Chapter 93.—202.  Petilianus said:  "But what have you to do with the kings of this world, in whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards her?  And to teach you shortly the truth of what I say, A king persecuted the brethren of the Maccabees.^22222222     2 Mac. vii.   A king also condemned the three children to the sanctifying flames, being ignorant what he did, seeing that he himself was fighting against God.^22232223     Dan. iii.   A king sought the life of the infant Saviour.^22242224     Matt. ii. 16.   A king exposed Daniel, as he thought, to be eaten by wild beasts.^22252225     Dan. vi.   And the Lord Christ Himself was slain by a king’s most wicked judge.^22262226     Matt. xxvii. 26.   Hence it is that the apostle cries out, ‘We speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:  but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which was hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew:  for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’^22272227     1 Cor. ii. 6-8.   But grant that this was said of the heathen kings of old.  Yet you, rulers of this present age, because you desire to be Christians, do not allow men to be Christians, seeing that, when they are believing in all honesty of heart, you draw them by the defilement and mist of your falsehood wholly over to your wickedness, that with their arms, which were provided against the enemies of the state, they should assail the Christians, and should think that, at your instigation, they are doing the work of Christ if they kill us whom you hate, according to the saying of the Lord Christ:  ‘The time cometh,’ He says, ‘that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.’^22282228     John xvi. 2.   It makes no matter therefore to you, false teachers, whether the kings of this world desire to be heathens, which God forbid, or Christians, so long as you cease not in your efforts to arm them against the family of Christ.  But do you not know, or rather, have you not read, that the guilt of one who instigates a murder is greater than the guilt of him who carries it out?  Jezebel had excited the king her husband to the murder of a poor and 578righteous man, yet husband and wife alike perished by an equal punishment.^22292229     1 Kings xxi.   Nor indeed is your mode of urging on kings different from that by which the subtle persuasion of women has often urged kings on to guilt.  For the wife of Herod earned and obtained the boon by means of her daughter, that the head of John should be brought to table in a charger.^22302230     Matt. xiv. 8, 9.   Similarly the Jews forced on Pontius Pilate that he should crucify the Lord Jesus, whose blood Pilate prayed might remain in vengeance upon them and on their children.^22312231     Matt. xxvii. 24-26.   So therefore you also overwhelm yourselves with our blood by your sin.  For it does not follow that because it is the hand of the judge that strikes the blow, your calumnies therefore are not rather guilty of the deed.  For the prophet David says, speaking in the person of Christ, ‘Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:  the Lord shall have them in derision.  Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.  Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.  I will declare the decree:  the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee.  Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.  Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’  And he warned the kings themselves in the following precepts, that they should not, like ignorant men devoid of understanding, seek to persecute the Christians, lest they should themselves be destroyed,—which precepts I would that we could teach them, seeing that they are ignorant of them; or, at least, that you would show them to them, as doubtless you would do if you desired that they should live; or, at any rate, if neither of the other courses be allowed, that your malice would have permitted them to read them for themselves.  The first Psalm of David would certainly have persuaded them that they should live and reign as Christians; but meanwhile you deceive them, so long as they entrust themselves to you.  For you represent to them things that are evil, and you hide from them what is good.  Let them then at length read this, which they should have read already long ago.  For what does he say, ‘Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.  Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.  Lay hold of instruction lest the Lord be angry, and ye perish from the right way.  Since how quickly has His wrath kindled over you?  Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.’^22322232     Ps. ii., cp. Hieron.   You urge on emperors, I say, with your persuasions, even as Pilate, whom, as we showed above, the Jews urged on, though he himself cried aloud, as he washed his hands before them all, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just person,’^22332233     Matt. xxvii. 24. —as though a person could be clear from the guilt of a sin who had himself committed it.  But, to say nothing of ancient examples, observe, from instances taken from your own party, how very many of your emperors and judges have perished in persecuting us.  To pass over Nero, who was the first to persecute the Christians, Domitian perished almost in the same way as Nero, as also did Trajan, Geta,^22342234     Some editions have Varius in the place of Geta, referring to Aurelius Antoninus Heliogabalus, of whom Lampridius asserts that he derived the name of Varius from the doubtfulness of his parentage.  