|
new content added: May 30, 2009
| |
The History of Popery in Great Britian
An historial account of the Usurpations, Cruelties, &c. of the Bishops of Rome and the Creatures, in matters of Fact, from the Primitive Age to the Council of Trent, which is the principal Standard of Popery to this very Day, To show the Times and Manner of their introducing their several idolatrous and erroneous Innovations into the Church, and to state the Pretences and Arguments, on which they ground their ridiculous Doctrines, and return satisfactory Answers thereunto.
by Henry Care
(Protestant Christian)
VOLUME I
Originally published 1678-1683
Reprinted by Several Gentlemen in the
1735-1736 Edition in 2 Volumes
Hail & Fire REPRINTS 2009
_TheHistoryOfPoperyInGreatBritian1735_Vol1_titlecol.jpg)
HAIL & FIRE REPRINTS 2009
|
If you are unable to view content in the frame at right:
|
The late vigorous attempts of the Emissaries of Rome to diffuse their poisonous tenets among a free and Protestant People, and that under the happy government of an illustrious Protestant Prince, must raise in every sober and generous mind a just indignation against them, and a tender compassion to the weak and ignorant, who are most exposed to their horrid delusions. Surely, never did anything, that wore the sacred name of religion, appear in the world so monstrously absurd and detestable as Popery, which is the cruelest merchandise of men's lives and souls, and lies in direct contradiction to reason and revelation, to morality and common sense, and to all the dearest interests of civil society, of liberty, conscience, and eternal salvation.
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS: VOLUME I The Articles Treated of in this Volume: The Pope's Supremacy. The Celibacy of the Clergy. The Authority of Councils. Papal Schisms and Encroachments. Monks and Friars. Praying to Saints and Angels. The Idolatry and Superstition of Mass. Roman Innovations. Canonizations. Fasts, Lent, and Saints-Days. Adoration of Crosses and Crucifixes. Popish Pilgrimages. Popish Doctrines contrary to the Fathers of the first six Centuries. Popes remarkable Acts and Decrees, etc. Image Worship. Prayer in an unknown Tongue. Peter's Pence in England. Indulgences and Purgatory. The Popish Canon of Scripture and Apocrypha. Popish Editions and Translations of Scripture, except in the vulgar Tongue. Popish Authority of Scripture, Rules of interpreting it, and vilifying it. The Popish Rule of Faith. Popish Traditions. The Errors of Popes, and of the visible Church. Popish Vain Pretences to the Catholic Church. Popish Unity and Certainty. The Election of Popes, and Opposition of Pope to Pope. Popes changing their Names. Kissing the Pope's Feet. Pope Joan. The Lives and Characters of Popes and Priests. Popes Usurpations, deposing Emperors, Rebellions, and dispensing with Oaths. The Church of England in William the Conqueror's Reign. Popish Canons, and Canon Laws. Popish Cruelties. Cardinals, and their Manner of choosing Popes. Archbishop Becket. Popish Persecutions of the Waldenses. Transubstantiation. Papists denying the Cup in the Sacrament. Popery as compared with Turkism. Popish Curses and Cruelties against King John. Auricular Confession.
| |
A paper, entitled the Weekly Packet, or The History of Popery, was published about fifty years ago with great reputation and success, when that worst of all abominations, which makes desolate, threatened to invade us with all its terrors. This paper, in a successive course, goes through the principal branches of the Popish controversy, in a way so rational and historical, plain and Scriptural, that the more judicious part of mankind may find their entertainment in it, and people of lower education and capacity may easily understand it, and be thereby furnished with clear answers to the artful sophistry of priests and Jesuits, and others of the Popish clan. And, as the Mystery of Iniquity has of late worked with more than common industry, and too great success, we could not but hope, that, by the blessing of God, it might be a seasonable service to our fellow Protestants of all denominations, and especially to the more unlearned among them, to publish what may be deemed An Abstract, with some Improvements, of that valuable and scarce performance.
We shall sometimes transcribe whole Packets just as the author left them, only taking the liberty of making some phrases a little more modern, as we may think occasions offer, even while we preserve his sentiments: at other times, we shall contract several Packets into the compass of one, when it may be done without, injuring the history or the argument: and at others, shall add what we apprehend may give further light or force to the subject in hand, or may help to accommodate it more exactly to the present state of things. And we choose to carry on this work in a Weekly Pamphlet of a sheet and half for two-pence, that it may resemble its original form, and may be more widely spread, and more easily purchased and read, than if it were to be published all at once.
The author's professed design, which he has managed with great labour and advantage, is,
1. "To give a historical account gradually of the Usurpations, Cruelties, etc. of the Bishops of Rome and their creatures, in matters of fact, from the Primitive Age to the Council of Trent, which, being their last General Council, is the principal standard of Popery to this very day.
2. To show the times and manner of their introducing their several idolatrous and erroneous innovations into the Church.
3. To state the pretences and arguments, on which they ground such their ridiculous doctrines, and return satisfactory answers thereunto."
And he assures us, that "the authorities he makes use of, are either the sacred Scriptures, or such authors as our adverseries own; and that the citations have generally been examined, and faithfully transcribed from the original authors quoted; or if any (as but very few, and only where the books were not to be had) have been taken up at second hand, it was from witnesses of unquestionable veracity and fidelity." We don't take upon us to examine all his numerous authorities, having neither books at hand, nor leisure sufficient for it; nor do we think ourselves obliged to it, since, so far as we recite this author, we only act the part of transcribers. But as, in the course of these papers, we shall see occasion to add some further authorities, the utmost care shall be taken that they be faithfully referred to, if not rehearsed. And, as we have no reason to suspect the fidelity of our author's quotations, so whatever less mistakes may possibly be found in so laborious and extensive an undertaking, we are persuaded that the merits of the cause will stand unshaken, and with uncontrolable evidence, against all the attacks of its enemies. As such we recommend this Abstract, with Improvements, to the reader, and to a divine blessing, having no mercenary views in publishing it, but sincerely aiming at the glory of God, the good of human society, and the welfare of immortal souls.
AN ABSTRACT, WITH IMPROVEMENTS,
OF THE HISTORY OF POPERY.
PACKET I.
Et prodesse & delectare ...
We have a proverb, that Rome was not built in a day; which holds true of her babel-doctrines, usurpations and errors crept in by degrees; and though no
To make out this plea, which is fundamental to the whole fabric of Popery, it lies upon them to prove, (1.) That St. Peter had this power. (2.) That he was Bishop of Rome; and (3.) That the Popes are his Successors, and have the same power and authority lodged in them. If any one of these points fails, their rock is split, and all their pompous building upon it must unavoidably be buried in its ruins. Now,
"Against this vain pretence of Peter's power, these arguments offer themselves.
1. If such power were granted to St. Peter above the rest, the evangelists, who by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost wrote all things that are necessary to faith and salvation, would not have been silent therein; but they record no such matter: On the contrary they declare, that an equal authority was given to all the Apostles, John 20:23. And when the question, who should be greatest, was started amongst them, Mark 10:43, and Luke 22:24, there is no mention made of our Saviour's preferring Peter, but rather of his admonishing them all not to affect: such a Primacy." And at another time he declared against it, saying, Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren, &c. Matt. 22:8-9.
"Therefore we may conclude that no such power was conferred."
2. When the Apostle Paul gave a list of, the various ranks of officers, which Christ constituted in his Church, 1 Cor 12:28, and Eph 4:2, he mentions Apostles, Prophets, Pastors and Teachers, but not a word of Christ's Vicar, or of a Primate over them, and over the whole Church. Therefore we may conclude, that Peter was no such officer of Christ's appointment.
3. "If Paul were not inferior to the very chief of the Apostles, then Peter had no such superiority: but the first is asserted, 2 Cor 11:5. Ergo."
