Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 18 part 10/17

What shall I say of his son Joseph, who, after the tribulation of prison, whereby his chastity was tried as gold by fire, being exalted by him to great honours, swore even by the health of Pharaoh — not as one puffed up with pride, but as one not ungrateful for goodwill? A king's daughter adopted Moses. David, compelled by iniquity, fled for refuge to the foreign king of Israel. Elijah ran before the chariot of a most wicked king, not by that king's command, but by his own homage. Elisha thought that whatever he might perhaps wish to be granted him by the king through her intercession should even be offered unbidden to the woman who was his hostess. But now I will come to those very times when the people of God were held captive, where — to speak more mildly — a strange forgetfulness has crept over you.

For, wishing to prove that Christianity has never found kings other than envious, you mentioned the three boys and Daniel, and what they suffered from persecuting kings; yet by the very facts — not by neighbouring matters, but plainly by these very ones — you could not be admonished: what manner of king the very same one showed himself, after the miracle of the innocent flames, whether in praising and proclaiming God, or in honouring the boys themselves; what manner of Daniel the king had — one who did not refuse — and with what gifts he adorned him, when Daniel, rendering the honour due to the royal power (as sufficiently appears in his words), did not withhold the gift of God with which he was endowed, by pointing out and interpreting the king's dream.

Hence, when the king was reluctantly compelled by envious men, who slandered the holy man with sacrilegious madness, to cast him into the lions' den — although he did it with sorrow — he yet presumed that Daniel would be safe through the help of his God. And so, when Daniel, the rage of the lions being divinely restrained, had survived unharmed, the king's own solicitous and friendly voice being first sent ahead to him, he too answered from the den with a blessing: 'O king, live for ever.' Why did you either not see, or would not see, these friendships of kings with the saints — when your discourse was engaged upon this very theme, when you yourself were recalling the examples of these very servants of God in whom these things were done — or, in a way I know not how you can excuse, keep silent about things you had seen and marked?

But if the zeal for establishing falsehood, as a defender of a most evil cause, did not hinder you and, unwilling or unwitting, turn you away from the light of truth, you would assuredly recall, without any difficulty, that some kings were good and some evil, and some friends of the saints, others enemies. And do we wonder that your Circumcellions cast themselves down so? Who was running after you, I beseech you? What Macarius, what soldier was pursuing you? Surely no one of us drove you into the precipice of this falsehood. Why, then, with closed eyes were you so headlong that, when you had said 'But what have you to do with the kings of the world,' you did not add 'whom Christianity has often found envious,' but did not hesitate to say:

'whom Christianity has never found other than envious'? Did you then neither yourself reflect, nor suppose that those who should read your writings would reflect, on so many examples of kings crying out against you: 'He knows not what he says'? Or, because those whom I have mentioned belonged to ancient times, do you therefore think they are no obstacle to you, since you did not say 'whom justice has never found other than envious,' but said 'whom Christianity has never found other than envious' — wishing them perhaps to be understood as envying the just from that time when they began to be called Christians? What then do the examples of ancient times mean to you, by which you wished more imprudently to teach that which you imprudently said?

For did not the Maccabees, or the three boys, or Daniel, either do those things or endure them before Christ was born on earth? Then, as for the one whom I mentioned a little before, why did you make supplication to Julian, who was truly envious of Christianity? Why did you seek basilicas from him? Why did you say that with him justice alone had place? If an enemy of Christianity hears these things, what are those from whom he hears them? But Constantine, in no way envious of the Christian name, but plainly glorious in the Christian name, mindful of the hope he bore in Christ, judging most justly on behalf of his unity, deserved to be appealed to by you, though you did not appeal to him. Both belonged now to Christian times, but both were not Christians.

But if both were enemies of Christianity, why did you appeal to one of them thus, and supplicate the other thus? For when your elders petitioned, Constantine had granted an episcopal judgment both at Rome and at Arles; and of these you first accused the party before him at Rome, and from the other tribunal you appealed to him. But if, as is the truth, one of them had believed in Christ while the other had apostatized from Christ, why is the Christian who looks after unity despised, and the apostate who favors division praised? Constantine ordered your basilicas to be taken from you, Julian ordered them restored: do you wish to know which of these accords with Christian peace? The former was done by him who had believed in Christ, the latter by him who had forsaken Christ. Oh how you would wish to say:

'It was ill done that Julian should be supplicated in this way!' But what does this concern us? Yet if you said so, even in these very words of yours the Catholic Church would prevail—she to whose saints spread throughout the whole world it pertains far less, whatever you say about whomever you please, however you please. But you cannot say that it was ill done to supplicate Julian in this way. Domestic authority stops your throat and presses down your tongue: Pontius did it, Pontius supplicated, Pontius called the apostate most just, Pontius proclaimed that with the apostate alone justice had a place. In these very words Julian himself, in his own rescript, expressly and by name and without ambiguity, declared that Pontius had supplicated him. Your allegations survive; not uncertain rumor but public records bear witness to this.