Aelii Lampridii Antoninus Heliogabalus, in S.S. Historiæ Augustæ.  The Mss. agree, however, in the reading "Geta," which was a name of the second son of Severus, the brother of Caracalla. Decius, Valerian, Diocletian; Maximian also perished, at whose command that men should burn incense to their gods, burning the sacred volumes, Marcellinus indeed first, but after him also Mensurius of Carthage, and Cæcilianus, escaped death from the sacrilegious flames, surviving like some ashes or cinders from the burning.  For the consciousness of the guilt of burning incense involved you all, as many as agreed with Mensurius.  Macarius perished, Ursacius ^22352235     Optatus defends the cause of Macarius at great length in his third book against Parmenianus.  Of Ursacius he says in the same place:  "You are offended at the times of a certain Leontius, of Ursacius, Macarius and others."  And Augustin, in his third book against Cresconius, c. 20, introduces an objection of the Donatists against himself:  "But so soon as Silvanus, bishop of Cirta, had refused to communicate with Ursacius and Zenophilus the persecutors, he was driven into exile."  Usuardus, deceived by a false story made up by the Donatists, enters in his Martyrology, that a pseudo-martyr Donatus suffered on the 1st of March, under Ursacius and Marcellinus, to this effect:  "On the same day of the holy martyr Donatus, who suffered under Ursacius the judge (or dux), and the tribune Marcellinus." perished, and all your counts perished in like manner by the vengeance of God.  For Ursacius was slain in a battle with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb from limb.  Was not he too a murderer at your suggestion, who, like king Ahab, whom we showed to have been persuaded by a woman, slew a poor and righteous man?^22362236     1 Kings xxi.   So you too do not cease to murder us, who are just and poor (poor, that is, in worldly wealth; for in the grace of God no one of us is poor).  For 579even if you do not murder a man with your hands, you do not cease to do so with your butcherous tongues.  For it is written, ‘Death and life are in the power of the tongue.’^22372237     Prov. xviii. 21.   All, therefore, who have been murdered, you, the instigator of the deed, have slain.  Nor indeed does the hand of the butcher glow save at the instigation of your tongue; and that terrible heat of the breast is inflamed by your words to take the blood of others,—blood that shall take a just vengeance upon him who shed it."

203.  Augustin answered:  If I were to answer adequately, and as I ought, to this passage, which has been exaggerated and arranged at such length by you, where you speak in invidious terms against us concerning the kings of this world, I am much afraid that you would accuse me too of having wished to excite the anger of kings against you.  And yet, whilst you are borne after your own fashion by the violence of this invective against all Catholics, you certainly do not pass me by.  I will endeavor, however, to show, if I can, that it is rather you who have been guilty of this offense by speaking as you have done, than myself by answering as I shall do.  And first of all, see how you yourself oppose your self; for certainly you prefaced the passage which you quoted with the words, "What have you to do with the kings of this world, in whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards her?"  In these words you certainly cut off from us all access to the kings of this world.  And a little later you say, "And he warned the kings themselves in the following precepts, that they should not, like ignorant men devoid of understanding, seek to persecute the Christians, lest they should be themselves destroyed,—which precepts I would that we could teach them, seeing that they are ignorant of them; or, at least, that you would show them to them, as doubtless you would do if you desired that they should live."  In what way then do you wish us to be the instructors of kings?  And indeed those of our body who have any friendship with Christian kings commit no sin if they make a right use of that friendship; but if any are elated by it, they yet sin far less grievously than you.  For what had you, who thus reproach us,—what had you to do with a heathen king, and what is worse, with Julian, the apostate and enemy of the name of Christ, to whom, when you were begging that the basilicas should be restored to you as though they were your own, you ascribed this meed of praise, "that in him justice alone was found to have a place"?—in which words (for I believe that you understand the Latin tongue) both the idolatry and the apostasy of Julian are styled justice.  I hold in my hands the petition which your ancestors presented; the memorial^22382238     Constitutio quam impetraverunt.  Some editions have "quam dederunt Constantio;" but there is no place for Constantius in this history of the Donatists, nor was any boon either sought or obtained from him in their name.  The Louvain editors therefore restored "constitutio," which is the reading of the Gallic Mss. which embodied their request; the chronicles, where they made their representation.  Watch and attend.  To the enemy of Christ, to the apostate, the antagonist of Christians, the servant of the devil, that friend, that representative, that Pontius of yours, made supplication in such words as these:  "Go to then, and say to us, What have you to do with the kings of this world?" that as deaf men you may read to the deaf nations what you as well as they refuse to hear;" Thou beholdest the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye."^22392239     Matt. vii. 3.

204.  "What," say you, "have you to do with the kings of this world, in whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards her?"  Having said this, you endeavored to reckon up what kings the righteous had found to be their enemies, and did not consider how many more might be enumerated who have proved their friends.  The patriarch Abraham was both most friendly treated, and presented with a token of friendship, by a king who had been warned from heaven not to defile his wife.^22402240     Gen. xx.   Isaac his son likewise found a king most friendly to him.^22412241     Gen. xxvi. 11.   Jacob, being received with honor by a king in Egypt, went so far as to bless him.^22422242     Gen. xlvii.   What shall I say of his son Joseph, who, after the tribulation of a prison, in which his chastity was tried as gold is tried in the fire, being raised by Pharaoh to great honors,^22432243     Gen. xxxix., xli. even swore by the life of Pharaoh,^22442244     Gen. xlii. 15. —not as though puffed up with vain conceit, but being not unmindful of his kindness.  The daughter of a king adopted Moses.^22452245     Ex. ii. 10.   David took refuge with a king of another race, compelled thereto by the unrighteousness of the king of Israel.^22462246     1 Sam. xxvii.   Elijah ran before the chariot of a most wicked king,—not by the king’s command, but from his own loyalty.^22472247     1 Kings xviii. 44-46.   Elisha thought it good to offer of his own accord to the woman who had sheltered him anything that she might wish to have obtained from the king through his intercession.^22482248     2 Kings iv. 13.   But I will come to the actual times when the people of 580God were in captivity, in which, to use a mild expression, a strange forgetfulness came over you.  For, wishing to prove that Christianity has never found anything in kings saving envy towards her, you made mention of the three children and Daniel, who suffered at the hands of persecuting kings, and you could not derive instruction from circumstances not occurring near, but in the very same passages, viz., from the conduct of the king himself after the miracle of the flames which did no hurt, whether as shown in praising and setting forth the name of God, or in honoring the three children themselves, or from the esteem in which the king held Daniel, and the gifts with which he honored him, nothing loth to receive them, when he, rendering the honor that was due to the king’s power, as sufficiently appears from his own words, did not hesitate to use the gift with which he was endowed by God, in interpreting the king’s dream.  And when, in consequence, the king was compelled by the men who envied the holy prophet, and heaped calumnies upon him with sacrilegious madness, most unwillingly to cast him into the den of lions, sadly though he did it, yet he had the conviction that he would be safe through the help and protection of his God.  Accordingly, when Daniel, by the miraculous repression of the lions’ rage, had been preserved unhurt, when the friendly voice of the king spoke first to him, in accents of anxiety, he himself replied with benediction from the den, "O king, live for ever!"^22492249     Dan. iii.-vi.   How came it that, when your argument was turning on the very same subject, when you were yourself quoting the examples of the servants of God in whose case these things were done, you either failed to see, or were unwilling to see, or seeing and knowing, were silent, in a manner which I know not how you will defend, about those instances of friendship felt by kings for the saints?  But if it were not that, as a defender of the basest cause, you are hindered by the desire of building up falsehood, and thereby turned away either as unwilling or as ignorant from the light of truth, there can be no doubt that you could, without any difficulty, recall some good kings as well as some bad ones, and some friendly to the saints as well as some unfriendly.  And we cannot but wonder that your Circumcelliones thus throw themselves from precipices.  Who was running after you, I pray?  What Macarius, what soldier was pursuing you?  Certainly none of our party thrust you into this abyss of falsehood.  Why then did you thus run headlong with your eyes shut, so that when you said, "What have you to do with the kings of this world?" you did not add, In whom Christianity has often found envy towards herself, instead of boldly venturing to say, "In whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards her?"  Was it really true that you neither thought yourself, nor considered that those who read your writings would think, how many instances of kings there were that went against your views?  Does he not know what he says?