4. There is no instance of any appeal, that was ever made to Peter, to decide controversies; but, when a debate arose between Paul and Barnabas, and others, about circumcision, they referred the point, not to Peter, but to the Church, and the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem, who debated upon it, and formed their determination about it, exactly according to James' sentence, which was an improvement of, and addition to what Peter had said upon it; and this they wrote to the gentiles, not as the decree of Peter, (and 'twas indeed rather the decree of James) but as what seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to the Apostles, and elders, and brethren, who met at Jerusalem on that occasion, Acts 15:2-29. Therefore Peter had no such authority as the Papists pretend.
5. "If Paul might withstand Peter to the face, and did find that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, then Peter had neither such authority nor infallibility above other Apostles: but the first is true, Gal 2:11-14.
6. He that is sent, is not superior to those that send him: but Peter was sent as a messenger from the other Apostles, Acts 8:14. Ergo.
7. He that is accused to others, and pleads his cause before them, is not their superior: but so did Peter before the other disciples; and by submitting to the judgment of the council, rather acknowledged himself inferior, Acts 11:1-4.
8. If Peter had been appointed by Christ such a monarch in his Church, and vested with such authority, he would some time or other have exercised the same: but this he no where did, neither when present with the rest, nor in his epistles, whose style is not commanding as a superior, but only exhorting as amongst equals," or at most only as was answerable to the common authority of the other Apostles of Christ. Had he gone into the superior language of the Apostle Paul, who sometimes said, I will, I command, and I charge you, and the like, 1 Cor 7:10 and 1 Tim 5:14, 21. what triumphs would the Papists have raised upon it? What a high demonstration would they have called it of St. Peter's supreme authority? But, alas for them! this style is no where found in his writings, who rather chose to beseech, and exhort as an elder, put himself on a level with other elders, and cautioned all of that character against lording it over God's heritage, 1 Pet 5:1-3. as if he, under divine inspiration, thereby purposely designed to throw confusion on all claims of supreme authority by tenure from him. And therefore we may conclude, he had no such authority at all.
"The chief text which the Papists abuse to countenance this matter, is, Mat 16:18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church ... And I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc.
But this makes nothing to their purpose; the meaning is plain: in the foregoing words our Saviour demands of his disciples, who they said he was; to which Peter for them all answers, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. This good confession, Christ (alluding to his name, which signifies a stone) calls the rock upon which his Church should be built." Or, as on another occasion we may suppose he pointed with his finger to himself, when he was in the temple, and said to the Jews, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, Joh 2:19. So perhaps with a like signal of reference to himself, whom Peter had confessed as the Son of God, he said, On this Rock I will build my Church. For other Foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 3:2. "And as for those words, I will give thee the keys, 'tis a promise made to all his Apostles in the person of Peter, who had answered in the name of them all, as appears John 20:23, where this promise is performed, and power given them all equally of ministration in his Church." And, as the most natural use of keys is to open gates or doors; so the most obvious sense of this passage is, that Peter should be the first, who after Christ's ascension should preach the Gospel both to Jews and gentiles, and so should first open the door of the Messiah's Kingdom to them. But afterwards the other Apostles used these keys of admission into the blessings and privileges of the Gospel Church and Kingdom, as well as he; and the Apostle Paul used them with more abundant success to the gentiles, than ever Peter himself could pretend to. But the Popes are little acquainted with this use of the keys; nor can they pretend to be Peter's successors, in this branch of his commission, any farther than they turn preachers of the Gospel, and employ themselves, as he did, in laying the foundations of Churches, by their personal ministry, in places where it never has been preached.
"We proceed to the second part, whether Peter were Bishop of Rome? To which we say,
1. That which can't be proved by Scripture, is not to be received for an Article of Faith. But that Peter was Bishop of Rome, doth not appear by Scripture. Ergo.
2. If Peter and Paul, about eighteen years after the death of Christ, made an agreement by the direction of the Holy Spirit, that Peter should preach to the Jews, and Paul to the gentiles, and that Peter is therefore called the Apostle of the Circumcision, and accordingly did write his epistles to the scattered Jews, and neither directed any to, nor dated them from Rome; then 'tis most unlikely he should be Bishop or resident there. But the first appears, Gal 2, and by both St. Peter's epistles. Ergo.