Or perhaps, because the apostate granted something against the unity of Christ in answer to your petition, you think it true what was said—that with him alone justice had a place; whereas the Christian emperors, because they decree against your will what they judge to avail for the unity of Christ, are called enemies of Christianity? So let all heretics lose their wits, and let them recover them so as to be heretics no longer. 'And where,' you will say, 'has that been fulfilled which the Lord says: The time will come when whoever kills you will think that he is doing a service to God?

For this could not have been said of the pagans, who persecuted the Christians not for the sake of God but for the sake of idols.' Do you not see that, if this had been said of those emperors who rejoice in the Christian name, they would above all have chiefly commanded this—that you be killed? Which they have never in any way commanded; rather it is your own people who, resisting the laws in hostile fashion, pay the penalties they owe, and, while they think their voluntary deaths odious to us, do not think them ruinous to themselves. But if they suppose that saying of the Lord was spoken concerning kings who honor the name of Christ, let them inquire what the Catholic Church endured in the East, when Valens the Arian reigned. Behold, I would have the means to understand fulfilled what the Lord says:

The time will come when whoever kills you will think he is doing a service to God—lest the heretics claim it for the glory of their reputation, if the Catholic emperors have decreed anything against their error. Yet we remember that that time was fulfilled after the Lord's ascension: holy Scripture, known to all, is witness to this matter. The Jews thought they were doing a service to God when they killed the apostles. Among these who supposed they were rendering a service to God was even our Saul—not yet ours—so that he numbers this among his past and to-be-forgotten boasts: A Hebrew, he says, of the Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee, according to zeal persecuting the Church.

Behold, one who thought he was doing a service to God when he did the very thing he himself soon after suffered. For forty Jews had conspired to kill him, when he caused this to be made known to the tribune, so that, surrounded by armed soldiery, he might escape their ambush. But there was not yet anyone to say to him: 'What have you to do, not with kings, but with tribunes and royal arms?' There was no one to say to him: 'Do you dare to seek protection through soldiers, when your Lord was led through them to His passion?' Such ravings did not yet exist; but against these things to come, even then those examples were being prepared. Nay, you have even dared to set forth in terrifying fashion and to say:

'But to pass over ancient examples, mark in your own instances how very many of your emperors and your judges have perished for making persecution against us.' When I had read this in your letter, I most attentively awaited what you were going to say and whom you would enumerate—when behold, as if by way of dismissing them, you began to mention Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Geta, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Maximian. I admit these are many; but you have utterly forgotten against whom you are speaking. Were not all these pagans, and did they not universally persecute the Christian name for the sake of their idols? Wake up then; for these were not of our communion.

They were persecuting that very unity in its entirety—whether the unity from which we came, as you suppose, or the unity from which you departed, as Christ teaches. But you had proposed to show that our emperors and judges perished for making persecution against you. Or do you not even require us to count these men, since in mentioning them you dismissed them, saying: 'to pass over Nero,' and under that dismissal you ran through the rest? What need was there, then, to mention men who have no bearing on the matter? But what is that to me? Now I too leave these to you; now at least let those come forward whom you promised—'the very many.' Unless perhaps they are not found for this reason, that you said they had perished. For you go on now and name bishops, whom you are wont to accuse of the surrender of the codices.

Concerning whom we too are wont to reply: 'Either you do not prove it, and it concerns no one; or you prove it, and it does not concern us.' For each bore his own burden, whether good or bad; and the good indeed we believe, but of whatever sort, still their own—just as your evil men bore neither ours nor you theirs; but the common and most wicked burden of you all is schism. These things we have already often said. Produce, then, not the names of bishops, but of our emperors and judges who perished by persecuting you. For this you had proposed, this you had promised, to this you had made us most attentive. 'Hear,' you say: 'Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and all your companions likewise perished by the vengeance of God.' You have mentioned two only, of whom neither was an emperor.