205.  Or do you think that, because those whom I have mentioned belonged to olden times, therefore they form no argument against you, because you did not say, In whom righteousness has never found anything save envy towards her, but "In whom Christianity has never found anything saving envy towards her,"—meaning, perhaps, that it should be understood that they began to show envy towards the righteous from the time when they began to bear the name of Christians?  What then is the meaning of those examples from olden times, by which you even more imprudently wished to prove what you had so imprudently ventured to assert?  For was it not before Christ was born in the world that the Maccabees, and the three children, and Daniel, did and suffered what you told of them?  And again, why was it, as I asked just now, that you offered a petition to Julian, the undoubted foe of Christianity?  Why did you seek to recover the basilicas from him?  Why did you declare that only righteousness found a place with him?  If it is the foe of Christianity that hears such things as these, what then are they from whom he hears them?  But it should be observed that Constantine, who was certainly no foe to the name of Christian, but rather rendered glorious by it, being mindful of the hope which he maintained in Christ, and deciding most justly on behalf of His unity, was not worthy to be acknowledged by you, even when you yourselves appealed to him.  Both these were emperors in Christian times, but yet not both of them were Christians.  But if both of them were foes of Christianity, why did you thus appeal to one of them? why did you thus present a petition to the other?  For on your ancestors making their petition, Constantine had given an episcopal judgment both at Rome and at Arles; and yet the first of them you accused before him, from the other you appealed to him.  But if, as is the case, one of them had believed in Christ, the other had apostatized from Christ, why is the Christian despised while furthering the interests of unity, the apostate praised while fav581oring deceit?  Constantine ordered that the basilicas should be taken from you, Julian that they should be restored.  Do you wish to know which of these actions is conducive to Christian peace?  The one was done by a man who had believed in Christ, the other by one who had abandoned Christ.  O how you would wish that you could say, It was indeed ill done that supplication should so be made to Julian, but what has that to do with us?  But if you were to say this, the Catholic Church would also conquer in these same words, whose saints dispersed throughout the world are much less concerned with what you say of those towards whom you feel as you may be disposed to feel.  But it is beyond your power to say, It was ill done that supplication should so be made to Julian.  Your throat is closed; your tongue is checked by an authority close at home.  It was Pontius that did it.  Pontius presented the petition; Pontius declared that the apostate was most righteous; Pontius set forth that only righteousness found a place with the apostate.  That Pontius made a petition to him in these words, we have the express evidence of Julian himself, mentioning him by name, without any disguise.  Your representations still exist.  It is no uncertain rumor, but public documents that bear witness to the fact.  Can it be, that because the apostate made some concession to your prayer, to the detriment of the unity of Christ, you therefore find truth in what was said, that only righteousness found a place with him? but because Christian emperors decide against your wishes, since this appears to them most likely to contribute to the unity of Christ, therefore they are called the foes of Christianity?  Such folly may all heretics display; and may they regain wisdom, so that they should be no longer heretics.

206.  And when is that fulfilled, you will say, which the Lord declares, "The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service"?^22502250     John xvi. 2.   At any rate neither can this be said of the heathen, who persecuted Christians, not for the sake of God, but for the sake of their idols.  You do not see that if this had been said of these emperors who rejoice in the name of Christian, their chief command would certainly have been this, that you should have been put to death; and this command they never gave at all.  But the men of your party, by opposing the laws in hostile fashion, bring deserved punishment on themselves; and their own voluntary deaths, so long as they think that they bring odium on us, they consider in no wise ruinous to themselves.  But if they think that that saying of Christ refers to kings who honor the name of Christ, let them ask what the Catholic Church suffered in the East, when, Valens the Arian was emperor.  There indeed I might find what I should understand to be sufficient fulfillment of the saying of the Lord, "The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service," that heretics should not claim, as conducing to their especial glory, the injunctions issued against their errors by Catholic emperors.  But we remember that that time was fulfilled after the ascension of our Lord, of which holy Scripture is known by all to be a witness.  The Jews thought that they were doing a service to God when they put the apostles to death.  Among those who thought that they were showing service to God was even our Saul, though not ours as yet; so that among his causes for confidence which were past and to be forgotten, he enumerates the following:  "An Hebrew," he says, "of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church."^22512251     Phil. iii. 5, 6.   Here was one who thought that he did God service when he did what presently he suffered himself.  For forty Jews bound themselves by an oath that they would slay him, when he caused that this should be made known to the tribune, so that under the protection of a guard of armed men he escaped their snares.^22522252     Acts xxiii. 12-33.   But there was no one yet to say to him, What have you to do (not with kings, but) with tribunes and the arms of kings?  There was no one to say to him, Dare you seek protection at the hand of soldiers, when your Lord was dragged by them to undergo His sufferings?  There were as yet no instances of madness such as yours; but there were already examples being prepared, which should be sufficient for their refutation.

