had not left it in the river below, unless he had been convineed that it was expedient for the GLORY OF GOD that he should do so." Bede further states, that the real executioner miraculously lost his eyes at the moment he severed the saint's head from his body.

There are many individuals who deride and disbelieve these relations of venerable Bede, though, as we have before stated, they are authenticated by other writers of unimpeachable credit. And yet many of these would-be-thought acute sceptics do not hesitate to believe facts not so well substantiated, and other relations much more improbable. Amongst others, Hume has laboured hard to discredit the miraculous powers of the true church; forgetting that the very same arguments which he uses against the existence of miracles may likewise be adduced to disprove every tittle that he has written in his History of England. How much more conformable to common sense is the conduct of Mr. Collier in his Ecclesiastical History. This learned Protestant author, speaking of the miracles above related, says, "As for St. "Alban's miracles, being attested by authors of such credit, I do not see why they should be questioned. That miracles were wrought in "the church at that time of day, is clear from the writings of the an"cients. To imagine that God should exert his omnipotence, and appear supernaturally for his servants, in no age since the apostles, is an unreasonable fancy. For since the world was not all converted by "the apostles, why should we not believe that God should honour his "servants with the most undisputed credentials. Why then should St. "Alban's miracles be disbelieved, the occasion being great enough for "so extraordinary an interposition."

'

66

Before we take leave of this martyr, we must notice another admission made by John Fox. He says, the saint's martyrdom took place at Verulam, now St. Alban's, in Hertfordshire, where a magnificent "church was erected to his memory about the time of Constantine the great. This edifice was destroyed in the Saxon wars, but was re"built by Offa, king of Mercia, and a MONASTERY erected adjoin'ing to it, some remains of which (he says) are still visible." He should have added, a sad memorial of the devastating spirit that directed the pretended evangelical reformers of religion in the sixteenth century. However, let it not be forgotten that Fox here allows that the memories of the saints and martyrs were honoured by the primitive Christians in Constantine's time, as they are now by the Catholics, and the Catholics only, if we accept the Greek church. It is also admitted by him that the Saxon kings, who were the first to receive the Christian faith, on the second conversion of the island by St. Augustin, erected monasteries as well as churches to promote the interests of religion; whereas the reformers of the sixteenth century demolished and destroyed them, to put the revenues into their own pockets. Consequently these Christian martyrs and kings, the one suffering for conscience sake, and the other honouring the memories of those who thus suffered, could not have been Protestants, but must have been Catholics; therefore if they were orthodox, and Fox says they were, the Catholics of this day must be orthodox too; and then what can we think of the modern disciples of Fox, whose professed purport is to exeite a "hatred and abhorrence of the (supposed) corruptions and

"crimes of Popery (that is Catholicism) and its professors?" The monastery of St. Alban's was founded in the year 793, and possessed many privileges; one of which was the seniority of its abbot in parliament over the other twenty-six, and sometimes twenty-eight abbots that held baronies, and sat in the senate till the time of Henry the eighth, when they were suppressed in 1539, a period of more than seven hundred years. The church is still standing, having been purchased by the townsmen at the dissolution of the monasteries, for four hundred pounds, to be their parochial church. Of the rich shrine of St. Alban nothing is now remaining, as Weever writes, but a marble stone to cover the place where the dust of the remains of the saint lies. THE TENTH GENERAL PERSECUTION UNDER THE ROMAN EMPERORS.

"

We come now to the last general persecution of Christianity under Pagan ascendency. Fox introduces his account of it in the following words:"Notwithstanding the efforts of the heathens to exterminate "the Christians, and abolish their mode of faith, yet they increased so greatly as to become formidable by their numbers. They, however, "forgot the precepts of their meek prototype, and instead of adopting "his humility, they gave themselves up to vanity, by dressing gaily, living sumptuously, building stately edifices for churches, &c. which "created a general envy, and particularly excited the hatred of Gale, "rius, the adopted son of Dioclesian, who, stimulated by his mother, a bigotted Pagan, persuaded the emperor to commence a persecution. It accordingly began on the 23d of February, A. D. 303, that being "the day on which the Terminalia were celebrated, and on which, as "the Pagans boasted, they hoped to put a termination to Christian"ity. The persecution began in Nicodemia; the prefect of that city repaired, with a great number of officers and assistants, to the church "of the Christians, were having forced open the doors, they seized upon all the sacred books, and committed them to the flames. This "transaction took place in the presence of Dioclesian and Galerius, who "also caused the church to be levelled with the ground. It was fol"lowed by a severe edict, commanding the destruction of all other "Christian churches and books; and an order soon succeeded, the object of which was to render Christians of all denominations outlaws, "and consequently, to make them incapable of holding any place of "trust profit, or dignity, or of receiving any protection from the legal "institutions of the realm. An immediate martyrdom was the result " of the publication of this edict; for a bold Christian not only tore it "down from the place to which it was affixed, but execrated the name "of the emperor for his injustice and cruelty; he was in consequence "seized, severely tortured, and then burnt alive. The Christian pre"lates were likewise apprehended and imprisoned; and Galerius privately ordered the imperial palace to be set on fire, that the Chris"tians might be charged as the incendiaries, and a plausible pretext "given for carrying on the persecution with the greatest severity," Such is the account given by Fox; Mr. Echard, in his History, says, that the officers on breaking into the churches, "sought for the "IMAGE of the God they (the Christians) worshipped: but finding

