THE FOUR CROWNED ONES, MARTYRS
Vol 8 Issue 45 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
November 7, 2015 ~ Our Lady on Saturday

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (41)
2. Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Four Crowned Martyrs
4. Christ in the Home (16)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

The beauty of the Catholic Faith is in the source of its Author: God. When infinite Wisdom reveals Itself in the works wrought by Its hands, one cannot but meditate upon the beauty and majesty manifested. Not only does the human witness this in the creation which surrounds him or her, but beyond in that religion, that relationship, with the Creator. Some people will say that they do not want to belong to an organized religion, yet they want to claim they believe in God and worship Him. The very concept of God denotes perfection, and perfection denotes order, organization in contrast to chaos and disorder. A-theists have this disorder and chaos in their lives because they cannot admit order or it will bring them to God—this is why they have to promote evolution, not because there is evolution, but because without evolution theoretically they know they will have to admit the existence of God. Are A-theists—for those who say they believe in God and in evolution actually believe in a contradiction: A creating God that cannot create—adamant in fighting for evolution? Of course, because their minds know that perfection and God go together, just as an effect and cause, and questions and answers. Remove perfection, remove effects, remove questions and you have imperfection, chance and randomness. This is why evolutionists will say there is no perfect world, that everything happens by chance, and one is not responsible for his or her actions. It is obvious that believing such a reality would lead to chaos, and why a-theists and evolutionists believe it theoretically but do not truly live it practically, it is impossible, it cannot be. Now place perfection, effects and questions and you see Wisdom and a Creator and One who has the answer: Religion—organized religion, because it leads us to a relationship with God by participating in His Creation through the accomplishment of its purpose. Living this Faith one sees the beauty of Life, God Himself. May we not become so blinded that even in the brightness of the Light of God we cannot see Him; and how? By sin—willful sin that, not having any excuse, we still choose to commit! By pride—confronted by the gifts God has bestowed upon us, we don’t use them for His glory but only for our own glory! By hate—being embraced by God’s Love, we prevent His other children, our brothers and sisters, and He has to let us go to embrace them.

As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit.—The Editor

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

An Early Controversy Concerning Baptism

Saints Augustine and Optatus

At the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century Aurelius Augustine (354-430) was to rise as the next person to place an indelible mark on Catholic theology. Paul had set the first course, through his Epistles, where the Church would move in theological matters: Justification through faith and baptism in Jesus Christ and Salvation open to all men, Jews and Gentiles. Augustine would shape how the Church would understand good and evil, free-will and predestination, nature and grace. At this point, how Augustine viewed baptism, especially in the face of Donatism and Pelagianism, will be considered.

Augustine enters the Catholic scene after living a dissolute life. His father was a pagan, and, as was the unfortunate custom, his baptism did not take place as a child though he had a pious mother, Saint Monica. An unholy attitude was assumed with the severity of public penance adopted by rigorists. The Baptized need not do penance for their past sins; but the baptized were imposed penances of a life time and the most humiliating that parents preferred to defer the baptism of their children until they themselves decided so that all their youthful folly would not deprive them of living a normal Catholic and public life. Once they had indulged their passions and were ready to give up a vicious life style, then they could receive baptism and be washed of all the past. So Augustine states in his Confessions:

I beseech You, my God, I would gladly know, if it be Your will, to what end my baptism was then deferred? Was it for my good that the reins were slackened, as it were, upon me for me to sin? Or were they not slackened? If not, whence comes it that it is still dinned into our ears on all sides, Let him alone, let him act as he likes, for he is not yet baptized? But as regards bodily health, no one exclaims, Let him be more seriously wounded, for he is not yet cured! How much better, then, had it been for me to have been cured at once; and then, by my own and my friends’ diligence, my soul’s restored health had been kept safe in Your keeping, who gavest it! Better, in truth. But how numerous and great waves of temptation appeared to hang over me after my childhood! These were foreseen by my mother; and she preferred that the unformed clay should be exposed to them rather than the image itself. (Confessions, 1, 11,18)

