Primus and Felicianus, Martyrs

Today we commemorate Primus and Felicianus.According to Butler:

THESE two martyrs were brothers, and lived in Rome many years, mutually encouraging each other in the practice of all good works. They seemed to possess nothing but for the poor, and often spent both nights and days with the confessors in their dungeons, or at the places of their torments and execution. Some they encouraged to perseverance, others who had fallen they raised again, and they made themselves the servants of all in Christ that all might attain to salvation through him. Though their zeal was most remarkable, they had escaped the dangers of many bloody persecutions, and were grown old in the heroic exercises of virtue when it pleased God to crown their labours with a glorious martyrdom. The Pagans raised so great an outcry against them, that by a joint order of Dioclesian and Maximian Herculius they were both apprehended and put in chains. This must have happened in 286, soon after Maximian was associated in the empire, for the two emperors never seem to have met together in Rome after that year. These princes commanded them to be inhumanly scourged, and then sent them to Promotus at Nomentum, a town twelve miles from Rome, to be further chastised, as avowed enemies to the gods. This judge caused them to be cruelly tortured, first both together, afterwards separate from each other; and sought by various arts to cheat them into compliance, as by telling Primus that Felician had offered sacrifice. But the grace of God strengthened them, and they were at length both beheaded on the 9th of June.

Biblical Evangelism

I recently listened to and read a series of lectures by Rev. H. R. Curtis entitled Freed From the Shopkeeper's Prison. Rev. Curtis persuasively argues that the Biblical doctrine of election and the way that we see evangelism done in the Scriptures should affect the way we do our evangelism. He argues that most of what is practiced as evangelism in Lutheran churches is a form of functional Arminianism. I think this is even true of many Calvinist churches. Anything that is of value in this blog post is probably borrowed from Rev. Curtis. Anything that is not of value is probably the result of my own stupidity.

Throughout evangelicalism, it is generally believed that it is every Christian's duty to be an evangelist and that those who do not actively participate in some sort of evangelism program don't care about those going to hell and are responsible for the damnation of those around them. It is believed by many that the names that are written in the Book of Life will change based upon the behavior of individual believers. Numbers and statistics are often used to show how many converts a person has made or what percentage of the world is unreached.

These beliefs work themselves out in various evangelism programs. If it's all up to us to convert people then we need to find methods where we can reach the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. Bible tracts are used to attract people with different interests. Some have frogs on the front for those who like frogs. Others have a baseball bat for those who like baseball. When you open them up there will be some message loosely tied to the pictures on the front and a sinner's prayer that you can say at the end to "get saved." Jack Chick has his cartoons that are designed to scare you into becoming a Christian. They even contain bad historical information. Some programs heavily promote streetcorner evangelism. You need to stand outside and yell at the pagans to repent or else their blood is on your hands and you probably aren't a real Christian. Other programs tell you to try to befriend people with the sole purpose of trying to convert them.

Are these programs Biblical. I've read through numerous attempts all over the interweb to determine if there is some sort of real Biblical basis for what many in evangelicalism and those who have borrowed from evangelical programs are doing.  What I've found is a string of Bible verses taken out of context to support something that evangelicals are already doing. I don't think that anyone would arrive at these evangelism programs from reading the Biblical text itself. Rather it seems that the evangelism method was determined to be the most successful (by whatever measurement) and that then those who developed these programs looked for texts in the Scriptures to back-up what they were doing.

One belief that is common to all of these programs is that every Christian is an evangelist. But is this true? Where is the Biblical evidence for this position? Paul tells Timothy to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5) but he doesn't tell everyone in the church to do the work of an evangelist. Timothy was a called and ordained bishop in the church. There is no command within the Scriptures that says if you are a Christian it is your duty to make a Christian of everyone else. The so-called Great Commission is often emptied of all its Biblical content and then said to be the responsibility of every believer (Matthew 28:18-20). The "commission" is given to the Apostles, not to every individual in the church. The "Go" is often emphasized but in the Greek it's not a command. The Apostles are not told to go anywhere here. It's a participle. They are told that all power has been given to Christ and that as they are going they are to disciple the nations. The Discipling is done by baptizing and teaching. It's not by handing out tracts or yelling at people. Often, Romans 10:14 is used to show how important it is to bring the Gospel to people but verse 15 makes it clear that the ones preaching are those who are being sent forth by the church to do so. These are not self-proclaimed evangelists. People are often told about all the unreached peoples of the world but Romans 10:18 says that the Gospel has already gone out into all the world as does Romans 16:26. According to the Apostle Paul there are no "unreached" people groups. There are no seekers either (Romans 3:11).

