Such is the account given by Fox, but is there an individual, whose mind is free from prejudice, who can give credence to so ridiculous a tale? Philip is supposed to have been a Christian in his heart, from -the mildness of his disposition, and the lenity he shewed towards them; but granting that he had really embraced the faith of Christ, is any one so stupid and credulous as to believe, merely on the word of John Fox, that this emperor would have dared to make choice of the head of the Christian church for his treasurer, knowing the prejudices of the Roman senate, the nobility, the army, and the people against the Christians? So monstrous an idea could never be entertained for a moment by any man of common sense. None but misguided fanatics, like the adherents of Fox, who wish to excite a hatred and abhorrence of the "(supposed) corruptions and crimes of Popery and its professors," could credit such absurdity. We see in history, that the attempt of Charles the first to establish episcopacy and uniformity of worship in Scotland eventually cost him his head. We see that James the second lost his crown through a desire to establish liberty of conscience in the kingdom. And we see the spirit of intolerance pervading “Protestant-ascendency" at this moment, in consequence of the liberal wishes expressed by his present majesty George the fourth, that the laws should be equally administered in Ireland. We see the spirit of party heated and inflamed to as high a degree as at any period of Protestant domination; and can we credit that Pagan ascendency would not have taken alarm at the favour and partiality said to have been shewn to pope Fabian? Let the circumcised Jew, or the blind Foxite, believe it; we will not. Echard makes no particular mention of the death of Fabian, and Butler is very concise in his account of the life of this martyr. The latter says he held the Papal see sixteen years, and sent St. Dionysius and other preachers to Gaul, and condemned Privatus, a broacher of a new heresy in Africa, as appears from St. Cyprian. In his life he was a pattern of purity and holiness.

The

Among other persons recorded as martyrs, Fox sets down "Cyril "bishop of Gortyna;" we have examined Butler's Martyrology, and Echard's Ecclesiastical History, but we can find no such name in either of these authors. In detailing the martyrdom of St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch, and others, Fox falls into another of his gross mistakes. He says, "On Gordian's death, in the reign of Decius, that emperor came to Antioch, where, having a desire to visit an assembly of Chris"tians, Babylas opposed him, and refused to let him come in. emperor dissembled his anger at that time; but soon sending for the "bishop, he sharply reproved him for his insolence, and then ordered him to sacrifice to the Pagan deities as an expiation for his supposed "crimes." Here again we have as improbable a tale as we think can be told. Supposing Decius to have been desirous to see a Christian assembly, is it rational to believe that he, who is represented as one of the most despotic and merciless tyrants that ever breathed, would have submitted to a refusal from Babylas, a Christian bishop, and not only submit to a refusal, but even dissemble his anger? Is it not more likely that the emperor would have ordered Babylas to have been put to death upon the spot, and all the Christians assembled with him, had he met with that opposition to his desires stated by Fox? Is it pro

bable that an imperious tyrant, unable to brook delay, and unused to denial, would curb in his rage, and send for the bishop on some future day, to reprove his insolence and revenge himself for it, by ordering the prelate to sacrifice to the heathen deities? Snch a tale is incredible; yet we see it is told and believed; and believed too by those who charge their Catholic neighbours with being too credulous and superstitious! The fact is, and it shews the ignorance or impudence of Fox, it was Philip, the predecessor of Decius, who was refused admittance into the temple of God by Babylas. The account of this transaction is thus related by Mr. Echard, in his Ecclesiastical History, on the authority of St. John Chrysostom and Eusebius. "Philip, shortly after his "election, made a dishonourable peace with the Persians, and returned "to Antioch; where, upon the vigil of Easter, he and his empress attempted to enter into the Christian church, to partake of the prayers " of the congregation; but the holy Babylas, bishop of that city, well knowing his late crimes, (among others he had ordered the emperor "Gordian to be assassinated) courageously withstood him, and laying "his hand upon his heart, pronounced him unworthy to enter into the sheepfold of Jesus Christ, and declared, that he should have no admittance, unless he made A GENERAL CONFESSION OF HIS SINS, " and was placed among the number of the penitents. To all which, it is "said, the emperor humbly submitted, and demonstrated in his deeds, "the sincerity and devoutness of his affections towards the Majesty of "Heaven." From this account we not only see how little Fox is to be relied on, even in a matter of history, but we also discover that CONFESSION OF SINS, now so reprobated by all classes of Protestants, but practised at this day by Catholics, was a doctrine of the primitive church. This occurrence is stated to have taken place in the year 244. Babylas suffered in 251.

There is a circumstance connected with the history of this martyr, related both by Pagan and Christian writers of the earliest ages, so extraordinary and wonderful, that we feel induced to mention it here. Fox says, St. Babylas was beheaded, but the general accounts state that he consummated his martyrdom by the hardships of his imprisonment, and that his chains were buried with him. The Christians built a church it is said over his tomb, where his body rested till the year 351, when Gallus Cæsar translated it to Daphne, five miles from Antioch to oppose the worship of an idol of Apollo, celebrated for giving oracles in that place. Gallus erected a church to the memory of St. Babylas near the heathen temple, and placed the relics of the martyr in a shrine above the ground. The oracle was struck dumb by the near approach of the saint's ashes, as is affirmed by St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Sozomen, and others, who triumph over the Pagans on this occasion. In confirmation of the fact, St. Chrysostom gives in his works the lamentation of Libanius, the celebrated heathen sophist, bewailing the silence of Apollo at Daphne. Eleven years after this event, Julian the apostate, whose hatred of the divine Redeemer has been imitated by Voltaire, and the present race of deists, came to Antioch, that is in 362, and by many sacrifices learned of the oracle, that the cause of its silence arose from the neighbouring places being filled with dead bones. Julian understood this to allude to the relics of St.

Babylas, and ordered the Christians to remove them, which was done with great solemnity, by carrying them back to Antioch. The following evening the temple and idol of Apollo were reduced by lightning to ashes, with all the rich and magnificent ornaments, leaving only the bare walls standing. Upon the news reaching the ears of Julian's uncle, who was governor of the east, he hastened to Daphne, and endeavoured by tortures to compel the heathen priests to confess how the accident happened, whether by negligence or through the Christians. It was, however, proved by the testimony of these very priests, and also by some peasants, who saw the fire fall from heaven, that lightning was the cause of the ruin of the temple. Julian was afraid to rebuild the temple, lest vengeance should fall upon his own head, but he breathed the utmost fury against the Christians, when the arm of God overreached him by an untimely death in his expedition against the Persians. We have given this fact upon the testimony of historians living near the period when it occurred, and though some may affect to doubt its reality, we really cannot see on what grounds they can reject it, that would not equally tend to discredit the relations of Hannibal's victories, or any other event in history. Ammianus Marcellinus, a heathen, and Julian's own historian, says, 1. ii, p, 225, that he caused all the bones of dead men to be taken away to purify the place, which is a strong corroboration of the above relation.

The next passage worthy of notice is the following:-"The emperor "Gallus having concluded his wars, a plague broke out in the empire; " and sacrifices to the pagan deities were ordered by the emperor to appease their wrath. On the Christians refusing to comply with these rites, they were charged with being the authors of the calamity: and "thus the persecution spread from the interior to the extreme parts of "the empire, and many fell martyrs to the impetuosity of the rabble, "as well as the prejudice of the magistrates. Cornelius, the Christian bishop of Rome, was, among others, seized upon this occasion. He was first banished to Centum-Cellæ, now called Civita Vecchia; and "after having been cruelly scourged, was, on the 14th of September, "A. D. 252, beheaded, after having been bishop 15 months and ten days. Lucius, who succeeded Cornelius as bishop of Rome, was the son of Porphyrius, and a Roman by birth. His vigilance, as a pastor, rendered "him obnoxious to the foes of Christianity, which occasioned him to be "banished; but in a short time he was permitted to return. Soon after, however, he was apprehended, and beheaded, March the 14th, A.D. "253. This bishop was succeeded by Stephanus, a man of fiery temper, "who held the dignity few years, and might probably have fallen a martyr, had not the emperor been murdered by his general Æmilian, when a profound peace succeeded through the whole empire, and the "persecution was suffered to subside."

Here then we have the admission, that of the "godly martyrs" suffering under Gallus, the successor of Decius, those most worthy to be recorded, even by Fox, were two bishops of Rome. We have seen by the works of St. Irenæus, that the bishop of Rome was considered by the primitive Christians to be the supreme head of the church, as he is at this day by the Catholics, and of course these "godly martyrs" could not be Protestant but Catholic bishops. It is not a little curious that

66

Fox stiles Cornelius "the Christian bishop of Rome:" what necessity there could be for this adjunct we cannot perceive, as we do not recollect to have read of any Pagan bishops of Rome. It is true, since the reformation so called, it has been familiar with Protestants to call the bishops of Rome by many vile names, which we shall not mention, and style them any thing but “ Christians;" however we have it here admitted by Fox, that one of the bishops of Rome at least was a “Christian," and another a vigilant pastor, which rendered him obnoxious to the foes of Christianity. How Fox came to be so uncivil to pope Stephanus may be a matter of surprise to some of our readers, but it is none to us, nor will it probably be to them, when we inform them that this pope was a resolute opposer of innovations and error, and proceeded to excommunicate some of the most obstinate innovators. Some of the bishops in Spain and Gaul had embraced the novelties of Novatian; others had fallen into the crime of Libellatici, that is, had purchased for money licenses of safety, falsely stating they had sacrificed to idols, to save their lives during the persecution. A controversy also arose concerning the rebaptization of heretics, which gave the good pope much trouble. He was alsotraduced as a favourer of heresy, which he bore with much patience, and conducted himself as became a vigilant pastor, as appears by the following account, given of this controversy by the learned Vincent of Lerinus. "When all cried out against the novelty, and the priests every where opposed it in proportion to every one's zeal, then pope Stephen, of blessed memory, "bishop of the apostolic see, stood up with his other colleagues against it, but he in a signal manner above the rest, thinking it fitting, I believe, that he should go beyond them as much by the ardour of his "faith as he was raised above them by the authority of his see. In his "letter to the church of Africa he thus decrees: 'Let no innovation "be introduced, but let that be observed which is handed down to us by tradition.' The prudent and holy man understood that the rule "of piety admits nothing new, but all things are to be delivered down "to our posterity with the same fidelity with which they were receiv"ed; and that it is our duty to follow religion, and not make religion "follow us; for the proper characteristic of a modest and sober Chris"tian is, not to impose his own conceits upon posterity, but to make "his own imaginations bend to the wisdom of them that went before "him. What then was the issue of this grand affair, but that which is "usual?-antiquity kept possession, and novelty was exploded." Thus it will be seen, that in all difficulties and contentions, one invariable rule is followed by the Catholic church, namely, to adhere to PUBLIC TESTIMONY, and exclude whatever savours of novelty.

،،

But what will the reader say of John Fox's veracity, when he is told that this Protestant martyrologist, whose work has been so long held in high estimation, and is now published to diffuse among fel"low-believers a knowledge and love of the genuine principles of Christianity;" what will the reader say, when we tell him, that this pope Stephanus, who, but for his "fiery temper," Fox says, "might probably I have fallen a martyr," is actually recorded by this same Mr. Fox as à martyr, in the succeeding persecution, under the name of Stephen. “In "the same year," Fox writes, that is in the year 257, "Stephen, bishop

66

OF

For's Book of Martyrs,

CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL.

EXPLANATION OF THE ENGRAVING.-The miraculous appearance of the Cross (by which the Redeemer of Mankind triumphed over the world) to Constantine the great, by which he was assured of victory over the tyrant Maxentius, who had declared war against him. A particular account of this wonderful event will be given in the next number.

of Rome was beheaded!!!" Well might the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica say, in giving Fox's biography, that "his facts are not always to be depended on," for here we have one of the grossest contradictions ever made by a public writer. That Stephanus and Stephen are one and the same person is evident from the dates used by Fox. Stephanus he says succeeded Lucius, who was martyred in 253, and Stephen was beheaded in 257. Now Stephanus or Stephen was chosen on the 3d of May, in the year mentioned by Fox, and sat four years, two months, and twenty-one days, according to Butler, being beheaded on the 2d of August in the last named year, whilst he was sitting in his pontifical chair. Stephanus is the Latin for the English name Stephen: so much for the accuracy of John Fox's martyrology.

We have now to notice as curious an admission from John Fox and his editors, as ever could be made by inconsistency itself. "Many of "the errors," he states, "which crept into the church at this time, arose from the placing human reason in competition with revelation; "but the fallacy of such arguments being proved by the most able