207.  Moreover, with what terrible force did you venture to set forth and utter the following:  "But to say nothing of ancient examples, observe, from instances taken from your own party, how very many of your emperors and judges have perished in persecuting us."  When I read this in your letter, I waited with the most earnest expectation to see what you were going to say, and whom you were going to enumerate, when, lo and behold! as though passing them over; you began to quote to me Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Geta, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Maximian.  I acknowledge that there were more; but you have altogether forgotten against whom you are 582arguing.  Were not all of these pagans, persecuting generally the Christian name on behalf of their idols?  Be vigilant, then; for the men whom you mention were not of our communion.  They were persecuting the whole aggregate of unity itself, from which we as you think, or you, as Christ teaches, have gone forth.  But you had proposed to show that our emperors and judges had perished in consequence of persecuting you.  Or is it that you yourself do not require that we should reckon these, because, in mentioning them, you passed them over, saying, "To pass over Nero;" and with this reservation did you mean to run through all the rest?  What then was the use of their being quoted, if they had nothing to do with the matter?  But what has it to do with me?  I now join with you in leaving these.  Next, let that larger number which you promised to us be produced, unless, indeed, it may be that they cannot be found, inasmuch as you said that they had perished.

208.  For now you go on to make mention of the bishops whom you are wont to accuse of having delivered up the sacred books, concerning whom we on our part are wont to answer:  Either you fail in your proof, and so it concerns no one at all; or you succeed and then it still has no concern with us.  For they have borne their own burden, whether it be good or bad; and we indeed believe that it was good.  But of whatever character it was, yet it was their own; just as your bad men have borne their own burden, and neither you theirs nor they yours.  But the common and most evil burden of you all is schism.  This we have already often said before.  Show us, therefore, not the names of bishops, but the names of our emperors and judges, who have perished in persecuting you.  For this, is what you had proposed, this is what you had promised, this is what you had caused us most eagerly to expect.  "Hear," he says, "Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and all your counts perished in like manner, by the vengeance of God."  You have mentioned only two by name, and neither of them was emperor.  Who would be satisfied with this, I ask?  Are you not utterly dissatisfied with yourself?  You promise that you will mention a vast number of emperors and judges of our party who perished in persecuting you; and then, without a word of emperors, you mention two who were either judges or counts.  For as to what you add, "And all your counts perished in like manner by the vengeance of God," it has nothing to do with the matter.  For on this principle you might some time ago have closed your argument, without mentioning the name of any one at all.  Why then have you not made mention of our emperors, that is to say, of emperors of our communion?  Were you afraid that you should be indicted for high treason?  Where is the fortitude that marks the Circumcelliones?  And further, what do you mean by introducing those whom you mentioned above in such numbers?  They might with more right say to you, Why did you seek us out?  For they did nothing to assist your cause, and yet you mentioned them by name.  What kind of man, then, must you be, who fear to mention those by name, who, as you say, have perished?  At any rate, you might mention more of the judges and counts, of whom you seem to feel no fear.  But yet you stopped at Macarius and Ursacius.  Are these two whom you mention the vast number of whom you spoke?  Are you thinking of the lesson which we learned as boys?  For if you were to ask of me what number two is, singular or plural, what could I answer, except that it was plural?  But even so I am still not without the means of reply.  I take away Macarius from your list; for you certainly have not told us how he perished.  Or do you maintain that any one who persecutes you, unless he be immortal on the face of this earth, is to be deemed when he dies to have died because of you?  What if Constantine had not lived to enjoy so long a reign, and such prolonged prosperity, who was the first to pass many decrees against your errors?  And what if Julian, who gave you back the basilicas, had not been so speedily snatched away from life?^22532253     The reign of Constantine lasted about thirty-two years, from 306 to 337 A.D.  Julian succeeded Constantius, and reigned one year and seven months, dying at the age of thirty, in a war against the Persians, in 363 A.D.   In that case, when would you make an end of talking such nonsense as you do, seeing that even now you are unwilling to hold your tongues?  And yet neither do we say that Julian died so soon because he gave back the basilicas to you.  For we might be equally prolix with you in this, but we are unwilling to be equally foolish.  Well, then, as I had begun to say, from these two we will take away Macarius.  For when you had mentioned the names of two, Macarius and Ursacius, you repeated the name of Ursacius with the view of showing us how he deserved his death; and you said, "For Ursacius was slain in a battle with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb from limb."  Whence it is quite clear, since it is your custom to excite greater odium against us on account of Macarius, insomuch that you call 583us not Ursacians but Macarians, that you would have been sure to say by far the most concerning him, had you been able to say anything of the sort about his death.  Of these two, therefore, when you used the plural number, if you take away Macarius, there remains Ursacius alone, a proper name of the singular number.  Where is therefore the fulfillment of your threatening and tremendous promise of so many who should support your argument?