Coming from North Africa, Augustine knew the havoc wrought by the Donatists and returning to North Africa he knew he would have to combat Donatism to bring unity within the Church. The Donatists were the outcome of a Council set to judge the validity of the election and consecration of the Bishop of Carthage, Cæcilianus. The Council, led by Secundus a bishop primate (archbishop) of Northern Africa, rejected the validity because of a spurious claim that the bishop-consecrator, Felix of Aptonga, was a traditor, that is, he handed over the Sacred Books to the pagan authorities to avoid martyrdom. There was no evidence Felix had done so, though Cæcilianus was accused of having mistreated those Christians who, against the command of the Church, delivered themselves to be martyred in a false zeal—even forbidding the veneration of those thus killed in self-sacrifice. The source Secundus and his followers called upon was St Cyprian of Carthage. Though, as was shown in the last section, this position was condemned by the Church, many African bishops still invoked the Council of Carthage of 256, and followed its statues contrary to the Universal or Catholic Church. Secundus had Majorinus elected and consecrated bishop in opposition to Cæcilianus, causing a schism. The use of the name Donatists is difficult to determine who is referenced, though it may refer to Donatus of Casae Nigrae, who is accused of schism in Carthage during the lifetime of Mensurius, the predecessor of Cæcilianus and later led the group to Rome to accuse Cæcilianus. From the beginning Pope Melchiades (311-314) acknowledged the election of Cæcilianus, who had the support of the populace and had possession of the Cathedral. In appeals by the Proconsul of Africa to settle the discord, Constantine has this reply to Melchiades:

Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and to Marcus. Since many such communications have been sent to me by Anulinus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is said that Cæcilianus, bishop of the city of Carthage, has been accused by some of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters; and since it seems to me a very serious thing that in those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in which there is a great population, the multitude are found following the baser course, and dividing, as it were, into two parties, and the bishops are at variance—it has seemed good to me that Cæcilianus himself, with ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his defense, should sail to Rome, that there, in the presence of yourselves and of Retecius and Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as you may understand to be in accordance with the most holy law.

But in order that you may be enabled to have most perfect knowledge of all these things, I have subjoined to my letter copies of the documents sent to me by Anulinus, and have sent them to your above-mentioned colleagues. When your firmness has read these, you will consider in what way the above-mentioned case may be most accurately investigated and justly decided. For it does not escape your diligence that I have such reverence for the legitimate Catholic Church that I do not wish you to leave schism or division in any place. May the divinity of the great God preserve you, most honored sirs, for many years. (Eusebius, Church History X, 515)

When Donatus, who succeeded Majorinus, and the others accusers went to Rome, they were unable to provide evidence to their claims against the Bishop of Carthage; instead, Donatus was condemned for both rebaptizing as well as absolving bishops (laying his hands in penance), which was forbidden by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Donatism, in Catholic Encyclopedia)  The sentence was declared null by the Donatists by accusing Melchiades (a Saintly Pope celebrated on December 10) of being a traditor, who then appealed to the Bishops in Gaul, where, at the First Council of Arles in 314 the Bishops refused to sit in judgment on the Bishop of Carthage and renewed the condemnation of rebaptism:

Canon 8. Concerning the Africans, because they use their own law so as to rebaptize, it has been decided that, if anyone from a heretical sect come to the Church, he should be asked his creed, and if it is perceived that he has been baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, only the hand should be imposed upon him, in order that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if upon being questioned he does not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized. (D 53)

From thence forth the Donatists claimed to be the pure Church, the Church of the Martyrs, setting up their own churches, or, where there was a majority, taking by force the churches of the Catholics. Their following was mostly confined to Northern Africa and, after scandals among their leaders and members as also the death of Donatus, the movement waned by the middle of the fourth century as the Emperors supported the efforts to bring unity between Catholics. All this was reversed with Julian the Apostate (361-63) reigned as Emperor. His first decree was to give to the Arians and Donatists the Churches of the Catholics and the pagans to receive back their temples. The brutality of the Donatists forced many Catholics into their ranks and public offices in Northern Africa became available chiefly to the Donatists. Even with the death of Julian, the Donatistic public officials continued to favor the Donatists until Gratian in 377. The Catholic Church in Africa had to once more begin its struggle against the Donatist error, but she would find two Saints to toil for their conversion: Saint Optatus and Saint Augustine.