Aside from the matter of who does evanglizing, what does it actually look like in the Scriptures? Acts 20:20 is often used as a proof-text for door to door evangelism. But if we read the passage in context we find that Paul was going from house to house because that is where the Christians were gathered. He was going to whatever house the Christians happened to be meeting at on that particular day. He was not going to the houses of unbelievers but to the houses of believers. Also notice that Paul does not tell every person in the congregation to do this. Paul says that this is what he did.

The modern "evangelist" tends to think of Jesus and Paul as spending most of their time outside yelling at the pagans or going door-to-door to pagan houses but that's really not what we find in the Scriptures. If we read the Gospel lessons we actually find Jesus spending most of his time teaching in the local synagogue. He does not seek out pagans. Sometimes we find him outside because of the size of the crowd or in some other locations but even in these cases, his audience is not pagan. He is preaching to the Jews. He spent much of his ministry bringing very harsh law to the Jews to drive them to repentance and prepare them for the Gospel. His audience was the old covenant church. He does speak to a Samaritan woman but she was not a pagan. She was part of a sort of group that had broken off from the old covenant church. On occasion, he is approached by Gentiles but these are not pagan Gentiles. These are Gentiles who came to worship at the temple but had not undergone circumcision. Jesus did not go to them. They came to Him for help. The only example of a pagan Gentile who ends up being ministered to by Jesus is the Syrophoenecian woman (Mark 7:25-30). Jesus does not seek her out. When she asks for help He refuses and refers to her as a dog. When she admits here "dog" status and continues to beg for mercy, only then does Jesus grant her request. Jesus was not very seeker-sensitive. When Jesus sends the 72 out into the different Jewish towns in Luke 10, he specifically tells them NOT to talk to people on the road. When they get to the town, they are not supposed to go door-to-door. They are told to go to a single house and ask to stay there.

Some might argue that this was prior to some new dispensation and that now things are different. Certainly Paul would not behave in this way. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles after all. But if you read what Paul is actually doing in the book of Acts, he doesn't really differ from Jesus. He goes from town to town preaching in the synagogues. He never seeks out pagans. But what about Mars Hill? Doesn't Paul walk up into the pagan temple and start setting these pagans straight. Not exactly. In Acts 17, Paul goes to Athens, sees Mars Hill, gets irritated by the idolatry and goes right to the synagogue. Afterward he spends some time in the marketplace talking with some of the Jews and some of the pagans overhear him. They are curious about this new teaching and take Paul to Mars Hill so that they can learn more. Mars Hill was a place where people would meet to discuss religious matters. Paul did not go voluntarily. Paul was not standing outside of the pagan temple handing out tracts.

What about the conversions that Paul speaks of while he was in prison? We never really see any examples of Paul "evangelizing" as it is understood today while in prison. He's not going up to people and telling them to repent and so forth. In Acts 16 we get a glimpse into what Paul did in prison. He kept the traditional hours of prayer which along with the fact that he was thrown into prison for preaching Christ would naturally lead to questions from his fellow prisoners and the guards. He doesn't go around trying to convert all the prisoners. He appears to be a model prisoner. We don't read of him trying to start any riots or threaten lawsuits. Even when God sends an earthquake and opens the prison doors he doesn't try to escape. He only explains the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the jailor when the jailor asks for an explanation. When Paul is being transported with other prisoners on a boat in Acts 27 he doesn't take the opportunity to tell all the prisoners that they could be shipwrecked at any moment and if they do not make a decision for Christ they will all go straight to hell. He does practice his Christian faith by giving thanks prior to eating but he doesn't behave in the ways that modern evangelists would expect him to.

Doesn't Paul care about the lost? Doesn't Jesus care about the lost? Why did they act this way? Why don't they seem to be desparately trying every method under the sun to try to convince people to convert? Why didn't they tell people that if they walked outside and got hit by a chariot without making a decision for Christ they would go to hell?

