то

A PREBENDARY:

BEING

AN ANSWER TO

REFLECTIONS ON POPERY,

By the Rev. J. STURGES, LL.D.

Prebendary and Chancellor of Winchester, and Chaplain to his Majesty.

WITH REMARKS ON THE OPPOSITION OF

HOADLYISM

TO THE

Doctrines of the Church of England.

SECOND EDITION,

CORRECTED AND ENLARGED.

BY

THE REV. JOHN MILNER, M. A. F. S. A.

CORK:

Printed and Sold, by permission of the Author,

BY JAMES HALY, BOOKSELLER, KING'S-ARMS, EXCHANGE; AND ALSO,
BY H. FITZPATRICK, CAPEL-STREET, DUBLIN.

1802,

CONTENTS.

LETTER I.

Introduction.

OCCASION of the prefent work.-Character and authen-

ticity of the author's Hiftory and Survey of Winchester.-

Illiberality and impropriety of the terms Papift and Popery.

-Nature of the charges brought againft the religion and

person of the author.-Reply to a libel on the latter by the

annotator on the Purfuits of Literature.-Hints concerning

the author of that work-Neceffity of repelling the attack

of Dr. S.-Examination of his reafons why his book should

not be answered.-Condition of the French emigrant clergy,

and of the English Catholics.-Virulence of certain late

writers.-POSTSCRIPT.-Refutation of Dr. S.'s fupple-

mentary note.-State of the controverfy on the subject of

the first letter.
Page 1-22.

LETTER II.

Supremacy.

Confufed ideas of Dr. S. on this fubject-Character of his

favourite authors.-Defence of St. Thomas Aquinas and of

fcholaftic logic. The fupremacy coeval with Christianity.-

Miftakes of Dr. S. concerning the patriarchate of C. P.—

Falfe inferences from the wickedness of fome popes, as well

as of fome kings.-Eminent fervices rendered by popes to

religion and fociety. - Teftimonies in favour of the fupre-

macy by Grotius, Melancthon, archbishop Wake, &c.-Ser-

vices rendered to this island by popes.-Character of the late

pope Pius VI.-Attempts of late writers to render all spiri

tual authority odious.-Grounds of the difpute between

Hen. II. and archbishop St. T. Becket.-POSTSCRIPT.—

Difingenuity of the author of the Reflections. P. 22-47

LETTER IH.

Religious Obfervances.

Groundless dread of fuperftition-Fabricated account of Ca-
tholic obfervances.-Date of monaftic inftitute.-Mifrepre-
fentations of it by Dr. S.-Ingratitude to his founders.-
Vulgar errors concerning compenfations for fin.-Advantages
to fociety from monaftic inftitutes.-Defence of regular prac
tices. Occafion of difpute concerning clerical celibacy.-Lu-
dicrous objections of Dr. S.-Alarming doctrines on this head.
-Advantages of clerical celibacy.-Exemplified in late occur-
rences.-POSTSCRIPT.-Weak defence of Dr. S.-Un-
generous attempts to mend his arguments. P. 47-80.

LETTER IV.

Perfecution.

Groundless prejudices on this fubject.-Artifices ufed to inflame

and perpetuate them.-Neceffity of ftriking a true balance in

this matter.-Perfecution no tenet of Catholic faith, by rea-

fon of particular inftances of it: as this argument may be re-

torted. Occafion of the feverities exercifed on the Albi-

genfes.-Their origin, and infamous tenets and behaviour.—

Dr. Rennell's quotation of 3d can. iv, Conc. Lat-Egregious

miftake concerning the authority of that canon.-Seditious

and irreligious tenets of Wycliff and his followers.-Fatal

confequences of them in England.-The doctrine of Hufs no

lefs deftructive to religion and government.-Refutation of

Dr. S's charges against the council of Conftance.-Misrepre-

fentation of the maffacre of Paris.-Errors concerning the in-

quifition. Falfification of a paffage in Boffuet's Variations.

-Pretexts for Mary's perfecution.-Ditto for that of Eliza-

beth.-Number, character, and torments of the respective suf-

ferers.-POSTSCRIPT.-Straits to which Dr. S. is reduc-

ed on this fubject.-Fruitlefs endeavour to qualify his charge.

P. 80-137-

LETTER V.

The Reformation.

Exaggerated charges of the irreligion and barbarity of former
times by modern writers.--True ftate of the arts, learning, and
religion of the middle ages.-Comparison between the Reform-

ers and thofe whom they undertook to reform.-Luther's ac-

count of the effects of the Reformation on the morals of the

people. Teftimony of Erafmus.-State of morality in this na-

tion at the latter end of the reign of Henry VIII.-In the reign

of Edward VI-In that of Elizabeth. - Character of those

chief Reformers who are extolled by Dr. S.-Of Martin Lu-

ther as drawn by himfelf-Of Hooper-Latimer-Ridley-

Cranmer. General Reflections.--POSTSCRIPT.-Impo-

tent attempts of "Dr. S. to vindicate Luther and Cranmer.-

The former's infidelity in translating the Scriptures.-Recapi-

tulation of the latter's character.-Inconfiftency of Dr. S.'s de-

fence.
P. 138.-189.

LETTER VI.

Vindication of the English Catholics under Queen Elizabeth.

Hypocritical character of certain perfecutions.-Private fentiments

of Elizabeth in matters of religion.-These subservient to her

political interests.--Defcription of her three principal ministers

and chief agents in the perfecution of Catholics :-Robert

Dudley, earl of Leicester-Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

-Sir Francis Walfingham, fecretary of flate.-Their unprinci-

pled artifices to effect this purpofe.-The remarkable fidelity of

the Catholics at the acceffion of Elizabeth.-Falfely accused by

Dr. S. in various inftances.-The Northern Rebellion.-Ex-

communication of Elizabeth.-The foreign feminaries.-Er-

rors of Hume and Dr. S.-Pretended plot of Rheims and

Rome--Ditto of the Throckmortons'--That of William Par-

ry-His remarkable history.-Babington's plot a contrivance

of Cecil and Walfingham to get rid of the queen of Scots.-

Horrid attempts of Elizabeth and her ministers to get Mary

affaffinated.-Curious letter of the former, extracted from

Strype.-Mary's noble defence of herfelf.-Herdeath contrafted

with that of Elizabeth.-Acknowledged loyalty of the Catho-

lics at the time of the intended Spanish invafion, yet perfecuted

with redoubled cruelty on that account.-General obfervations

of Catholic loyalty.-POSTSCRIPT.--Real character of

Dr. S.'s errors. His vain attempts to excufe the perfecution of

Catholics. Their conduct in point of loyalty compared with

that of Reformers.
P. 190-263.