Whom does this please, I ask you? Are you not yourself displeased with yourself? You promise to mention very many of our emperors and judges who perished by persecuting you, and, with the emperors passed over in silence, you name two men—whether judges or counts. For what you add: 'and all your companions likewise perished by the vengeance of God,' has no bearing on the matter. In this manner you might long ago have brought this passage to an end, so as to name absolutely no one. Why then did you not mention our emperors, that is, of our communion? Or did you fear you would be accused of treason? Where is the Circumcellion courage? Next, what do you make of those whom you named above in such numbers, who can more rightly say to you:

'Why were you seeking us?' For they helped your cause in nothing, and yet they were named. Next, what sort of man are you, who are afraid to name those whom you record as having perished? At least you might have named more of the judges or counts themselves, whom you evidently did not fear. But you have come to a halt at Macarius and Ursacius. Are those two, then, the 'very many'? Or do you know what we learned as boys? For if you were to ask me what number 'two' is, singular or plural, what should I answer but plural? Yet even to this I do not lack something to say. I take Macarius out of the reckoning; for you did not say how he perished. Or perhaps whoever persecutes you, unless he be immortal in this land, will—when he dies—be thought to have died on your account?

What if Constantine, who first decreed many things against your error, had not lived through so long a reign and so long a felicity; and what if Julian, who gave you your basilicas, had not been so quickly snatched from life—when would you keep silent from prattling these things, since even now you refuse to be silent? Yet we do not say that Julian died quickly for the reason that he gave you the basilicas. For we could be equally copious in these matters, but we do not wish to be equally vain. Accordingly, as I had begun to say, of those two men I set Macarius apart. For when you had proposed two, himself and Ursacius, you repeated the name of Ursacius, to show us what death he had deserved, and you said:

'For Ursacius, laid low in barbarian battle, was torn apart by the savage talons of birds and by the greedy teeth and bites of dogs.' From which it appears plainly enough that—since you are wont to stir up greater odium concerning Macarius, so that you call us Macarians and not Ursacians—you would most assuredly have spoken most of all about him, if you had been able to say anything of that sort about his death. And so, of these two, where you set down the plural number, once Macarius is separated off, there remains Ursacius, a proper name of the singular number. Where then is that so menacing and dreadful promise of those 'very many'? And now, how ridiculous this is—as those who have learned to speak at all, I suppose, understand well enough—that, when you had said:

'Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and all your companions likewise perished by the vengeance of God,' then—as though we were demanding that you prove it, whereas in truth neither hearer nor reader would demand anything else—you at once appended a great proof, by which you would show that all our companions likewise perished by the vengeance of God. 'For Ursacius,' you say, 'laid low in barbarian battle, was torn apart by the savage talons of birds and by the greedy teeth and bites of dogs.' In this same manner another, likewise not knowing what he is saying, might say that all your bishops perished in prison by the vengeance of God, and when it is demanded of him whence he proves this, might at once add: 'For Optatus, accused of belonging to the retinue of Gildo, was destroyed by such a kind of death.'

We are compelled to hear these trifles, and to sift and refute them; so greatly do we fear for the weak, lest, with their duller understanding, they run swiftly into your snares. But as for this Ursacius, if by chance he lived well and truly died in that way, the promise of God will console him, who says: I will require the blood of your souls at the hands of all the beasts. As for the calumny you cast upon us, saying that by us the kings of this world are stirred up to wrath against you, since we do not teach them the divine Scripture but rather suggest to them our malice—I do not think that they are so deaf to the very words of the holy codices that you should not rather fear lest they know them.

But whether you will or not, they enter the church, and even if we are silent they lend an ear to the readers and—to say nothing of the rest—they most attentively receive this very psalm which you cited. For you said that we do not teach them, nor allow them, though willing, to know what is written: And now, O kings, understand; be instructed, you who judge the earth; serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice in Him with trembling; lay hold of instruction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and the rest. Believe that these things too are sung, and that those kings hear them; but assuredly they also hear that earlier passage in the same psalm which you, unless I am mistaken, were unwilling to pass over precisely lest you should be understood to have feared it. They hear, then, this too: The Lord said to me:

You are my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession. Having heard this, they surely marvel that there are any who contradict this inheritance of Christ and try to reduce it to a tiny part of the earth; and marveling, they perhaps ask, on account of what they hear in what follows: Serve the Lord in fear—in what way they may serve Him, insofar as they are kings. For all men ought to serve God: in one way by the common condition in which they are men, in another way by their diverse gifts, since one man does one thing in human affairs, another another. For no private person could command that idols be removed from the earth—which was foretold so long before to come to pass.