The reason they didn't is because they believed the Biblical doctrine of election. Read what Paul wrote in Roman 9 or Ephesians 1. Paul knew that he could not add or subtract anyone's name from the Book of Life. No matter how zealous or how lazy he acted, the same people were already written in the Book of Life. God works through means. But if Paul were lazy, God would send someone else to preach the Gospel of Christ-crucified and gather the elect into the kingdom.

It was Paul's job to preach the Gospel in the places where the elect were most likely to be found--in the synagogues and later on in the churches--and to respond to others who asked questions. Neither Paul nor Jesus regarded every single individual as someone who converted be converted if only they found the right techniques.

God's ways are not our ways. We like power and numbers and immediate results. The Jews were expecting Jesus to come to earth, wipe out the Romans, and establish His earthly kingdom. Instead He came in humility and was crucified. Most of the people on earth had no idea who He was or knew that He was crucified. He was crowned a king with a crown of thorns and began His reign while nailed to a cross--not exactly the type of success most people would hope for in their ministries. Prior to His crucifixion He gained a bit of a following among the losers of society but even they thought He was too much of a loser for them when He started telling them they had to eat His body and drink His blood. If we judged Jesus' preaching by the number of converts He made He did a pretty lousy job. Does this mean Jesus was a bad pastor? Not winsome enough?

I have no doubt that many came to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the preaching of Billy Graham but those same people would have come to believe the Gospel through someone else's preaching if there were no Billy Graham. From a numbers perspective, Billy Graham's ministry looks very effective--sort of. There have been statistical studies done that have shown that there has been virtually no growth in church membership after these crusades and that the vast majority of the people who came forward to "make a decision for Christ" were already Christians and members of a church. Of the few unchurched, if they started going to church at all most stopped after a few months. Billy Graham is a human being. He is not the Holy Spirit and he does not have ability to add or subtract names from the Book of Life. He cannot convert anyone through his methodology. He can only create an emotional experience and some confuse that emotional experience with conversion. Others are truly converted through the preaching of the Word in spite of the strange new methods being used but the strange new methods only introduce confusion into their understanding of their own conversion.

I think most of the people in evangelicalism who are involved with these unbiblical types of evangelism have the best of intentions. They love Jesus and want others to know about Him as well. But to use these new methods shows a distrust in the power of the Word of God and His power to bring His elect to hear the preaching of the Word.

So now we should all sit at home and wait for Jesus to come back because we can't get anybody saved anyhow. No, not really. In some ways the Biblical method requires more work. I've gotten in some theological discussions with self-proclaimed evangelists that often end with the other guy saying, "I'm just an unlearned man." When Paul gives the list of qualifications for a pastor, most about not engaging in negative behavior. The only positive qualification is that the man be able to teach well. In order to teach well he must know the Scriptures well and the doctrines taught in them. He must be able to rightly explain them. If you are an unlearned man that disqualifies you from serving as a pastor. The Great Commission tells pastors to disciple people by baptizing them and teaching ALL that Jesus taught. In John 20, Jesus gives pastors the power to forgive sins in His stead. In order to rightly interpret the Word of God they must spend much time studying it and studying it in the correct way. Jesus said that all of the Scriptures are about Him. So if he preaches on a passage and does not find Jesus there in the passage he is not preaching correctly. If he decides he needs to stop preaching Christ-crucified to focus on holy living then he is not preaching Biblically.

But what about lay people? What is our calling as Christians? We need to be regularly receiving the forgiveness of sins from our pastors both in the preaching of the Word and the sacrament of the Altar. Most importantly we need that forgiveness of sins. Less importantly, your frequent attendance shows your neighbors that you consider Jesus to be something that's pretty important. I have been to so many churches that spent so much time telling the congregation how important it was for them to go out and evangelize all their neighbors but would not preach the Gospel to the congregation. I even heard one sermon where the pastor kept insisting that he was preaching the Gospel during the sermon but never did. We need to be somewhere where we will be forgiven for our sins on a regular basis. That might mean changing churches. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15 that we must be ready to give answer for the hope that is in us. I don't think that means we all need to be experts in apologetics but we should have a clear understanding of what the Gospel is. I was a member a church that was part of a Calvinist denomination for a number of years and that denomination endorsed something very similar to what I'm endorsing. But I think they failed because Christ-crucified and the forgiveness of sins was not the central message. People were well-equipped to explain the differences between the Reformed denomination that they were a part of and other Reformed denominations but they were rather ill equipped to give a reason for the hope that was in them.

