TO

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 TRE 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,
BT JAMES HALY, BOOKSELLER, KING'S-ARMS, EXCUANGE; AND ALSO,

RY 1. FITZPATRICK, CAPEL-STREET, DUBLIN.

1802,

CONTENTS.

LETTER I.

Introduction.
OCCASION of the present work.–Character and authen-

ticity of the author's History and Survey of Winchester.---
Illiberality and impropriety of the terms Papist and Popery.
- Nature of the charges brought against the religion and
person of the author.-Reply to a libel on the latter by the
annotator on the Pursuits of Literature.- Hints concerning
the author of that work-Necessity of repelling the attack

of Dr. S.-Examination of his reasons 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 supple-

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

the first letter.

Page 1--22.

1

LETTER II.

Supremacy.

Confused ideas of Dr. S. on this subject-Character of his

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

scholaftic logic.—The supremacy coeval with Christianity.

Mistakes of Dr. S. concerning the patriarchate of C. É.--

False inferences from the wickedness of some popes, as well

as of some kings.- Eminent services rendered by popes to

religion and society.- Testimonies in favour of the supre-

macy by Grotius, Melanethon, 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 dispute between

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

Difingenuity of the author of the Reflections.

P. 22-47

LETTER III.

Religious Observances.
Groundless dread of superstition-Fabricated account of Ca.

tholic observances.- Date of monastic institute.-Misrepre-
sentations of it by Dr. S.-Ingratitude to his founders.
Vulgar errors concerning compensations for fin.-Advantages
to fociety from monastic institutes.-Defence of regular prac-
tices.-Occasion of dispute 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.

Persecution.
Groundless prejudices on this subject.-Artifices used to inflame

and perpetuate them. -Necessity of striking a true balance in
this matter.- Persecution no tenet of Catholic faith, by rea-
son of particular instances of it: as this argument may be re-
torted. -Occasion of the severities exercised on the Albi.
genses.--Their origin, and infamous tenets and behaviour.-
Dr. Rennell's quotation of 3d can. iv, Conc. Lat-Egregious
mistake concerning the authority of that canon.-Seditious
and irreligious tenets of Wycliff and his followers.--Fatal
consequences of them in England. The doctrine of Hufs no
less destructive to religion and government.-Refutation of
Dr. S's charges against the council of Constance.—Misrepre-
sentation of the massacre of Paris.—Errors concerning the in-
quifition.-Fallification of a passage in Bossuet's Variations.

-Pretexts for Mary's persecution.--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 subject.-Fruitless endeavour to qualify his charge.

P. 80-1370

LETTER V.

The Reformation.
Exaggerated charges of the irreligion and barbarity of former

times by modern writers.--True Itate of the arts, learning, and
rcligion of the middle ages.--Comparison between the Reform-

crs

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

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

people.-Testimony of Erasmus. - 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 himself-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.-Inconsistency of Dr. S.'s de-

fence.

P. 138.-189.

LETTER VI.

Vindication of the English Catholics under Queen Elizabeth.

Hypocritical character of certain persecutions.- Private sentiments

of Elizabeth in matters of religion. These subservient to her

political interests.--Description of her three principal minifters

and chief agents in the perfecution of Catholics :- -Robert

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

-Sir Francis Wallingham, secretary of slate.— Their unprinci-

pled artifices to effect this purpose.—The remarkable fidelity of

the Catholics at the accession of Elizabeth.-Falsely accused by

Dr. S. in various instances.—The Northern Rebellion.-Ex-

communication of Elizabeth.—The foreign seminaries.-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 Wallingham to get rid of the queen of Scots.

Horrid attempts of Elizabeth and her ministers to get Mary

afsassinated.-Curious letter of the former, extračted from

Strype.—Mary's noble defence of herself.--Herdeath contrafted

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

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

with redoubled cruelty on that account.-General observations

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

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

Catholics.—Their conduct in point of loyalty compared with

ihat of Reformers.

P. 190-263: