"

« who grants us food—the first fruits of his gifts in the new Testament, "of which the prophet Malachias spoke: I will not accept offerings from your hands. For from the rising of the sun to the going down of "the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense "is offered to my name, a clean sacrifice. Manifestly hereby signifying, "that the first people (the Jews) will cease to offer to God; and that " in every place, a sacrifice, and that clean, will be offered to him, and "that his name is glorified among the Gentiles." Adver. Hær. l. iv. 66 c. xxxii. p. 323, 324. "Therefore the offering of the church, which "the Lord directed to be made over all the world, was deemed a pure "sacrifice before God, and received by him; not that he stands in need " of a sacrifice from us, but because he that makes the offering, if his gift be accepted, is thereby rendered worthy of praise. As then in simplicity the church offers, her offering is accepted by God as a pure sacrifice." Ibid. c. xxxix. p. 324, 326.

We have been thus prolix in our quotations from this great and learned father of the Catholic church, who is stiled by John Fox himself a zealous opposer of heresies in general," because we shall have occasion, in the progress of our review of this mass of falsehoods and ca lumnies, the Book of Martyrs, to contrast the orthodox doctrines of St. Irenæus, with the notions of John Fox's Protestant saints, in order that the reader may be able to form his own unbiassed judgment on the merits of the question between us. We have before noticed the impiety of the test oath put to all persons in this country to qualify for office, from the lord chancellor down to the petty constable, and we now appeal to the candid reader, whether this qualification, in the face of these doctrines, so clearly expressed by a martyred " opposer of heresies "in general," is not a disgrace to the country, and therefore ought to be abolished? For, in the vindication of the orthodoxy of this doctrine of the Catholic church, and consequently the heresy of Protestants, using the words of John Fox, we have the declaration of the learned Dr. Grabe, a Protestant divine, who edited an edition of the works of St. Irenæus. He observes,-" It is certain that St. Irenæus, and all "the fathers—either contemporary with the apostles, or their immedi"ate successors, whose writings are still extant-considered the Eu“charist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that it was "not the private opinion of any particular church or teacher, but the "PUBLIC DOCTRINE and PRACTICE of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH, "which she received from the apostles, as they from Christ, is expressly "shewn in this place (alluding to the last extracts above) by Irenæus, " and before him by Justin M. and Clement of Rome." (See p. 49 of this Review for St. Justin's words.) What gross impiety and inconsistency must it then be, for men to swear at this day, that what was the practice of the universal church in former ages, and is proved to have been received by her from the apostles, is IDOLATROUS and DAMNABLE. What hypocrisy to raise an outcry against Deism, and persecute those who are unhappily under its influence, when the persecutors themselves most impiously protest before the throne of God, that what his Son, the Redeemer of the world, taught his apostles, is IDOLATRY and SUPERSTITION, and consequently meriting eternal damnation. We have it

here stated, by John Fox and his editors, that St. Irenæus was a zeal. ous opposer of heresies in general;" we have proved from his works that the doctrine which he taught is the doctrine now preached by the Catholic church; yet do these men pretend to be “ diffusing among "their fellow-believers a knowledge and love of the genuine principles " of Christianity," while they scruple not to swear that that is damnable doctrine which St. Irenæus, the "zealous opposer of heresies in gene“ral,” maintained was ORTHODOX. Reader, is it possible to find a parallel in any Christian country for impiety and inconsistency like this? Having thus filled the void made by Fox and his editors in the doctrines of the primitive Christians, we will now return to his list of martyrs under this persecution. From Rome and Gaul, Fox carries his readers into Africa, were he says, many were martyred in that "part of the globe." Of these he mentions in particular, Perpetua and Felicitas, who suffered with Revocatus, Saturninus, and Secundulus. Perpetua was a lady of quality, and Felicitas a female slave; the former bad a young child at her breast; the latter was in a state of pregnancy, and was delivered of a daughter before she suffered martyrdom. The relation given by Fox is substantially correct, but here he suppresses an important circumstance or two, the notice of which would have shewn that neither he nor his church had any claim to these martyrs. Perpetua is stated to have had a vision, after being condemned to death, in which she was assured that her youngest brother, who had been dead some years, had been pardoned some fault committed by him when living, through her prayers. Thus confirming the doctrine then held as well as now, by the Catholic church, of praying for the souls in purgatory. When first brought before the people, they were exposed naked, but the condition of the one and the delicacy of the other, operated on the judge and the people, and they were allowed to be covered. A wild cow being let out upon them, it attacked Perpetua first, tossing her up in the air, when falling on her back she raised herself up in a sitting posture, and adjusted her clothes, which had been much disordered. She then tied her hair, and getting up perceived Felicitas on the ground much hurt by the cow, whom she helped to rise. They then stood together, expecting another assault, but the people cried out that it was enough, and they were then led out, when the sword finished their mortal course, and enabled them to enter into the joys of heaven. So great was the fame of these two martyrs, and their feast was celebrated in so solemn a manner in St. Augustin's time, that persons were annually drawn in great numbers to visit their relics, which were deposited in the great church of Carthage. Their names are inscribed in the canon of the Mass, as may be seen by a reference to the missals now in use among Catholics, and their festival is yearly celebrated by the Catholic church, on the 7th of March, a convincing proof that these heroic female martyrs were Catholics, and not Protestants. This practice of naming the saints in the mass, as also of praying for the dead, is coeval with the institution of the sacrifice itself. Anciently the names of those who were specially mentioned in the mass, were written on papers or parchment folded twice, from which they obtained the name of dyptics, and were deposited on the altar. The saints, however, who suffered martyrdom

for the true faith, becoming so numerous as to render it impossible to include them all, they were transferred to the canon, and a few only were inserted, adding thereto the general phrase, "and to all saints." Of the names preserved are those, as we have before stated, of Perpetua and Felicitas.

THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH PERSECUTIONS UNDER THE ROMAN EMPERORS.

The space allotted by Fox to the sixth persecution is so very inconsiderable, that we do not deem it necessary to make a distinct head of it. He describes it as being raised by the emperor Maximus, in the year 235. This emperor raised himself to the purple by the assassination of the emperor Alexander Severus, one of the best of the Roman emperors. Maximus was by birth a barbarian, being the son of a poor herdsman of Thrace, and of gigantic stature, being, it is said, eight feet and a half high. For his cruelty towards all men he is frequently surnamed Busiris, Typhon, and Phalaris, and was a monster of gluttony. Among the martyrs named by Fox in this persecution are two popes, whose deaths are thus recorded. Pontanius, bishop of Rome, for preaching against idolatry, was banished to Sardinia, and "there destroyed. Anteros, a Grecian, who succeeded this bishop in "the see of Rome, gave so much offence to the government by collecting the acts of the martyrs, that, after having held his dignity "only forty days, he suffered martyrdom himself." Now what are we to think of this statement, made by men who swear that Popery is idolatry, and believe the pope to be Antichrist? Here we have it stated, that one of these bishops of Rome became a “godly martyr," for "preaching against idolatry," while his successors, since the reformation so called, are represented to be the chiefs of idolaters? The other too is made a godly martyr," for "collecting the acts of the "martyrs," which is now-a-days reckoned to be an act of superstition. But, let us here observe, that we think it very improbable that Anteros lost his life through the cause stated by John Fox, because the very short time he filled the pontifical chair did not allow him the opportunity of collecting the acts of the martyrs. Butler, in his account of these two holy popes, makes but slight mention of them; probably from there not being any positive records of the manner of their deaths. Echard says, that Anteros only designed the collection of the acts of the martyrs, which Fabian, his successor, carried into execution, the mild reign of the emperor Philip allowing him to accomplish the undertaking.

The account of the seventh persecution is prefaced by Fox and his editors with the following remarks: "In the year 249, Decius being " emperor of Rome, a dreadful persecution was begun against the Chris"tians. This was occasioned partly by the hatred he bore to his predecessor Philip, who was deemed a Christian, and partly to his jealousy concerning the amazing increase of Christianity; for the heathen temples were almost forsaken, and the Christian churches crowded with "proselytes. Decius, provoked at this, attempted, as it were, to extirpate the name of Christian; and, unfortunately for the cause of the gos'pel, many errors had about this time crept into the church: the Chris

.

"tians were at variance with each othér: and a variety of contentions en" sued amongst them. The heathens in general were ambitious to en"force the imperial decrees upon this occasion, and looked upon the "murder of a Christian as a merit to themselves. The martyrs were, "therefore, innumerable."

Now, reader, if you be a Protestant, we care not of what denomina+ tion, so you are unbiassed in your mind and desirous to learn the truth, can you, we ask, make any thing but absurdity out of this statement we have quoted? Fox here talks of "the amazing increase of "Christianity" as one of the causes of this persecution under Decius, and then laments the errors that had crept into the church, at this time, as a misfortune for the cause of the gospel!!! What contradictory nonsense. Why if Christianity increased with amazing rapidity, the cause of the gospel must have increased also; or does Fox mean to insinuate that the cause of Christianity and the cause of the gospel are two distinct and separate things? That errors abounded, at this time, as well as in the preceding ages, cannot be denied; but they had not crept into THE CHURCH, as Fox falsely asserts, because THE CHURCH being the PILLAR and GROUND of TRUTH, as St. Paul declares, in 1 Tim. iii. 15, on the promise of Christ himself, who assured his apostles that the SPIRIT of TRUTH should con tinue with HIS CHURCH to the END of the WORLD, "that he

might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or "wrinkle nor any such thing, but that it should be holy and with"out blemish," (Ephes. v. 26.) the Church itself COULD NOT ERR for, we beg you to observe, had error once crept into her foundation, she could no longer have been the pillar and ground of truth. The assertion then of Fox, that "many errors had about this time crept " into the church" is clearly false and blasphemous, as we have shewn from the works of St. Irenæus, who is accounted by Fox "a zealous 'opposer of heresies in general." Again, he states, that a variety of contentions ensued amongst the Christians, and yet a little while before he says, "the heathen temples were almost forsaken, and the Chris"tian churches crowded with proselytes." Now, how are we to reconçile these two statements! These contentions among the Christians, common sense would lead us to suppose, must have led to the thinning of the churches; for can any man in his senses imagine that persons opposed to each other in point of doctrine would cordially assemble together at one and the same time to crowd the churches, and not only thus congregate in great masses, but likewise gain proselytes in the midst of contentions. Let us hear take an example. In the sixteenth century the king and parliament of this country thought proper to change the old established religion, and form a new one, of which the sovereign was constituted the head by the power of parliament, and he was armed with the civil sword to control the consciences of his subjects. Laws were passed to compel persons to conform to the new mode of worship, and a creed was framed to insure uniformity, while the churches were taken from the old possessors and given to the ministers of the new religion. Here then we have a church protected by law, and every human means adopted to insure its stability. But it did not long exist before the members of it were at variance with

each other; objections were made to its doctrine and its discipline: Fresh penal statutes were enacted to enforce submission, but still “ variety of contentions ensued amongst them;" and what was the result? Not the crowding of her churches with proselytes; but the defection of her members to fill conventicles. Each succeeding cen tury has produced additional variations of doctrine, and a greater decrease of attendance at the churches; and at the time we are writing, instead of gaining proselytes to Christianity, the people are daily falling into infidelity and deism, from the confusion and absurdity of so many pretenders to truth. And would not this inevitably have been the case in the third century, had the church in that age been infected. with error? Most undoubtedly it would. Decius would have had no occasion to raise the sword of persecution against Christianity, for in the absence of truth, the pretenders to it would have destroyed themselves, and the Pagans been confirmed in their idolatry; but the church, like a city placed on a mountain, displayed her glorious treasures to the wanderer after truth, and opened her gates to the benighted traveller. The sublimity of her mysteries, the purity of her morals, the excellency of her precepts, and the unity and indefectibility of her faith, pointed her out as the ONLY GUIDE by which man could direct his steps through the wilderness of this world, and hence the labours of her preachers were crowned with a harvest of glory, in bringing into her fold innumerable proselytes.

Then as to "the heathens in general being ambitious to enforce the imperial decrees upon this occasion, and looked upon the murder of a Christian as a merit to themselves;" was not this cold-blooded conduct imitated by the English Protestants upon the Irish Catholics in the reign of Elizabeth? The late Mr. Wm. Parnell, in his Historical Apology, p. 91, says, "When the power and pride of the English be66 came so highly exalted under Elizabeth, the Irish were considered as a sort of rebel savages, clearly excluded from the contemplation of "the laws of God and man, the violation of whose rights formed no "precedent that could affect civilized nations; and it did not follow "that a man who should spoil and MURDER them might not be pos"sessed of an upright and gentle heart." Nay, do we not read in the public prints of the present day, outrages and murders committed on Irish Catholics by Orange "Protestant-ascendency"-men, as of common occurrence, and the perpetrators escaping punishment through the perjury of their comrades? And from what cause do these last mentioned atrocities arise, but from the same malignant spirit of religious intolerance and jealousy that influenced the Roman Pagans to persecute the primitive Christians?

66

We must now proceed to notice some of the martyrs recorded by Fox as suffering in this persecution. The first is thus related: "Fabian, bishop of Rome, was the first person of eminence who felt the severity of this persecution. The deceased emperor, Philip, had, on "account of his integrity, committed his treasure to the care of this " good man; but Decius, not finding as much as his avarice made him expect, determined to wreak his vengeance on the good prelate. "He was accordingly seized; and on the 20th of January, A. D. 250, "suffered martyrdom by decapitation."