Saint Optatus, bishop of Mila, Numidia (present day Algeria and Tunisia) and who lived during the 4th century, gathered all the historical records of the deeds of the leaders of the Donatists to prove that the Donatists were neither “pure” nor “consistent”. Their founders were not without reproach he would stress:

Why should I make mention of laymen who at that time were supported by no ecclesiastical dignity? Why name a host of clerics? Or deacons in the third, or priests in the second degree of the sacerdotium, when the heads and chiefs of all, some Bishops of that period, in order to purchase for themselves, at the loss of Life Eternal, some very short prolongation of this uncertain day, impiously betrayed the records of the law of God? Amongst whom were Donatus of Mascula, Victor of Rusicca, Merinus from the Baths of Tibilis, Donatus of Calama, and Purpurius of Limata, the murderer—who, when he was questioned on the charge of having killed his sister’s sons in the prison of Mileum, confessed it with the words: ‘Yes, I did kill them, and not them alone do I kill, but whoever shall act against me.’ And Menalius who pretended that he had a pain in his eyes, and trembled at the idea of meeting his own people, for fear lest it should be proved against him by his fellow-citizens that he had offered incense to idols. (Against the Donatists, 1, 13)

Optatus then took the arguments that would eventually be formulated into the Latin phrase, ex opera operato:

[T]he validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptise, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one. (ibid. 1, 5)

In his fifth book, he treats of the topic in this way:

In the matter at present to be considered the whole question consists in this, that you have dared to do violence to Baptism—that you have repeated what Christ has commanded to be done but once . . .

. . . It is clear that in the celebration of this Sacrament of Baptism there are three elements, which you will not be able either to decrease or diminish, or put on one side. The first is in the Trinity, the second in the believer, the third in him who operates. But they must not all be weighed by the same measure. For I perceive that two are necessary, and that one is quasi-necessary. The Trinity holds the chief place, without whom the work itself cannot be done. The faith of the believer follows next. Then comes the office of the ‘Minister,’ which cannot be of equal authority. The first two remain always unchangeable and unmoved. For the Trinity is always Itself; and the Faith is the same in everyone. Both [the Trinity and Faith] always preserve their own efficacy. It will be seen, therefore, that the office of the minister cannot be equal to the other two elements [in the Sacrament of Baptism], because it alone is liable to change.

You will have it that between you and us there is a distinction, though the office is the same, and, judging yourselves to be more holy than we, you do not hesitate to place your pride higher than the Trinity, although the person of the ‘Minister’ can be changed, but the Trinity cannot be changed. And, whereas it is Baptism which should be longed for by those who receive it, you put yourselves forward as the persons to be eagerly sought after.

Since you are—amongst others—’ Ministers’ of the Sacrament, show what is the nature of the place that you occupy in this Mystery, and whether you can belong to its ‘body’!

The Name of Baptism is but one. It possesses its own body—a body which has its own well-defined members, to which nothing can be added, in which nothing can be taken away. If the ‘Minister’ who has to be chosen is counted as one of these members, then the whole body belongs to the ‘Minister.’ All these members are both at all times and once for all with this ‘body,’ and cannot be changed, whereas the ‘Ministers’ are changed every day, both as to place and time, and in their own persons. For it is not one man only, who baptises always or everywhere. This work is now done by different men from those who did it of old. In the time to come it will be done by yet others. The ‘Ministers’ can be changed; the Sacraments cannot be changed. Since therefore you see that all who baptise are labourers, not lords, and that the Sacraments are holy through themselves, not through men, why do you claim so much for yourselves? Why is it that you try to shut God out from His own gifts? Allow Him to bestow those things, which are His own. For that gift, which belongs to God, cannot be given by man. If you think otherwise, you are endeavouring to make of no effect the words of the Prophets and the promises of God, by which it is proved that it is God, not man, who cleanses. Here David the Prophet is against you, for he says in the fiftieth Psalm: ‘Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be cleansed beyond the snow’;

and again in the same Psalm: ‘O God, wash me from my wickedness and cleanse me from my sin.’ He said: ‘Wash me.’ He did not say: ‘Choose for me one by whom I may be washed.’