none, took the sacred books and other things they found, and threw them into the fire, filling all places with force and violence." Here then it is avowed by a Protestant writer, that IMAGES were in use in the primitive ages, as they are by Catholics now, though the practice is condemned by Protestants, evidently on weak and erroneous grounds since the Christians of the early ages being allowed to be orthodox, their practices could not be wrong, for if they were, those who prac tised them could not be right; and what was right then must be right

now.

We wonder, when the modern editors of the Book of Martyrs penned this horrible and heart-afflicting account of the sufferings of the Christians under Dioclesian and Galerius, the forlorn and exactly similar situation of the Catholics under the Tudors and Stuarts of this country did not strike them. The only difference that we can see is, that the persecution of Dioclesian lasted ten years, whereas the persecution of the Catholics continued unabated during the reigns of Elizabeth, the Stuarts, and William of "immortal memory," by "Protestant-ascendency;" a space of more than a century. The persecution of Diocle sian began with the destruction of Christian churches and the burning of books. Consult the annals of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth of England, and you will find the reformation so called commenced with the demolition of churches, chantries, and monastries, and the entire waste of the most valuable works in literature and sacred history. An order was issued by Dioclesian, "the object of which was to render Christians of all denominations outlaws, and consequently, "to make them incapable of holding any place of trust, profit or dig nity, or of receiving any protection from the legal institutions of the "realm." And what was the object of the penal code of this country and Ireland? Were not the Catholics rendered outlaws and made in→ capable of holding any place of trust and profit, or of recieving any protection from the laws? Search the records of Parliament, and it will be found, that a more persecuting spirit, could not exist against the primitive Christians during the domination of Pagan ascendency, than against the. Catholics, especially in Ireland, under the rule of "Protestant-ascendency." Not a parliament was called by Elizabeth and the Stuarts that did not add to the bloody catalogue of laws framed to prevent the growth of Popery. Were we to cite only the heads of the different statutes passed we should fill a large volume; but as we do not like to deal in assertion, we select a few passages to prove the truth of what we have advanced.

On the subject of destroying churches, Leland, in his History of Ire, land, writes thus: " Under pretence of obeying the orders of the state, they "siezed all the most valuable furniture of the churches, which they exposed, to sale without decency or reserve. The Irish annalists pathetically, "describe the garrison of Athlone issuing forth with a barbarous " and heathen fury, and pillaging the famous church of Clonmacnoise, tearing away the most inoffensive ornaments, books, bells, plate, win "dows, furniture of every kind, so as to leave the shrine of their favour "ite saint, Kieran, a hideous monument of sacrilege." (Leland, ii. 236.)

To render the Catholics odious, the Protestant bishops of Ireland, among whom was the celebrated Usher, in 1627, entered a solemn pro

test against indulging the Catholics with the mere toleration of their religion, in which it was set forth, that "the religion of the Papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine enormous and heretical; their church, in respect to both, apostatical. To give them, therefore, a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, 'is a grievious sin.'" (See Rushworth, ii. 22.)

"

"

In 1642, the Parliament addressed the king, "that such Popish priests "as are already condemned, may be forthwith executed; and such as shall hereafter be condemned, may likewise be executed according to law." (Parliamentary History, x. 506.) "It was confidently averred that sir John Clotworthy, who well knew the designs of the faction that goIverned in the house of commons in England, had declared there in a "speech, that the conversion of the Papists in Ireland was only to he effected by the bible in one hand and the sword in the other; and Mr. Pym gave out that they would not leave a priest in Ireland. To the like effect sir William Parsons, out of a strange weakness, or a detestable policy, positively asserted before many witnesses, at a public enter"tainment in Dublin, that within a twelvemonth no Catholic should be seen in Ireland." (Idem. xii. 49.) Now what is this but following the footsteps of Dioclesian and his satellites, "filling all places," as Mr. Echard writes, "with force and violence?"