When Peter gives instruction to women who are married to unbelieving husbands (1Peter 3), he doesn't tell the wives to evangelize their husbands. He tells them to be good wives and be respectful and obedient. Peter and Paul don't instruct slaves to evangelize their masters. Peter and Paul instruct them to obey their masters and be good slaves. There seems to be a pretty clear and consistent message in 1 Peter 3 that is in harmony with the teachings of Paul and Jesus. Do the best job you possibly can for your employer or husband or wife or whomever else you come in contact with. Be a good neighbor. Do not return evil for evil. Be respectful. As you engage in your work, hobbies, family life, or whatever else people will ask you questions about what you believe or why you are missing some event to go to church because they have a certain trust and respect for you or maybe just curiosity. At that time you should be ready to give an answer and perhaps invite them to church with you.

The modern evangelical method runs counter to all of this. Standing and yelling on a street corner does not exactly make someone a respectable or trustworthy person. Most people think the person is a nut. Most can't distinguish between the Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, and the Christian who come to their door and most don't care. Are you really happy when the Jehovah Witness comes to you door? Do you have a lot of respect for telemarketers? Do they have a good reputation? If we believe that Jesus is really as great a thing as He really is, should we really try to "close the deal" like we're trying to sell people something that they wouldn't buy if they had time to think about it?

Lately, I've heard lots of stories about people who get arrested or are asked to leave for shouting at people on a street corner. Often, they refuse to get permits and sometimes retaliate with law suits or end up in lengthy court battles. But since Christ did not command us to do this, aren't we just giving Jesus a bad name by disturbing the peace in his name?

If we follow the Biblical pattern, we might still be persecuted but we can rejoice because we will know that we are truly being persecuted for the Gospel. If we suffer for yelling at people with a bullhorn we are suffering because of our own obnoxious plans.

Trust in God. He is not some poor and weak god that can't get His plans done without you. Rejoice that He has forgiven your sins and don't let anyone add to God's Word and tell you what you would be doing if you were a "real" Christian. Salvation has already been won by Jesus on the cross and that message will be delivered.

William of York, Archbishop

Today we commemorate William of York. According to Butler:

HE was son of Earl Herbert, and Emma, sister to King Stephen. He learned from his infancy that true greatness consists only in humility and virtue; and renounced the world in his youth, employing his riches to purchase unfading treasures in heaven by works of mercy to the poor, and giving himself wholly to the study and practice of religion. Being promoted to holy orders, he was elected treasurer in the metropolitical church of York, under the learned and good Archbishop Thurstan. When that prelate, after having held his dignity twenty years, retired among the Cluniac monks at Pontefract, to prepare himself for his death, which happened the year following, St. William was chosen archbishop by the majority of the chapter, and consecrated at Winchester in September, 1144, according to Le Neve’s Fasti. But Osbert, the archdeacon, a turbulent man, procured Henry Murdach, a Cistercian monk of the abbey of Fountains, who was also a man of great learning and a zealous preacher, to be preferred at Rome, whither William went to demand his pall, and to plead the cause of his constituents rather than his own. Being deprived by Pope Eugenius III. in 1147, he, who had always looked upon this dignity with trembling, appeared much greater in the manner in which he bore this repulse than he could have done in the highest honours. Being returned into England, he went privately to Winchester, to his uncle Henry, bishop of that see, by whom he was honourably entertained. He led at Winchester a penitential life in silence, solitude, and prayer, in a retired house belonging to the bishop, bewailing the frailties of his past life with many tears, for seven years. The Archbishop Henry then dying in 1153, and Anastasius IV. having succeeded Eugenius III. in the see of Rome, St. William, to satisfy the importunity of others, by whom he was again elected, undertook a second journey to Rome, and received the pallium from his holiness. The saint on his return was met on the road by Robert de Gaunt, dean, and Osbert, archdeacon of the church of York, who insolently forbade him to enter that city or diocess. He received the affront with an engaging meekness, but pursued his journey. He was received with incredible joy by his people. The great numbers who assembled on that occasion to see and welcome him, broke down the wooden bridge over the river Ouse, in the middle of the city of York, and a great many persons fell into the river. The saint seeing this terrible accident, made the sign of the cross over the river, and addressed himself to God with many tears. All the world ascribed to his sanctity and prayers the miraculous preservation of the whole multitude, especially of the children, who all escaped out of the waters without hurt. St. William showed no enmity, and sought no revenge against his most inveterate enemies, who had prepossessed Eugenius III. against him by the blackest calumnies, and by every unwarrantable means had obstructed his good designs. He formed many great projects for the good of his diocess, and the salvation of souls; but within a few weeks after his installation was seized with a fever, of which he died on the third day of his sickness, on the 8th of June, 1154,