3. 'Tis so far from being demonstrable that Peter was Bishop of Rome, that 'tis not so much as probable he was ever there" at least not so soon as 25 years before his death, as the Papists would have us believe. "The Scripture mentions nothing about his being at Rome. His epistle is dated from Babylon in Assyria" as many learned men suppose. And one would think, that, were it not to serve a darling hypothesis, the Papists, of all persons, should be farthest from pleading that Babylon is here figuratively put for Rome; nor is it likely that a Figure should be used in an historical date, though it may be expected in prophetic characters. Luke, who wrote the travels of the Apostles Paul and Peter, takes no notice of Peter's going thither. And "when Paul writes to the Romans, and sends greeting to above forty by name, he says nothing of Peter; whom 'tis not likely he would have omitted, either then, or afterward, when from Rome he sent particular salutations from others in several of his epistles. Nay, he complains, Phil 2:20. that all that were at Rome sought their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. And, Col 4:2, names a few, whom he saith, were his only fellow-helpers there. And, 2 Tim 4:16. that at his first answer, when convened before Nero, all men forsook him. All which sure he could not have said, if Peter had been there. Besides, when Paul first came to Rome, the Jews there (who were Peter's, peculiar charge) seemed to know nothing of the Gospel, Acts 28." And in the Apostle Paul's second epistle to Timothy, which is ordinarily esteemed to be his last, and to have been wrote about the year 66, he not only sent salutations from several at Rome, but particularly mentioned others, who were gone to one place and another from thence, 2 Tim 4:10-12, 21. How then could he be guilty of so much
"And even the Papists own stories do not agree in the time of Peter's coming to Rome, nor concerning that of his death." We may further add, that Tacitus, Suetonius, and the rest of the Roman historians, who wrote the affairs transacted at Rome under Claudius and Nero, and who take notice of the Christians under the reigns of those emperors, are silent upon these heads. And the learned Scaliger says, that after the Acts of the Apostles to the time of Pliny the Younger, there is nothing certain in the history of the Church. Yea, even Petavius, the Jesuit, owns that the affairs of the Church in those times are obscure, and most of them mingled with fables and uncertain narratives. (Rationar. Temp. Par. I. L. 5. c. 5.) Such therefore is the silence of Scripture about Peter's being at Rome, and such the obscurity and uncertainty of primitive antiquity about it, that, though we will not absolutely affirm he never was there, we are sure 'tis very unreasonable and presumptuous in the Papists to impose so dubious a matter upon us, as that of his being there so soon and so long as they pretend, and much more to build so important a conceit, as his supremacy, upon it.
PACKET II.
Operta quæ fuêre, aperta sunt; patent jam Præstigiæ; omnis res est palam. Plaut. in Capt.
What has been said may be sufficient to confute "the pretended foundation of Popery, their fictions of Peter's Headship or Primacy over the other Apostles, and his being Bishop of Rome. But admitting (though not granting) both to have been true, what's that to the present, or any modern Popes? O yes, cry they, we are his Successors, and consequently have the same Pre-eminence and right devolved to. us.
Against this sham-pretence of succession, we may readily think of such arguments as these:
1. If the Pope succeeded Peter, it must be either in his extraordinary quality of an Apostle, or as he was Bishop of Rome, or as he was Head of the Church; but he cannot succeed him as an Apostle, for that office ceased with the persons, the Apostles not constituting Apostles to succeed them, but only Bishops, pastors, etc. Nor could he succeed him as Bishop of Rome, or Head of the Church, because Peter himself was neither of them, as we proved before. And a man cannot be said to succeed another in that, which such other person had never any possession of, or right to; therefore it follows, he succeeds not St. Peter at all." Peter himself expressed his concern, that the things he preached might be always had in remembrance after his decease; but neither he, nor any other of the sacred writers, ever take the least notice of his giving a commission to the Bishops of Rome to succeed him, or entailing his powers, whatever they were, upon them. "Had Christ ever intended such a supreme power in his Church, which so highly concerns her welfare to be generally known, we should certainly have had it declared in Holy Scripture, in terms as express, as we find justification by faith in Jesus, or the resurrection from the dead."
