still the Roman authorities would be far from considering such investigations as formally complete.

When the cause of these Beati is presented for canonization the case of each individual will be inquired into as searchingly, as if they had not advanced further than the stage of Venerabiles. We not only cannot tell whether all will ever be canonized, but we do not even know what the verdict of the Church will be when she has thus formally examined their merits. It is quite possible that if adverse evidence should be found as to any individual his name may be struck off the list of Beati. The Roman authorities do not consider themselves irrevocably committed to each of the sixty-three names which are now in the Decrees. It is indeed incredible that there should be a thought of going back on the well-known martyrs, who give their names to the cause. But with some of their more obscure followers the case is different.

A serious student of these pages will find without difficulty among this glorious band of martyrs one or two whose claims seem notably weaker than those of the rest. The names of John Haile and John Felton,1 for instance, were not included in the original process as sent to Rome by the Ordinary. They, and one or two others, were added at Rome, simply because they were included in the pictures that brought about the Beatification. But it may conceivably happen that when their cases are subjected to the stricter scrutiny which awaits them, they may not be considered worthy of so lofty a place in

1 See below, pp. 17-26, and vol. ii. p. 1.

the Church's roll of honour. It is again quite possible that some piece of evidence, which was unknown at the time of the decree but which has since come to light, may seriously affect the claim of one or other of our martyrs. An instance in point would be that of the Abbot of Colchester. Still, when all things are duly weighed, we may venture to state our humble belief that further investigation will only serve to enhance the merits and increase the glory of these Blessed Martyrs of our race. That one star should differ from another in glory will not surprise us, but that in spite of human frailty Divine grace should have wrought such triumphs of faith and constancy in our land cannot but fill our hearts with gratitude to God and admiration for His servants.2

Section II. History of the Persecution.

Although the history of the period is well known, it may perhaps be permitted me to remind the reader of the causes which led to the martyrdom of so many of England's noblest sons. The martyrs, whose lives are contained in this first volume, all suffered during the last twelve years of the reign of Henry VIII. And it will therefore be necessary to examine, as briefly as may be, the trend of events

1 See below, p. 409.

2 The standard authority on the subject of Beatification and Canonization is Pope Benedict XIV., De Beatificatione et Canonizatione Sanctorum. The subject of Beatification per modum casus excepti, will be found, lib. i. c. 32; lib. ii. cc. 17-24.

For the proceedings in the Beatification of the English Martyrs see Father J. Morris, The English Martyrs, in The Month, 1887, pp. 1-17, 524-537; same author, The Pictures of the English College at Rome, 1887, and Father Pollen, Life of Father J. Morris, 1896, PP. 194-217.

which led to the sacrifice of the best and purest blood of England, and to attempt to show how the downward career of a self-willed and arbitrary monarch was marked at every stage by the heroic resistance of men who preferred to die rather than to abandon the faith of their fathers and the unity of Christ's holy Catholic Church.

In the following conspectus of the course of events an attempt will be made to show, briefly but distinctly, the various phases of the fall of Henry VIII. and of the persecution which resulted from that fall, and thus to help the reader to understand how the various sufferings of these servants of God are connected with the history of this period and with each other.1

(1) The Persecutor.

"Who could have supposed in the latter days of Henry VII.," writes Dr. Gairdner, "that an extreme time of trial was near? How could such a thing have been credited even in the early days of Henry VIII., who, if tradition be not misleading, had himself been intended for the Church before his

1 For the general history of the period the reader should refer to Dr. James Gairdner's admirable work, A History of the English Church in the Sixteenth Century, chapters i.—xii. (1902), as well as to the same writer's essay on the reign of Henry VIII. which forms the thirteenth chapter of the volume on The Reformation recently published in the Cambridge Modern History (vol. ii. 1903). These works have in some measure supplied the want of which Mr. Birrell complained some years ago in memorable words. "The ugliest gap in an Englishman's library is in the shelf which ought to contain, but does not, a history of the Reformation of Religion in his own country." (Res Judicata, 1902; The Reformation; reprinted in Collected Essays, vol. ii. p. 197, 1899.)

brother Arthur's death, and expected one day to be Archbishop of Canterbury? Indeed, putting tradition aside, we know quite well that Henry VIII. had all his days a taste for theological subtleties, and probably could not have done the things he did, but that he was fully competent to argue points-of course with most royal persuasiveness-against Tunstall, Latimer, Cranmer, and any divine in his kingdom."1

Henry himself did not approach a decisive breach with the Holy See, of which he had formerly gloried to be the champion, without some reluctance. "No King," writes Gairdner, "was at first more desirous to stand well in the opinion of his own subjects; nor could it be said that the Church's yoke was a painful one to mighty potentates like him. But wilfulness and obstinacy were very strong features in Henry's character. Whatever he did he must never appear to retract; and he had so frequently threatened the Pope with the withdrawal of his allegiance in case he would not grant him a divorce, that at last he felt bound to make good what he had threatened. For the first time in history Europe beheld a great prince deliberately withdraw himself and his subjects from the spiritual domain of Rome, and enforce by the severest penalties the repudiation. of Papal authority. For the first time also Europe. realized how weak the Papacy had become when it proved unable to punish such aggression. Foreign nations were scandalized, but no foreign prince. could afford lightly to quarrel with England. Henry was considered an enemy of Christianity much as 1 History of the English Church, p. 5.

was the Turk, but the prospect of a crusade against him, though at times it looked probable, always vanished in the end. Foreign princes were too suspicious of each other to act together in this, and Henry himself by his own wary policy continued to ward off the danger. He was anxious to show that the faith of Christendom was maintained as firmly within his kingdom as ever. He made Cranmer a sort of insular Pope, and insisted on respect being paid to his decrees-especially in reference to his own numerous marriages and divorces. But beyond the suspension of the Canon Law and the complete subjugation of the clergy to the civil power, he was not anxious to make vital changes in religion; and both doctrine and ritual remained in his day nearly unaltered." 1

This last statement needs some qualifications. It is true that Henry did not desire to make sweeping changes of dogma. But he removed the key-stone of the arch, by the repudiation of the Papal Supremacy, and even in his own day there were ominous signs of the ultimate fall of the structure. Under the influence of Cromwell and Cranmer, as we shall see, he went far in the direction of heresy as regards the honour due to the Saints, and to their sacred images and relics. But the truth is that "State-rule in faith means heresy," and that truth. the history of England under Henry and his children most abundantly manifested. The martyrs saw this clearly, but the majority of the people were for a time deceived, and it needed the Protestant excesses under Edward VI. to open their eyes completely.

1 Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii. pp. 463, 464.