Paul of Constantinople

Today we commemorate Paul of Constantinople According to Orthodox Wiki:

Our father among the saints Paul the Confessor or Paul I of Constantinople lived during the fourth century, and served as Archbishop of Constantinople during three periods: from 337 to 339, from 341 to 342, and from 346 to 351. The Arians, led by the Eastern emperor, Constantius, revolted against the election of Paul to his see. Emperor Constantius held a council, banishing Paul and electing in his stead Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius also banished other Orthodox bishops to Rome. After Eusebius died, Paul returned to Constantinople. Although he was greeted warmly by the people, Emperor Constantius once again banished him to Rome. The Western emperor, Constans, returned Paul to Constantinople with a threatening letter to his eastern co-ruler, resulting in Paul's reinstatement as archbishop. After Constans was murdered in a palace coup, Paul was banished again, but now to Cucusus in Armenia. There, celebrating the Divine Liturgy, Arians came upon him and strangled him with his omophorion. In 381, Emperor Theodosius the Great transferred St. Paul's relics to Constantinople. Nearly a thousand years later, in 1326, they were further moved to Venice.

Philip, Deacon

Today we commemorate Philip. According to Butler:

SO much was the number of the faithful increased after the first sermons of St. Peter, that the apostles being entirely taken up in the ministry of the word, it was judged proper to choose seven men, full of the spirit of God and of wisdom, to have care of the poor, under the name of deacons or ministers. St. Philip is named the second in this catalogue, who, according to St. Isidore of Pelusium, was a native of Cæsarea in Palestine. The deacons were not confined to what seemed to give birth to the institution; for at that time the divine mysteries were sometimes administered to the faithful at a supper, as appears from St. Paul, though afterwards the apostles ordered that the blessed eucharist should only be received by persons fasting, as St. Austin observes, and is clear from Tertullian and others. Only the priests could consecrate the holy mysteries; but deacons often delivered the cup. That the deacons were appointed to minister in the holy mysteries, (and this probably by an express order of Christ,) is manifest from the holy scriptures, and from the writings of the disciples of the apostles. In their first institution they were ordained by an imposition of hands with prayer. St. Paul requires almost the same conditions in the deacons as in bishops or priests, and that they be tried before they be admitted into the ministry. St. Ignatius, writing to the Trallians, calls the deacons, “the ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ.” And to the Smyrnæans he says: “Reverence the deacons as the precept of the Lord.” 7 In his other epistles, he usually joins the deacons with the priests and bishops as sacred ministers in the church. St. Cyprian calls deacons the ministers of the episcopacy, and of the church. The sacred functions in which deacons were employed, were: first, to minister to the priest at the sacrifice of the eucharist, as St. Laurence testifies in his famous words to Pope Sixtus, recorded by St. Ambrose. Secondly, to baptize in the absence of the priest. Thirdly, to preach the divine word. The holy deacon St. Philip excelled so much in preaching the gospel, that he acquired the name of evangelist, by which he is distinguished in the Acts of the Apostles. After the martyrdom of St. Stephen, the disciples being dispersed into several places, St. Philip first carried the light of the gospel into Samaria. The people of that country listened with one accord to his discourses, and by seeing the miracles which he wrought in confirmation of the doctrine he delivered, great numbers were converted to the faith. For many who were possessed by unclean spirits were delivered, and others afflicted with palsies or lamenesses were healed.