And the Prophet Isaiah also has written that ‘the Lord shall wash away the defilement of the sons and daughters of Sion.’ We have proved in our Third Book that Sion is the Church; it follows that God washes the sons and daughters of the Church. He did not say: ‘They shall wash who judge themselves to be holy.’ Admit then that the Prophets overcome you, or, with them, recognise that it is not man who washes, but God.

As long as you ask: ‘How can he give, who has not anything to give?’ understand that it is the Lord who is the giver, understand that it is God who cleanses each man, whoever he may be; for no one can wash away the defilement and stains of the mind, but God alone, who is also the Maker of the mind. Or, if you think that it is your washing [that cleanses], tell us what is the nature of this mind, which is washed through the body, or what ‘form’ it has, or in what part of a man it dwells. To know this has not been granted to any. How, then, do you think that it is you who cleanse, when you do not know the nature of that which you cleanse? It belongs not to man, but to God to cleanse, for He has Himself promised that He will cleanse, through the Prophet Isaiah, when He said: ‘Even though your sins are like scarlet, I will make you white as snow.’ He said: ‘I will make you white,’ and not: ‘I will cause you to be made white.’

If this has been promised by God, why do you wish to give that which it is not permitted to you either to promise, or to give, or to have? Behold by Isaiah God has promised Himself to wash those stained by sin, not through a man. Go back to the Gospel, and see what Christ has promised for the salvation of the human race. When the Samaritan woman refused water to the Son of God, then He said that which gives His answer to your contentions: ‘He who shall drink the water which I give shall not thirst for ever.’ He said: ‘the water which I give.’ He did not say:

‘which they shall give, who deem themselves holy,’ as you think yourselves to be; but He did say that He would give. He Himself, therefore, it is who gives, and that which is given is His own. What, therefore, is it which you strive, with absolute unreasonableness, to vindicate for yourselves?

Saint Optatus set out the theological outline of ex opera operato and Saint Augustine would go on to develop the arguments in opposing Donatism. The term, ex opera operato, as such was first used in the Middle Ages and will be discussed later; but let it be sufficient to say it literary means “from the work worked”, i.e., that the Sacrament gives grace independent of the minister as long as proper matter, form and intention is observed. It is de fide, that is, a dogma of the Catholic faith.

(To be continued)

————————–

Week of Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

Benedict Baur, O.S.B.

 

            Privileges and obligations

1. Christ, the Lord and Master, lives in His kingdom, the Church. It is our privilege to associate ourselves with this divine kingdom. But this privilege carries with it certain obligations, which are explained to us in the Epistle of the Mass for this Sunday.
2. The privilege that is ours when we become members of the Church is this: we become “the elect of God, holy and beloved.” We have been chosen out of millions of souls for this great privilege; we are the adopted children of God and heirs of an eternal inheritance. God has taken us as we were and has made us “holy and beloved.” Through the sacraments of baptism and penance He has cleansed us from all our defects; He has transformed us by means of grace. He has united us to Himself as His beloved. “But God (who is rich in mercy) for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved) and hath raised us up together and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. That He might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of His grace in His bounty towards us, in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:4 ff.),

But we, so highly privileged, also have certain obligations. Thus: “Brethren, put ye on as the elect of God, holy and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience; bearing with one another and forgiving one another if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also” (Epistle). Above all else, we must put on the mantle of charity. “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Even the least act of charity shown to our neighbor for the love of Christ is meritorious and will bring us an eternal reward. When we fail in charity toward our neighbor, it is as though we had refused an act of kindness to Christ Himself. Whatever bitterness or cruelty we practice on those about us is really practiced on the person of our Savior. Let us examine ourselves honestly and consider whether our Lord could be satisfied with the charity we show toward our neighbor. Charity is the “bond of perfection.” Our love of God is just as extensive as is our love of our neighbor. We shall be judged according to the measure of our love. If the chief privilege of the Christian is to be a child of God, the chief obligation is to love.

