utterly "the Christian superstition and Christian name."

"the

Hitherto, Britain, from its position at the extremity of the Roman world, had escaped the violence of persecution, and even at this time the mild character of Constantius Chlorus, its governor, made it at least comparatively a place of peace while the storm raged in its fury over the greater part of the empire. It would appear, from a story related of this prince, that he admitted Christians among his servants, in spite of the imperial edicts. Wishing to test which of the Christians at his court were really good and honest men, he gave out one day that those who were willing to do sacrifice to the gods might remain with him, but that others would be dismissed his service. Some complied with his orders, and others preferred to obey God rather than man. When he had thus distinguished between them, Constantius retained those who had been faithful to their religion, but dismissed the perverts, "judging that those would never be faithful to their prince, who had thus readily become traitors to their God." This proof of wisdom and humanity was probably shown when Constantius was in Gaul, a country which was also under his government. Both in Gaul and Britain Constantius resisted the persecuting edicts of the Emperor Diocletian. "When the churches were being persecuted throughout the rest of the world," he "alone granted the Christians to worship without fear." The Christian Father, Lactantius, called, for the elegance of his writings, "the Christian Cicero," who

lived at the time of the persecution, relates that the governor conformed so far to the imperial commands as to destroy the churches, "mere walls, which could be restored; but preserved in safety the temple of God, which is in man." The great ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, who was also a contemporary, adds his testimony to the mild policy of Constantius, so that the vague mention of many martyrdoms in Britain, which we find in later and less trustworthy authors, may be put aside as unhistorical.

It is quite possible, however, that in some places zealous pagans may have striven to carry out the emperor's edicts in spite of the known will of the governor. It would, indeed, be strange if, at a time when the Christians were under a ban, some isolated acts of this description did not occur. Two martyrs, Aaron and Julius, are said to have suffered at Caerleon, the old town on the Usk, which has still many traces of its former greatness. But the most notable and best authenticated instance of persecution is the martyrdom of St. Alban, near the town which now bears his name, but was then called Verulamium. local tradition of this event may be traced up to the year 429, when St. German is said to have visited his tomb and there deposited with his relics the relics of other martyrs. The date given for the martyrdom varies, but it is generally referred to the Diocletian persecution, and it would savour of critical rashness rather than of acumen to reject the tradition altogether. The day mentioned in the martyrologies is June 22, and if the martyrdom happened at the time

A

of this persecution, the year would be 304. In the time of Bede (731), there was a church at the place of the martyrdom dedicated to the saint, which had already the reputation of being a place where miracles were worked. St. German is said to have built a church in Auxerre, which he dedicated to St. Alban. Alban has been always regarded as Britain's protomartyr, but it must be remembered that he is not the earliest of her recorded saints, as previously to him lived St. Mellon, who left Britain when young, and became bishop of Rouen, according to the legend1 (A.D. 256-314). His tomb is still shown in the ancient crypt of St. Gervais, Rouen. His name is preserved in Monmouthshire by a village and church. near Cardiff.

A detailed narrative is given by the historian Bede of St. Alban's martyrdom. He was yet a pagan when a Christian clergyman fled to him, and was received into his house. He noticed that this man was occupied continually in prayer and watching day and night; and the sight, aided by the Divine grace, so worked on his heart that he soon became a Christian himself. When search was about to be made for his guest, he sent him away, after exchanging clothes with him, and, still further to aid his escape, gave himself up to the soldiers. He was forthwith led before the judge, and ordered to do sacrifice to the gods. On his refusal, he was scourged and led away to execu

1 See "Actes des Saints de Diocèse de Rouen," or for a summary "Red Dragon," xi. pp. 72-75. Mellon was born at Cardiola (? Cardiff), and converted at Rome by Pope Stephen,

B

و

tion. The soldier who was first ordered to execute him cast down his sword, refusing to obey the order, and was beheaded at the same time.

Such, stripped of its accompanying miracles, is the account given by Bede of the death of St. Alban. But the story of Britain's proto-martyr was not thought complete without a miraculous element, and we are told besides that a river dried up to let him pass through, that a spring burst forth at the top of a hill to give him drink, and that the eyes of the executioner dropped on the ground together with the martyr's head. The question naturally arises, "What are we to think of these things?" and it is a question we can hardly ignore, because the history of the British Church and the British saints is full of such stories. On the one hand, it is clearly impossible to reject as unhistorical every story with which something of the marvellous has been interweaved; otherwise we shall have to sweep away personalities of whose existence we have sure evidence. On the other hand, it is equally impossible to accept all the miracles as true, for then we should have to receive, not only miracles of beneficence, but also miracles ridiculous or even malevolent in their nature. We find, too, that these wonderful stories grow in course of time, and that an incident which when told by an eye-witness appears explicable, attains the most remarkable proportions in works written three or four centuries afterwards. The difference between such miracles and those of Our Lord and His Apostles is not one of degree, but of kind; there is no resemblance

between the two, neither do they rest on the same kind of evidence, so that their rejection cannot be used by the infidel as an argument in favour of the rejection of miracles altogether. Surely, it is not necessary to disbelieve the calm and unaffected narrative of the Gospels, because we do not accept the story that St. Teilo had a bell given him at Jerusalem. excelling the sound of an organ, and ringing every hour of its own accord, or that at St. David's baptism, a fountain sprang up and the man who held the infant saint, and who had no nostrils and eyes, had his defects supplied by sprinkling with the miraculous water. No such "miracles " as these are included among the signs which our Lord promised should follow those that believe, although among these was the miracle that impressed "the barbarous people of Melita" as well as those which were adapted to more civilised communities. It is said of Archbishop Becket, that, when one day an abbot dining at his table told him a number of ridiculous legends, he interrupted him with the scornful remark, "So these are your miracles.” Surely, when we meet with similar absurdities, we may well treat them in like manner.

As both Gildas and Bede lived centuries after St. Alban's martyrdom, it is certainly not necessary to believe the miracles that we have quoted from them. At the same time, if we are honest, we must confess that events much less startling than these, but nevertheless of a miraculous nature, are occasionally related of early saints either by eye-witnesses or by those who