At that time one Simon, surnamed the magician, made a great figure in Samaria. He was a native of Gitton in that country, and, before the arrival of St. Philip, had acquired a great reputation in the city of Samaria, seducing the people, whom he had for a long time bewitched with his magical practices, as St. Luke testifies, 12 who adds: That they all gave ear to him from the least to the greatest, saying: This man is the power of God, which is called great. The infernal spirit sought to oppose these illusions and artifices to the true miracles of Christ; as he was suffered to assist the magicians of Pharaoh against Moses. But God, when he permits the devil to exert in such an extraordinary manner his natural strength and powers, always furnishes his servants with means of discerning and confounding the imposture. Accordingly the clear miracles wrought by Philip put the magician quite out of countenance. Being himself witness to them, and seeing the people run to Philip, to be baptized by him, he also believed, or pretended to believe; and being baptized, stuck close to Philip, hoping to attain to the power of effecting miracles like those which he saw him perform. The apostles at Jerusalem hearing of the conversion of Samaria, sent thither SS. Peter and John to confirm the converts by the imposition of hands, which sacrament only bishops could confer. With the grace of this sacrament at that time were usually conferred certain external gifts of the miraculous powers. Simon seeing these communicated to the laity by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, offered them money, saying: “Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands he may receive the Holy Ghost.” But St. Peter said to him: “Keep thy money to thyself to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Do penance for this thy wickedness; and pray to God, if perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. For I see thou art in the gall of bitterness, and engaged in the bonds of iniquity.” Simon being in that evil disposition was incapable of receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost, at least interior sanctifying grace. Nor did he sincerely seek this. However, fearing the threat of temporal evils, he answered: “Pray you for me to the Lord, that none of these things may come upon me.” From this crime of Simon, the sin of selling any spiritual thing for a temporal price, which both the law of nature and the positive divine law most severely condemn, is called simony; and to maintain that practice lawful is usually termed in the canon law the heresy of Simon Magus. We have no further account of this impostor in the holy scriptures, except that he and his disciples seemed marked out by St. Paul and St. Jude; and St. James proved against them the necessity of good works to salvation. St. Peter also draws their portrait in the most frightful colours. The fathers generally look upon the conversion of Simon to the faith as an act of hypocrisy, founded only in ambition and temporal views, and in the hope of purchasing the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which he ascribed to a superior art, magic. We learn from St. Epiphanius, St. Irenæus, Tertullian, Theodoret, and other fathers, that he afterwards pretended to be the Messias, and called himself the power of God, who was descended on earth to save men, and to re-establish the order of the universe, which he affirmed had been disturbed by the ambition of the angels striving which should be the first, and enslaving men under their government of the world. He said, that to hold man in their captivity, they had invented the law of good works, whereas he taught that faith alone sufficeth to salvation. He pretended that the world was created by angels, who afterwards revolted from God and usurped an undue power in it. Yet he ordered them to be honoured, and sacrifices to be offered to the Father by the mediation of these powers, not to beg their succour, but to appease them that they might not obstruct our designs on earth, nor hurt us after our death. This superstitious worship of the angels was a downright idolatry, and was condemned by St. Paul. See on it Tertullian, St. Epiphanius, and Theodoret. Simon rejected the Old Testament, saying it was framed by the angels, and that he was come to abolish it. Having purchased a beautiful prostitute at Tyre, he called her Helena, and said she was the first intelligence, and that the Father through her had created the angels. He often called himself the Holy Ghost; which name he sometimes gave also to Helena. He required divine honours to be paid to himself under the figure of Jupiter, and to Helena under that of Minerva. He denied free-will, and sowed the seeds of the abominations afterwards propagated by the Gnostics. His extravagant system was a medley formed from Paganism, and the Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan doctrines. He strove in all things to rival Christ. His journey to Rome will be mentioned in the life of St. Peter. St. Philip had the affliction amidst the spiritual success of his ministry, to see the hypocrisy of this monster, and the havoc of souls made by his impiety and blasphemies. Christ himself was pleased to suffer much contradiction in his doctrine, to teach his disciples patience and meekness under the like trials from the obstinacy of impenitent sinners. If their labours were always successful where would be the crown of their patience? 