209.  By this time all men who are in any degree acquainted with the meaning of words must understand, it seems to me, how ridiculous it is that, when you had said, "Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and all your counts perished in like manner, by the vengeance of God," as though men were calling upon you to prove the fact, whereas, in reality, neither hearer nor reader was calling on you for anything further whatsoever, you immediately strung together a long argument in order to prove that all our counts perished in like manner by the vengeance of God.  "For Ursacius," you say, "was slain in a battle with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb from limb."  In the same way, any one else, who was similarly ignorant of the meaning of what he says, might assert that all your bishops perished in prison by the vengeance of God; and when asked how he could prove this fact, he might at once add, For Optatus, having been accused of belonging to the company of Gildo, was put to death in a similar way.  Frivolous charges such as these we are compelled to listen to, to consider, to refute; only we are apprehensive for the weak, lest, from the greater slowness of their intellect, they should fall speedily into your toils.  But Ursacius, of whom you speak, if it be the case that he lived a good life, and really died as you assert, will receive consolation from the promise of God, who says, "Surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it."^22542254     Gen. ix. 5.

210.  But as to the calumnious charges which you bring against us, saying that by us the wrath of the kings of the world is excited against you, so long as we do not teach them the lesson of holy Scripture, but rather suggest our own desire of war, I do not imagine that you are so absolutely deaf to the eloquence of the sacred books themselves as that you should not rather fear that they should be acquainted with it.  But whether you so will or no, they gain entrance to the Church; and even if we hold our tongues, they give heed to the readers; and, to say nothing of the rest, they especially listen with the most marked attention to that very psalm which you quoted.  For you said that we do not teach them, nor, so far as we can help it, allow them to become acquainted with the words of Scripture:  "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth.  Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling.  Take hold of instruction lest the Lord be angry,^22552255     Ps. ii. 10-12. etc.  Believe that even this is sung, and that they hear it.  But, at any rate, they hear what is written above in the same psalm, which you, unless I am mistaken, were only unwilling to pass over, for fear you should be understood to be afraid.  They hear therefore this as well "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee.  Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."^22562256     Ps. ii. 7, 8.   On hearing which, they cannot but marvel that some should be found to speak against this inheritance of Christ, endeavoring to reduce it to a little corner of the earth; and in their marvel they perhaps ask, on account of what they hear in what follows, "Serve the Lord with fear," wherein they can serve Him, in so far as they are kings.  For all men ought to serve God,—in one sense, in virtue of the condition common to them all, in that they are men; in another sense, in virtue of their several gifts, whereby this man has one function on the earth, and that man has another.  For no man, as a private individual, could command that idols should be taken from the earth, which it was so long ago foretold should come to pass.^22572257     Isa. ii. 18; Zech. xiii. 2.   Accordingly, when we take into consideration the social condition of the human race, we find that kings, in the very fact that they are kings, have a service which they can render to the Lord in a manner which is impossible for any who have not the power of kings.

211.  When, therefore, they think over what you quote, they hear also what you yourself quoted concerning the three children, and hear it with circumstances of marvellous solemnity.  For that same Scripture is most of all sung in the Church at a time when the very festal nature of the season excites additional fervor even in those who, during the rest of the year, are more given to be sluggish.  What then do you think must be the feelings of Christian emperors, when they hear of the three children being cast into the burning fiery furnace because they were unwilling to 584consent to the wickedness of worshipping the image of the king,^22582258     Simulacri; and so the Mss.  The older editions have "adorandi simulacra;" but the singular is more forcible in its special reference to the image on the plain of Dura.  Dan. iii. unless you suppose that they consider that the pious liberty of the saints cannot be overcome either by the power of kings, or by any enormity of punishment, and that they rejoice that they are not of the number of those kings who used to punish men that despised idols as though they were guilty of sacrilege?  But, further, when they hear in what follows that the same king, terrified by the marvellous sight of, not only the three children, but the very flames performing service unto God, himself too began to serve God in fear, and to rejoice with reverence, and to lay hold of instruction, do they not understand that the reason that this was recorded, and set forth with such publicity, was that an example might be set both before the servants of God, to prevent them from committing sacrilege in obedience to kings, and before kings themselves, that they should show themselves religious by belief in God?  Being willing, therefore, on their part, from the admonition of the very psalm which you yourself inserted in your writings, both to be wise, and to receive instruction, and to serve God with fear and to rejoice unto Him with reverence, and to lay hold of instruction, with what attention do they listen to what that king said afterwards!  For he said that he would make a decree for all the people over whom he ruled, that whosoever should speak blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should perish, and their house be utterly destroyed.  And if they know that he made this decree that blasphemy should not be uttered against the God who tempered the force of the fire, and liberated the three children, they surely go on to consider what decrees they ought to make in their kingdom, that the same God who has granted remission of sins, and given freedom to the whole earth, should not be treated with scorn among the faithful in their realm.