3. Christ has truly manifested Himself among men and taken up His abode among them in human form in order that He may build up Sion. This new Sion is the kingdom of love. “That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee” (John 17:21).

“I in them, and Thou in Me; that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:23). Through baptism we become one with Christ by grace, as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one by nature. He has incorporated us into Himself as branches on a vine. He lives in us continually that we may be one with Him even as He is one with His heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost. We should try to understand this great truth and understand how pleased Christ is when we love our neighbor and are one in heart and spirit with him.

The Lord came upon earth to establish a kingdom among men. Opposed to this kingdom is the kingdom of the Antichrist. These two kingdoms are distinguished chiefly by two different species of love. The kingdom of Christ is characterized by the love of God and the love of our neighbor for God. The kingdom of the Antichrist is characterized by a selfish self-love which separates from God and turns in scorn from all that God has promised. Today we renew our determination to remain firmly united to the kingdom of Christ. We shall remember that Christ has said, “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12).

The fruit of Holy Communion should be an increase of love for God and our neighbor. We deceive ourselves if we think that we can unite ourselves to Christ in Holy Communion and at the same time feel enmity for our neighbor. If we treat our neighbor with harshness or bitterness, we can hardly receive Holy Communion with fruit. “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7: 16). Let the fruit of our Holy Communions be an increase in our love for our neighbor.

PRAYER

Pour forth, O Lord, the Spirit of Thy love, that we may become one in heart through the grace of Thy Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest forever. Amen.

“The peace of Christ”

1. The sacred liturgy today asks us to be an epiphany, a manifestation of the Lord. The Christian is another Christ, “made conformable to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). “Even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also. . . . And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body” (Epistle).
2. “Let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts.” Whenever the bishop turns to the people during Mass to say, “Peace be with you,” and whenever the priest turns to say, “The Lord be with you,” our Holy Mother the Church reminds us of the peace of Christ that should reign in our hearts. “May the peace of the Lord remain with you,” the priest says immediately before the Agnus Dei. The Agnus Dei itself is a prayer for peace.

This longing for peace reaches its climax in the prayer for peace which precedes Communion. “Lord Jesus Christ, who has said, My peace I leave with you, My peace I give you, give peace and unity to Thy Church.” The kiss of peace, commonly known as the “Pax,” immediately follows this prayer in the Solemn Mass. This ceremony signifies the unity of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. This insistence of the liturgy on the peace of Christ should impress us with its importance. The peace of Christ will reign in our hearts when we have freed ourselves from sin, from self-love, from evil habits, and from our evil inclinations.

The peace of Christ means union with God and progress in virtue; it characterizes those Christian communities which are “one heart and one soul,” as were the assemblies of apostolic times (Acts 4:32). This peace displaces all selfishness and enmity. For this reason “you are called in one body” that all may be one in Christ. Let us strive to achieve peace, unity, and harmony in our lives; that is the spirit which Christ would have reign in our hearts.

What hinders us most in acquiring this peace of Christ? The first obstacle is our attachment to earthly things. For some men this may assume the form of earthly possessions; for others it may be an attachment to their work; while still others may be hampered by ambition, pride, or self-love, These faults make us critical, proud, quarrelsome, passionate, and impatient; they make us unwilling to make sacrifices, and without the sacrifice of our self-love, perfect love of God and of our neighbor is impossible. If we were true Christians, we would despise all earthly possessions. With St. Paul we would consider all things as loss which do not lead us directly to Christ. “But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ. Furthermore, I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ, my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ and may be found in Him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ Jesus, which is of God: justice in faith. That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death. If by any means I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead” (Phil. 3:7-11).