But as the inspired writings are silent about it, so is primitive antiquity in the purest ages of the Church. And "were the Popish pretensions true, we must conclude the Fathers to have been extremely negligent, not to say malignant, that they have not expressly set down in any of their works this most important business, that Christ made Peter and his successors Head of the Church, and endued them with infallibility. And farther, the same Fathers must have troubled themselves and their flocks very impertinently, in toiling to compose tedious confutations of heretics, if they might have had present recourse to a visible unerring authority for the decision of controversies; since, if their opposers had refused to acquiesce in his determination, their main work had been, not so much to confute their opinion, as to convince them of their duty to obey such supreme judge. But they making use of no such medium, we may confidently conclude, that they never had any thoughts of such a power's being delegated to any on earth.
2. 'Tis plain, as has been observed, that Peter's Primacy (if we should allow him any) did not privilege him from subjection to the rest of the brethren, before whom he pleaded his cause, and by whom he was sent as a messenger,
Acts 8:14, and Chap. 11:3. Nor did it free him from error, or from being withstood to the face, Gal 2:2, But the Pope claims a right to domineer over the whole Church at his pleasure, and boasts himself infallible; insomuch that Cardinal Zabar, de Schism. Int. Gerim. Script. p. 703. speaking of the Popes, affirms, Quod omnia possint, quicquid liberet, etiam Illicita, & sit plus quam Deus. That they might do all things that they list, even things unlawful, and so could do more than God Himself. Nor is this
Cardinal Zabar: "speaking of the Popes, affirms ... That they might do all things that they list, even things unlawful, and so could do more than God Himself."
his single blasphemy; Dominus noster Deus Papa, Our Lord God the Pope, is the frequent compliment of the canonists; and the same title is given him by the Council of Lateran, Sess. 4. So Gratian the decree-monger asserts, Ab illo omnes judicari posse, illum à nemine: That all mortals are to be judged by the Pope, but the Pope by
"Dominus noster Deus Papa, Our Lord God the Pope"
no body at all. And indeed I find no occasion to judge him, if their Massonus, Lib. 3. in the Life of Pope John IX be in the right, when he tells us, Episcopos Romanos ne peccata quidem sine laude committere, That the Bishops of Rome cannot commit even sins without praise. So that it seems a piece of merit in a Pope, to keep Miss Dona Olympia, and to swear, or the like. These vast prerogatives (which are the very flowers of the Triple-Crown) we are sure were never any part of Peter's inheritance.
Gratian asserts: "Ab illo omnes judicari posse, illum à nemine: That all mortals are to be judged by the Pope, but the Pope by no body at all."
3. St. Peter's Primacy (if he had any) did not exempt him from paying tribute even to an heathen, Matt 17:27. His epistle has many urgent precepts of obedience to princes, as, Submit to every ordinance of man, whether it be to the king as supreme, (pray mark) or to governors, etc. 1 Pet 2:13. But the Pope not only denies all obedience to the emperor his rightful sovereign, and other kings and princes, but plays the tyrant over them, and pretends a right to dispose of their crowns, and over-rule them in their own dominions at his pleasure. So Pope Zachary deposed Childeric King of France, and set up. Pepin in his stead: So Pope Alexander III putting his foot on the neck of the Emperor Frederic I profaned that text, Psal 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder, etc. As Pius V in his Bull, that he sent to declare Queen Elizabeth deposed, and her subjects absolved from their allegiance, to justify his power, applied to himself these words, Jer 1:10 Lo! I have this day set thee over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to root out, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant. And must we believe they derive all this by succession from Peter? or can we imagine any prince in the world, that is free, should be so forgetful of his dignity, as to desire to be a vassal to such insolence?
4. But let us hear the story of this succession, as Popish authors relate it. Platina, that writes the Lives of the Popes, dedicated to Pope Sixtus IV whose secretary he was, tells us, in the Life of Peter, That Peter some time before his death, consecrated Clement, and commended him to the Chair and the Church of God, his verbis, in these very words: Eandem ego, etc. The same power of binding and loosing I deliver to thee, which Christ left me; do thou, contemning and despising all outward things, promote by prayer and preaching the salvation of men, as becomes a good pastor. Sure I am, modern Popes, though they talk much of the former, have very little regarded the latter part of this charge. But how comes it to pass after this exact and formal story so gravely told, that the same author sets down the life, not of the said Clement, as next successor to Peter, but of one Linus, who, he says, enjoyed the Seat eleven years, three months, and twelve days? And after him one Cletus, who pop'd it for twelve years, one month, and eleven days? And, then after this nap of near twenty-four years, comes this honest Father Clement into the Chair, and held it nine years, two months, and ten days. So that it seems their succession got a knock in the cradle: for by this reckoning, Clement lamentably neglected his charge for above twenty years, and the two next Bishops, that followed Peter were usurpers. This inconsistency makes the tale smell rank, especially if we consider,
1. That if Peter did so ordain either Clement, or Linus, or any other Head of the Church, then he either divested himself of that authority, and came, as well as others, under such new Head; or else from that time till his death, the Church had two visible Heads; both which are absurd.
2. If Clement, Linus, or any other succeeded Peter in the Primacy, and was Head of the Church then James and John, and other Apostles who survived Peter, wrere under and must obey Clement, etc. For the Popish historians themselves relate, that Peter suffered under Nero, but John long after under Domitian: but 'tis to unreasonable to think, that those who were of the chief of the Apostles called by Christ, and who are equalled with, if not preferred before Peter himself, Gal 2, should become inferiors, and obey an ordinary Bishop called by man. And to satisfy us that there was no such thing on foot in that age, we may observe, that the writings of James and John are by the Church owned in the Canon of the Holy Scriptures; whereas those of Clement (though some are extant in his name, but probably forged since) are rejected.
3. Suppose what they say, that Christ ordained Peter his successor, and Peter Clement or Linus, yet this is nothing to later Popes; for they are neither called immediately, as Peter by Christ; nor from the Pope foregoing, as Clement by Peter, but by the Cardinals: And whence had the Cardinals that Power? If from God, let them produce their warrant; if from men, tell us whom, and by what authority." Ecclesiastical history tells us that the name of Cardinals was never heard of in the Church till the 8th Century, and that they were not formed into an Order, and advanced to their power and dignity, till the 11th Century, under Pope John XVIII from whose time they have gradually rose to their present Eminence. Spanh. p. 1273, and 1533. And Platina, in his Life of this John, calls him a robber and a thief in his Pontificate, and thinks him unworthy to be placed in the number of the Popes, having got into the Chair, while Gregory V was alive. A hopeful beginning of these hinges, upon which, since those days, the Pope's Election turns! And he must be a very great stranger to their management on such occasions, who doth not know, that ambition and bribery, and the influence and interests of temporal princes, instead of the Holy Ghost, rule the conclave. ...
Excerpt from VOLUME 1 of The History of Popery in Great Britian, An historial account of the Usurpations, Cruelties, &c. of the Bishops of Rome and the Creatures, in matters of Fact, from the Primitive Age to the Council of Trent, which is the principal Standard of Popery to this very Day, To show the Times and Manner of their introducing their several idolatrous and erroneous Innovations into the Church, and to state the Pretences and Arguments, on which they ground their ridiculous Doctrines, and return satisfactory Answers thereunto (Originally published 1678-1683 Reprinted by Several Gentlemen in the 1735-1736 Edition in 2 Volumes)
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" 1 Peter 3:15 KJV
Copyright © 
HAIL and FIRE
www.hailandfire.com