"

14

"

"

16

"

That Catholics were deprived of the protection of the laws we may gather from Hume, who, in his relation of Oates's infamous plot, says, The chief justice gave sanction to all the narrow prejudices and bigoted fury of the populace. Instead of being counsel for the prisoners, as "his duty required, HE PLEADED the cause AGAINST THEM; browbeat " their witnesses; and represented their guilt as certain and uncontroverted. When a verdict was given against the prisoner, the spectators expressed their savage joy, by loud acclamations. The witnesses, on approaching the court, were almost torn in pieces by the rabble. One "in particular, was bruised to such a degree as to put his life in danger; "and another, a woman, declared that, unless the court could afford her protection, she durst not give evidence. But as the judges could "would more properly] go no further than promise to punish such as "should do her any injury, the prisoner himself had the humanity to "waive her testimony." It was during the ferment of this plot, so disgraceful to the annals of this once great and happy nation, that the declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints was invented, and passed into a law, for the express purpose of excluding from all places of trust, profit or dignity, the professors of the same faith that were excluded by Dioclesian, of which the modern editors of Fox complain as an act of injustice, while they as foolishly and wickedly declare that the purport of their labours is to continue this very system of unjust exclusion!!! What barefaced inconsistency, bo od dnia The cruelties of this tenth persecution, we are told by Fox, were so unendurable that "at last several of the governors of provinces represented to the imperial court, that it was unfit to pollute the cities with the blood of its inhabitants, or, to defame the government of 46 the emperors with the death of so many subjects. Hence many p were respited from execution; but though not put to death, they

were subjected to every species of indignity." Such was and now is the case with the Catholics of this country. Under the Stuarts there were many attempts made to ameliorate the condition of the persecuted, but these attempts only produced more violent decrees on the part of "Protestant-ascendency;" and do we not see, with our own eyes, the fury and intolerance of this faction in opposing the laudable endeavours of the present lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and many liberal senators, to soften the rigour of those restrictive laws that still disgrace our statute book? Are not the Catholic nobility and gentry at the present day; ay, and even the commonest of the commonalty of that body, "though not put to death,....subjected to every species of "indignity?" Is not the meanest of the "Protestant-ascendency" party permitted to lord it over the first peer of the realm, because the latter chooses to follow the dictates of his conscience by paying adoration to his God in the same form and creed as the primitive Christians did?

The next subject that demands our attention is the statement of Fox, that "the Christians refused to bear arms under the Roman emperors.' This is a gross perversion; for the fact is, the Christians, as a general body, never came to any such determination. However, let us hear what the martyrologist has to say. "At this time," he writes, "the Christians, upon mature consideration, thought it unlawful to bear arms under an heathen emperor. Their reasons were:-1. That "they thereby were frequently under the necessity of profaning the "Christian sabbath.-2. That they were obliged, with the rest of the army, frequently to be present at idolatrous sacrifices, before the temples of idols.-3. That they were compelled to follow the imperial standards, which were dedicated to heathen deities, and bore "their representations. Such reasons induced many to refuse to enter "into the imperial army, when called upon so to do; for the Roman "constitution obliged all young men, of a certain stature, to make "several campaigns."-To these reasons Fox has added a circumstantial account of the martyrdom of Maximilian, "the son of Fabius Victor," who it appears was himself a Christian soldier in Numidia. How Fox came by his tale, we are not, as usual, informed. We can trace no account of it in Echard, and the mention made of this martyr by Butler is very brief. The latter writer states that the law applied to the sons of soldiers, who were compelled by it to serve in the army at the age of twenty-one, if found to be of due stature. Maximilian was found to answer the height prescribed, but refused to receive the mark of enlistment, which was a print on the hand and a leaden collar about the neck, on which were engraved the name and motto of the emperor. His plea was, according to Butler, that in the Roman army superstitions, contrary to the Christian faith, were often practised, with which he could not defile his soul. For this opinion he was condemned to death, and suffered, according to Ruinart, in 296, seven years previous to the breaking out of Dioclesian's persecution, yet Fox places the event "at this time;" that is, in this tenth persecution,"

That there were some of the primitive Christians who thought it unlawful to bear arms cannot be doubted; but it did not arise from the army being under a heathen emperor, for that circumstance could make