St. Philip was probably still at Samaria, when an angel appearing to him, ordered him to go southward to a road that led from Jerusalem to Gaza. There he found an Ethiopian eunuch, one of the principal officers in the court of Queen Candace, and her high treasurer, who, being a Jew, had made a religious visit to the temple, and was then on his road homewards. Such was his affection to the sacred writings, that he was reading the prophecy of Isaiah as he was travelling in his chariot. The passage on which he was meditating happened to be that in which the prophet, speaking of the passion of Christ, says he was led like a sheep to the slaughter; that his humiliation was crowned, his ignominious condemnation being taken away by the glory of his resurrection; for who can explain his eternal generation, or the glorious resurrection of his humanity, which is as it were a second miraculous birth. St. Philip expounded to him this text, which the eunuch did not understand, instructed him perfectly in the faith, and baptized him. After which the eunuch returning home full of joy, became the apostle and catechist of Ethiopia his country, as St. Jerom assures us from Eusebius. The Abyssinians to this day regard him as their apostle. As for St. Philip, when he had baptized his illustrious convert, he was conveyed by God to Azotus, where he published the gospel, and in all the other towns in his way to Cæsarea, the place of his ordinary residence. Twenty-four years afterwards St. Paul, when he came thither in 58, lodged in his house. His four daughters were virgins and prophetesses. St. Jerom says they preserved their virginity by vow, or at least out of devotion. The same father thinks their gift of prophecy was the recompense of their chastity. St. Philip probably died at Cæsarea. It was the apostle St. Philip who died at Hierapolis, whose death and daughters some have confounded with the deacon’s.

Boniface of Mainz, Archbishop, Martyr

Today we commemorate Boniface. According to Butler:

ST. BONIFACE was born at Crediton in Devonshire, England, in the year 680. Some missionaries staying at his father's house spoke to him of heavenly things, and inspired him with a wish to devote himself, as they did, to God. He entered the monastery of Exminster, and was there trained for his apostolic work. His first attempt to convert the pagans in Holland having failed, he went to Rome to obtain the Pope's blessing on his mission, and returned with authority to preach to the German tribes. It was a slow and dangerous task; his own life was in constant peril, while his flock was often reduced to abject poverty by the wandering robber bands. Yet his courage never flagged. He began with Bavaria and Thuringia, next visited Friesland, then passed on to Hesse and Saxony, everywhere destroying the idol temples and raising churches on their site. He endeavored, as far as possible, to make every object of idolatry contribute in some way to the glory of God; on one occasion, having cut down on immense oak which was consecrated to Jupiter, he used the tree in building a church, which he dedicated to the Prince of the Apostles. He was now recalled to Rome, consecrated Bishop by the Pope, and returned to extend and organize the rising German Church. With diligent care he reformed abuses among the existing clergy, and established religious houses throughout the land. At length, feeling his infirmities increase, and fearful of losing his martyr's crown, Boniface appointed a successor to his monastery, and set out to convert a fresh pagan tribe. While St. Boniface was waiting to administer Confirmation to some newly-baptized Christians, a troop of pagans arrived, armed with swords and spears. His attendants would have opposed them, but the Saint said to his followers: "My children, cease your resistance; the long-expected day is come at last. Scripture forbids us to resist evil. Let us put our hope in God: He will save our souls." Scarcely had he ceased speaking, when the barbarians fell upon him and slew him with all his attendants, to the number of fifty-two.

Quirinus of Syscia, Bishop, Martyr

Today we commemorate Quirinus. According to Butler:

ST. QUIRINUS was bishop of Siscia, a city in Pannonia, situate upon the river Save; which being now reduced to a borough, called Sisek or Sisseg, in Hungary, the episcopal see is removed to Zagrab, capital of modern Croatia. St. Jerom makes honourable mention of this saint in his Chronicle, upon the year 309. Prudentius calls him an eminent martyr. Fortunatus ranks him among the most illustrious martyrs of the church. He suffered on the 4th of June, 303, or 304. His acts give the following account of his triumph: The holy prelate having intelligence that Maximus, the chief magistrate of the city, had given an order for his apprehension, left the town, but was pursued, taken, and carried before him. Maximus asked him whither he was flying? The martyr answered: “I did not fly, but went away to obey the order of my master. For it is written: When they persecute you in one city, fly to another.” Maximus said: “Who gave you that order?” Quirinus.—“Jesus Christ, who is the true God.” Maximus.—“Know you not that the emperor’s orders would find you out anywhere? Nor can he whom you call the true God help or rescue you when you are fallen into their hands, as you now see to your cost.” Quirinus.—“The God whom we adore is always with us wherever we are, and can always help us. He was with me when I was taken, and is now with me. It is he that strengthens me, and now answers you by my mouth.” Maximus.—“You talk much, and are guilty thereby of delay in executing the commands of our sovereigns: read their divine edicts, and comply with what they enjoin.” Quirinus.—“I make no account of such injunctions, because they are impious; and, contrary to God’s commandments, would oblige us his servants to offer sacrifice to imaginary divinities. The God whom I serve is everywhere; he is in heaven, on earth, and in the sea. He is above all things, containing everything within himself; and by him alone everything subsists.” Maximus said: “Old age has weakened your understanding, and you are deluded by idle tales. See, here is incense; offer it to the gods, or you will have many affronts to bear, and will suffer a cruel death.” Quirinus.—“That disgrace I account my glory; and that death will purchase me eternal life. I respect only the altar of my God, on which I have often offered to him a sacrifice of sweet odour.” Maximus.—“I perceive you are distracted, and that your madness will be the cause of your death. Sacrifice to the gods.” “No,” said Quirinus, “I do not sacrifice to devils.” Maximus then ordered him to be beaten with clubs, and the sentence was executed with great cruelty. The judge said to him under that torment: “Now confess the power of the gods whom the great Roman empire adores. Obey, and I will make you the priest of Jupiter.” Quirinus replied: “I am now performing the true functions of a priest, in offering myself a sacrifice to the living God. I feel not the blows which my body has received: they give me no torment. I am ready to suffer much greater tortures, that they who have been committed to my charge may be encouraged to follow me to eternal life.” Maximus commanded that he should be carried back to prison and loaded with heavy chains till he grew wiser. The martyr in the dungeon made this prayer: “I thank thee, O Lord, that I have borne reproaches for thy sake; and I beseech thee to let those who are in this prison know that I adore the true God, and that there is no other besides thee.” Accordingly at midnight a great light was seen in the prison, which being perceived by Marcellus the gaoler, he threw himself at the feet of St. Quirinus, and said, with tears: “Pray to the Lord for me; for I believe that there is no other God but him whom you adore.” The holy bishop, after a long exhortation, signed him in the name of Jesus Christ. This expression of the acts seems to imply, that he conferred on him the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. This magistrate, not having authority to put the martyr to death, after three days’ imprisonment, sent him to Amantius, governor of the province, called the First Pannonia. Prudentius calls him Galerius, governor of Illyricum, under which Pannonia was comprised. He had probably both those names, a usual thing at that time among the Romans. The bishop was carried in chains through all the towns that lay on the Danube, till being brought before Amantius, then on his return from Scarabantia, the governor ordered him to be conducted to Sabaria, 2 whither he himself was going. Certain Christian women in the mean time brought him refreshments, which as he was blessing, his chains dropt off from his hands and feet. On his arrival at Sabaria, Amantius ordered him to be brought before him on the public theatre, and having read the records of what had passed between him and Maximus, asked the saint if he owned the truth of the contents, and whether or no he persisted in his former confession of the Christian faith? The saint answered: “I have confessed the true God at Siscia: I have never adored any other. Him I carry in my heart, and no man on earth shall ever be able to separate me from him.” 3 Amantius endeavoured to overcome his resolution by large promises, and by the consideration of his old age: but finding him inflexible, he sentenced him to be thrown into the river with a millstone at his neck, and his order was obeyed. But to the great astonishment of the spectators (who were assembled in crowds on the banks of the river to behold the execution), the saint, instead of sinking to the bottom, continued a long time above water, with the millstone at his neck, exhorting the Christians to continue steadfast in the faith, and to dread neither torments, nor death itself. But perceiving that he sunk not at all, he began to fear he should lose the crown of martyrdom. He thereupon addressed himself to Christ in these words: “It is not wonderful for thee, O almighty Jesus, to stop the course of rivers as thou didst that of Jordan, nor to make men walk upon the water as Peter did on the sea, by thy divine power. These people have had a sufficient proof in me of the effect of thy power. Grant me what now remains, and is to be preferred to all things, the happiness of dying for thee, Jesus Christ my God.” He soon after sunk to the bottom: upon whose death the acts of the martyrs make this reflection, “That he with difficulty obtained by his prayers to be drowned.” 4 His body was found a little below the place, and laid in a chapel built on the bank. Soon after a great church was erected near the gate of Sabaria, leading to Scarabantia, in which his remains were laid. When, by the inroads of barbarians, the Pannonians were afterwards driven out of their country, the relics of this martyr were carried to Rome, and deposited in the catacombs of St. Sebastian, but removed in 1140 into the church of St. Mary beyond the Tiber. Molanus proves, that they are now kept in a monastery in Bavaria. The river in which St. Quirinus was drowned was called Sabarius, now Guntz.