212.  See therefore, when Christian kings make any decree against you in defence of Catholic unity, that it be not the case that with your lips you are accusing them of being unlearned, as it were, in holy Scripture, while in your hearts you are grieving that they are so well acquainted with its teaching.  For who could put up with the sacrilegious and hateful fallacy which you advance in the case of one and the same Daniel, to find fault with kings because he was cast into the den of lions, and to refuse praise to kings in that he was raised to exalted honor, seeing that, even when he was cast into the den of lions, the king himself was more inclined to believe that he would be safe than that he would be destroyed, and, in anxiety for him, refused to eat his food?  And then do you dare to say to Christians, "What have you to do with the kings of the world?" because Daniel suffered persecution at a king’s hands, and yet not look back upon the same Daniel faithfully interpreting dreams to kings, calling a king lord, receiving gifts and honors from a king?  And so again do you dare, in the case of the aforesaid three children, to excite the flames of odium against kings, because, when they refused to worship the statue, they were cast into the flames, while at the same time you hold your tongue, and say nothing about their being thus extolled and honored by the king?  Granted that the king was a persecutor when he cast Daniel into the lions’ den; but when, on receiving him safely out again, in his joy and congratulations he cast in his enemies to be torn in pieces and devoured by the same lions, what was he then,—a persecutor, or not?^22592259     Dan. ii.-vi.   I call on you to answer me.  For if he was, why did not Daniel himself resist him, as he might so easily have done in virtue of his great friendship for him, while yet you bid us restrain kings from persecuting men?  But if he was not a persecutor, because he avenged with prompt justice the outrage committed against a holy man, what kind of vengeance, I would ask, must be exacted from kings for indignities offered to the sacraments of Christ, if the limbs of the prophet required such a vengeance because they were exposed to danger?  Again, I acknowledge that the king, as indeed is manifest, was a persecutor when he cast the three children into the furnace because they refused to worship his image; but I ask whether he was still a persecutor when he set forth the decree that all who should blaspheme against the one true God should be destroyed, and their whole house laid waste?  For if he was a persecutor, why do you answer Amen to the words of a persecutor?^22602260     This is illustrated by the words of Augustin, Epist. 105, ad Donatistas, c. I. 7:  "Do ye not know that the words of the king were:  ‘I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.  How great are His signs! and how mighty are His wonders!  His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion from generation to generation’ (Dan. iv. 2, 3)?  Do you not, when you hear this, answer Amen, and by saying this in a loud voice, place your seal on the king’s decree by a holy and solemn act?"  In the Gothic liturgy this declaration was made on Easter Eve (when the third chapter of Daniel is still read in the Roman Church), and the people answered "Amen."   But if he was not a persecutor, why do you call those persecutors who deter you from the madness of blasphemy?  For if they compel you to worship an idol, then they 585are like the impious king, and you are like the three children; but if they are preventing you from fighting against Christ, it is you who are impious if you attempt to do this.  But what they may be if they forbid this with terrible threats, I do not presume to say.  Do you find some other name for them, if you will not call them pious emperors.

213.  If I had been the person to bring forward these examples of Daniel and the three children, you would perhaps resist, and declare that they ought not to have been brought from those times in illustration of our days; but God be thanked that you yourself brought them forward, to prove the point, it is true, which you desired to establish, but you see that their force was rather in favor of what you least would wish to prove.  Perhaps you will say that this proceeds from no deceit of yours, but from the fallibility of human nature.  Would that this were true!  Amend it, then You will not lose in reputation nay, it marks unquestionably the higher mind to extinguish the fire of animosity by a frank confession, than merely to escape the mist of falsehood by acuteness of the understanding.