without any compromise of

principle," to continue your defence of principles and practices, in vindication of which you so eagerly rushed forward, when you imagined that they had been misrepresented by Mr. Newman.

The course of these Letters now brings us to consider the doctrine of PURGATORY. And here, Sir, I am ready to admit, that if the description given by Romish controversialists of their belief on this point, did really and fairly represent the doctrines which are currently received amongst you, we might be in some degree inclined to wonder at the opposition which has been made to the doctrine of Purgatory. It is the uniform practice of your modern writers to keep out of view all those offensive doctrines which are universally received amongst Romanists, although they have not beeen actually and formally defined by the Council of Trent; and we are thus to be persuaded, that the Roman Churches are in no degree responsible for such doctrines-that they are the mere private opinions of individuals-that they may be disputed or denied at pleasure; while at the same time, those very doctrines are sedulously inculcated on your own people, universally believed and approved; and their denial by any member of your Communion, would cause the highest scandal. They are never, in fact, opposed by any Romanists, without bringing down on them the imputation of Jansenism, or of some other heresy; and if your

opponents are ever able to bring it to the test whether you really do or do not hold them, we find that they are immediately defended with the utmost pertinacity.

Of this you have yourself afforded an example in the present controversy. Romanists are continually assuring us, that they only invoke the Saints to

pray for us" to God, and that they are, therefore, most unjustly accused of idolatrous practices. I shewed, that it is an authorized practice in your Communion, to pray to the Saints in the very terms in which God is addressed; to offer them Divine honours; to regard them as fountains of grace; to place religious trust and confidence in them; to set them, in every respect, on a level with God. You had repudiated all such imputations; but when they were actually brought home to your Communion, you at once stepped forward to express your approbation of all the most obnoxious expressions and practices that had been adduced, and to justify them by still more objectionable passages from spurious and forged writings.

The same line of proceeding has been followed by your controversialists with reference to the doctrine now before us. The obnoxious doctrines connected with Purgatory are never obtruded on us: they are studiously kept out of view: and our attention is directed only to the points which have been formally defined by the Council of Trent. Thus Dr. Milner remarks, that "all which is necessary to be believed

by Romanists on this subject, is contained in the following brief declaration of the Council of Trent: 'There is a Purgatory, and the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar"."" M. Bouvier, Bishop of Mans, observes, that these "two points only have been defined by the Church as matters of Catholic faith," and that "other matters are left free to the discussion of theologians"." Perrone again, as cited by you in your Letter to Mr. Newman, (p. 15), makes nearly the same statement; and adds, that "every thing relating to the place, duration, and quality of the pains of Purgatory, does not pertain to the Catholic faith," &c. "The Faith of Catholics," by the Romish priests Berington and Kirk, states, that all such questions are "superfluous and impertinent as to faith." (2nd Ed. p. 355.)

If, Sir, the doctrine of Purgatory went no further than this, I believe there would not be any great repugnance to it. If to assert that "there is a Purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by our prayers," be sufficient, we need not have any further difference on this point. We admit “a Purgatory" just as much as you do, that is to say, a Purgatory in this present life; and we believe “that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful." Will this satisfy you?

a End of Controv. Lett. xliii.

b Tractatus de Pœnitentia, p. 285.

Oh no! You will be ready to pronounce such a doctrine mere heresy. It is therefore evident, that your doctrine goes beyond the mere wording of the decree of Trent, or of the Creed of Pius V. Let us, then, ascertain what the doctrine of Romanists really is.

In my first Letter (p. 36) I enquired, in reference to your quotation from Perrone, which was intended to shew that Romanists are at liberty to speculate on the nature of Purgatory, whether he does not add to his statement, "that the doctrine of a purging material fire is the general and most probable opinion of theologians? ;" and I also requested you to produce the entire passage. With this request you have declined to comply; and I shall therefore copy what immediately follows your quotation, in order that we may be able to see how far Romanists are at liberty to speculate on points involved in the doctrine of Purgatory, though not actually comprised in the definition of the Council of Trent.

Having stated then, that "matters relating to the place, duration, and quality of pains in Purgatory do not pertain to the Catholic faith," Perrone proceeds thus:

"We are not ignorant, that there are some of those things which we have said do not pertain to faith, which, although they be not defined, cannot be rejected without a mark of temerity; since not only the common doctrine of theologians concerning them,

c Remarks, &c., p. 78.