Continued from Popery: Its Character And Its Crimes – Part II. Popery A Moral Pestilence. Chapter X. The Evidence from Prophecy

Puseyism is a term for the Oxford Movement–related “Anglo-Catholic revival” in the Church of England, based on the teachings of Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800–1882). It was first used in 1838.

CONCLUSION. WHAT IS PUSEYISM?

It is to “say anathema to the principle of Protestantism” (1); to “depart more and more from the principles of the English Reformation” (2); to “sigh to think that we should be separate from Rome” (3); to “desire the restoration of unity with the Church of Rome” (4); to regard “Rome as our mother, through whom we were born to Christ” (5).

It is to denounce the Church of England as being “in bondage, as working in chains, and as teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies” (6); it is to eulogize the Church of Rome as giving “free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, and devotedness” (7), and as having “high gifts and strong claims on our admiration, love, and gratitude” (8).

It is to declare that “our articles are the offspring of an uncatholic age” (9), and that the communion service is “a judgment upon the church” (10); it is to teach that “the Romish ritual was a precious possession” (11), and that the mass-book is “a sacred and most precious monument of the Apostles” (12).

It is to assert that “Scripture is not the rule of faith” (13); that “the oral tradition of the church is a fuller exposition of God’s revealed truth” (14); that the Bible, “placed without note or comment in the hands of uninstructed persons, is not calculated, in ordinary cases, to make them wise unto salvation” (15); and that only persons “disclaiming the right of private judgment in things pertaining to God” are members of the church of Christ (16).

It is to teach “that baptism, and not faith, is the primary instrument of justification” (17); that we are not to “neglect the doctrine of justification by works” (18); and that “the prevailing notion of bringing forward the doctrine of the atonement, explicitly and prominently on all occasions, is evidently quite opposed to the teaching of Scripture” (19).

It is to assert that, in the Lord’s Supper, Christ is “present under the form of bread and wine” (20); that “he is then personally and bodily with us” (21); and that the clergy are “intrusted with the awful and mysterious gift of making the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood” (22).

It is to maintain the lawfulness of prayers for the dead (23); to make “a distinction between venial and mortal sins” (24); and to assert that a person may believe that there is a purgatory; that relics may be venerated; that saints may be invoked; that there are seven sacraments; that the mass is an offering for the quick and dead, for the remission of sins; and that he may yet, with a good conscience, subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (25).

It is to put the visible church in the place of Christ by teaching that “she alone is that true hiding place into which the servants of God may flee for refuge, and be safe” (26); it is to put the sacraments in the place of God by declaring that they are “the sources of Divine grace”[1] (27).

Finally, we would say one word on ‘Catholic Emancipation.’ The notion is very common that the civil disabilities which still attach to Papists are persecution on account of their religion. Nothing, however, can be more erroneous. “Persecution, on account of religion, is to prevent men from worshipping God according to the light of their own consciences, or to punish them for so doing; it being understood that such worship is harmless in the sight of men; for if it were in any manner hurtful to their fellow creatures, the restraining of it would not be persecution, but a lawful exercise of magisterial authority.” “I venture to affirm, that no person is capable of judging of the merits of this question, until he has studied the character of Popery as exhibited in the writings, and in the practice of Papists.”

“It is not persecution to prevent aliens from sitting in Parliament, or in our courts of justice, because every state requires, for its own security, that those who legislate, or administer its laws, be in a condition to maintain undivided allegiance to the sovereign. This an alien cannot do, for he is under a previous obligation of allegiance to a foreign power, which may levy war against the state under which he enjoys protection. A Papist is precisely in this state. Let him declare allegiance to the crown of Great Britain and Ireland, in terms as strong as words can make them, they cannot set aside a previous allegiance which he owes to the Pope, in virtue of a grant which he believes Jesus Christ to have given to him through the medium of St. Peter. This is an allegiance to which every other must of necessity give place.

They say it is only spiritual allegiance, but it is impossible to render spiritual allegiance to a creature, without being liable to render temporal allegiance also, whenever the spiritual power shall require it. To suppose the contrary, would be to suppose that a man’s spiritual interests have no influence over his temporal ones, or that religion is not the rule of his conduct. When, therefore, a dispute should arise between the King of Britain and the Pope, a thing which has happened oftener than once, and may happen again, a Papist would be under a spiritual obligation to the Pope, from which nothing of a temporal nature could relieve him; and to exclude such a person from power in a Protestant state is not persecution, but a necessary measure of self-defence.”

“Besides, a genuine Papist is not a free agent. He is not at liberty to act according to his own convictions, farther than it may be agreeable to his priest and confessor. His confessor is lord of his conscience, to whom he is obliged, under pain of being held guilty of mortal sin, to reveal his most secret thoughts. Depending upon his ghostly father for the forgiveness of his sins, and what are called the consolations of his religion, without which he must live without comfort, and die without hope, he must of necessity conduct himself, in every respect, so as to stand upon good terms with his priest. If intrusted with power in a Protestant country, he must exert himself to promote the interest of the holy church; that is, the interest of the court and see of Rome. Every priest is under a solemn oath to do this, to the utmost of his power: and how could he do it better, than by using the influence which he might possess over the consciences of men in power, if any of his penitents were in that situation? I say, then, it is not persecution to exclude such persons from places of power and trust; because they have not power over their own actions; they have resigned themselves to the will of others; and are, therefore, not in a situation to legislate and administer justice. There are three parties; themselves, their priests, and the public at large: they are the slaves of the second, and cannot safely be entrusted with the interests of the third. Those who legislate and administer the laws of men, ought to be independent of men, and free from all human influence. This a Papist cannot be: he wants an indispensable qualification for a public trust; and it is not persecution to exclude him from it, any more than it is persecution to exclude the deaf and dumb from Parliament.” (Protestant, Vol. iii. p. 415)

Such are the sentiments of the above distinguished writer. The rage of the day—for every period has its particular rage—is ‘Conciliation,’ and hence, we suppose, some of our readers will denominate such opinions as these—bigotry. They are, however, the opinions which we have been compelled to embrace, since we began to study the subject, and which we think all Christians would adopt, were they thoroughly to investigate the mass of Fraud, Impiety, and Wickedness—termed Popery!

Unanswerable proofs that ‘Faith is not to be kept with heretics’ (i.e., Protestants) and a list of the bloody laws still in force against them, may be seen in the same work (Vol. iv. pp. 112–121). In reference to the liberal professions of modern Papists, the author very justly observes, “The Wolf might tell a flock of sheep, that he had laid aside his claws and teeth, but they would be silly sheep that would believe him!”

And now, in concluding, we have one request to make to the reader: that if he considers the above exhibition of the evils of Popery to be according to truth, he would unite his earnest prayers with ours, to the God of all grace—that this feeble attempt to advance His Glory, and confound the Man of Sin, may, through the Divine Blessing, accomplish the desired results.

Footnotes

1. Palmer’s Letter to Golightly. 2. British Critic for July, 1841. 3. Tracts for the Times. 4. Palmer’s Letter. 5. Tracts for the Times. 6. Id. 7. Newman’s Letter to Jelf. 8. Tracts for the Times. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. Tracts for the Times. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. Id. 17. Newman on Justification. 18. Linwood’s Sermons. 19. Tracts for the Times. 20. Linwood’s Sermons. 21. Tracts for the Times. 22. Id. 23. Id. 24. Id. 25. Tracts for the Times, No. 90, Linwood’s Sermon. 27. Tracts for the Times.

Download the entire book, Popery: Its Character And Its Crimes by William Elfe Tayler, in a single PDF file.