Those are the sentiments of a true Christian. Can we speak in like manner? Most of us fail to realize the value of the things that God has promised us, and thus fail to direct all our energies toward obtaining them. We take a very human view of our fellow man. We see in him only another creature like ourselves, and not a member of the mystical body of Christ. The living faith which enables us to see Christ in our fellow man is wanting in us. For the true Christian there is “neither Gentile nor Jew, . . . barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free” (Col. 3:11). The Christians of apostolic times used to say, “If thou see thy brother, thou hast seen Christ.” How little that spirit has penetrated even the most pious of us.

3. “Let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts.” The struggle to obtain this peace and harmony will stamp out our self-love and free us from our solicitude for earthly goods. Christ wishes to live His life in us in all its fullness. He is incarnate Love in the souls of men; He is the enemy of all discord and dissension. He judges everything in the light of eternity. His chief concern is to see us united to the Father and the Holy Ghost. Four things, says the Imitation at Christ, lead us on the way of peace and unity: “Study, my son, to do the will of another rather than thy own. Ever choose rather to have less than more. Always seek the lowest place, and strive to be subject to everyone. Desire and always pray that the will of God may be entirely fulfilled in thee. Behold such a one entereth within the borders of peace and rest” (III, chap. 23).

PRAYER

O God, from whom proceed all holy desires, all right counsels, and just works, grant unto us, Thy servants, that peace which the world cannot give, that our hearts may be devoted to Thy service, and that being delivered from the fear of our enemies, we may pass our time in peace under Thy protection. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

————————–

8: THE FOUR CROWNED ONES, MARTYRS (A.D. 306?)

THE Roman Martyrology has to-day: “At Rome, three miles from the City on the Via Lavicana, the passion of the holy martyrs Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorian, Castorius and Simplicius, who were first cast into prison, then terribly beaten with loaded whips, and finally, since they could not be turned from Christ’s faith, thrown headlong into the river by order of Diocletian. Likewise on the Via Lavicana the birthday of the four holy crowned brothers, namely, Severus, Severian, Carpophorus and Victorinus, who, under the same emperor, were beaten to death with blows from leaden scourges. Since their names, which in after years were made known by divine revelation, could not be discovered it was appointed that their anniversary, together with that of the other five, should be kept under the name of the Four Holy Crowned Ones; and this has continued to be done in the Church even after their names were revealed.”

These two entries and the passio upon which they are founded provide a puzzle which has not yet been solved with complete certainty. Severus, Severian, Carpophorus and Victorinus, names which the Roman Martyrology and Breviary say were revealed as those of the Four Crowned Martyrs, were borrowed from the martyrology of the diocese of Albano, where their feast is kept on August 8. On the other hand, the Four Crowned Martyrs were sometimes referred to as Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorian and Castorius. These, with the addition of Simplicius, so far from being the names of Roman martyrs (as stated above), belonged to five martyrs under Diocletian in Pannonia.

The . . . “Roman passio“, preceded by the vivid and interesting “Pannonian passio” wherein, as Father Delehaye points out, we have a striking picture of the imperial quarries and workshops at Sirmium (Mitrovica in Yugoslavia), and Diocletian appears not simply as a commonplace blood-stained monster but as the emperor of rather unstable temperament with a passion for building. His attention is drawn by the work of four specially skilled carvers, Claudius, Nicostratus, Simpronian and Castorius, all Christians, and a fifth, Simplicius, who also has become a Christian, because it seems to him that the skill of the others is due to their religion. Diocletian orders them to do a number of carvings, which are duly executed with the exception of a statue of Aesculapius, which they will not make because they are Christians (though their other commissions have already included a large statue of the Sun-god). “If their religion enables them to do such good work, all the better”, says the emperor, and confides Aesculapius to some heathen workmen.

But public opinion was aroused against Claudius and his comrades, and they were jailed for refusing to sacrifice to the gods. Both Diocletian and his officer Lampadius treated them with moderation at first; but Lampadius dying suddenly, his relatives furiously blamed the five Christians, and the emperor was induced to order their death. Thereupon each was enclosed in a leaden box, and thrown into the river to drown. Three weeks later the bodies were retrieved by one Nicodemus.

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message