Kings, then, apart from their fellowship in the human race, possess—by the very fact that they are kings—a means by which they may so serve the Lord as those who are not kings cannot. When they consider these things, then, they also hear that passage about the three young men which you yourself cited; and they hear it with wondrous solemnity. For that very Scripture is chanted most of all in the church at the time when the festival itself makes even those more fervent who are more sluggish the rest of the year.

What state of mind, then, do you suppose Christian emperors have, when they hear of the three young men cast into the furnace of burning fire because they refused to consent to the king in the wickedness of worshiping an image, except that they should consider that the holy men's pious liberty could be overcome neither by royal power nor by the cruelty of punishment; and that they should rejoice that they are not of the number of such kings, who punished the despisers of idols as though they were sacrilegious?

Furthermore, when in what follows they hear that the same king, terrified by so great a miracle of the young men and even of the flames serving God, himself too began to serve God in fear and to rejoice with trembling and to lay hold of instruction—do they not understand that these things were therefore written down and recited with such great festivity, so that examples might be set forth both for the servants of God, that they should not yield to kings for sacrilege, and for the kings themselves, that they should in religion believe in God? Wishing, then, from the very admonition of the psalm which you too inserted in your writings, both to understand and to be instructed and to serve the Lord in fear and to rejoice with trembling and to lay hold of instruction, how attentively do these men hear what that king afterward said!

For he said that he would set forth a decree to all the peoples over whom he ruled, that whoever should speak blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should perish, and their houses be laid waste. And if they learn that he decreed this—that God, the temperer of fires and deliverer of the three young men, should not be blasphemed—assuredly they consider what they ought to decree in their own kingdom, lest that same God, the remitter of sins and now the deliverer of the whole world, should be blown upon in scorn among their own faithful. See, therefore, that when Christian kings decree anything against you on behalf of Catholic unity, you do not perhaps convict them on your lips as ignorant of the divine Scriptures, while in your heart you grieve that they are sufficiently learned.

For who could endure that sacrilegious and hateful deceit of yours—in the case of Daniel alone, to accuse kings because he was cast into the lions' den, and not to praise kings because he was sublimely honored, when even at the time he was cast in, the king himself believed that he would be saved rather than perish, and, anxious for him, did not dine? Then do you dare to say to Christians:

'What have you to do with the kings of this world?'—because Daniel suffered persecution from a king—and not to regard that same Daniel faithfully interpreting dreams for kings, calling him lord and king, receiving gifts and honors; and likewise, in the case of those same three young men, because—refusing to worship the statue—they were cast into the flames, to kindle the flames of odium against kings, but because by the king they were thus proclaimed and thus honored, to keep silent and to conceal it? Behold, the king was a persecutor when he threw Daniel to the lions: what then, when—Daniel being received back safe—he, rejoicing and giving thanks, sent Daniel's enemies to be torn to pieces and consumed by those same lions, was he a persecutor or was he not? I want you to answer.

For if he was, why did Daniel himself not resist him, especially since with such great familiarity he could most easily have done so? And you tell us to recall kings from the persecution of men! But if he was not a persecutor on that account—because he most justly avenged the crime committed against the holy man—how is it to be avenged by kings that the sacraments of Christ are blown upon in scorn, if the prophet's limbs, because they were sent into peril, deserved to be thus avenged? Again, I grant, and it is manifest, that the king was a persecutor when he cast the three young men into the flame because they refused to worship the image; but I ask whether he was a persecutor when he set forth that decree, that they should perish and their houses be laid waste who blasphemed the one true God.

For if he was a persecutor, why do you answer 'Amen' to the words of a persecutor? But if in this he was not, why do you call those persecutors who deter you from the frenzy of blasphemy? For if they compel you to supplicate an idol, they are like the impious king, and you are like the three young men; but if they forbid you to fight against Christ, you are the impious ones, if you do this. But what those men are, if they terribly forbid this, I do not say: find yourself something else to say, if you are unwilling to call the emperors pious. If I had cited these examples of Daniel and the three young men, perhaps you would resist and cry out that they ought not to be taken from those times into these our times. Thanks be to God, that you yourself set them down for the very thing you wished;

but you see that they have rather availed for the very thing you did not wish. Or is this not your deceit, but human error? Would that it were so! Amend it, then. Do not fear; you will not thereby be lessened; nay rather, it is the mark of a greater mind to extinguish by confession the flames of animosity, than by cleverness to avoid the mists of falsehood. Petilian said: Where is the law of God, where is your Christianity, if you commit and command slaughters and deaths? Augustine answered: To this, see what the co-heirs of Christ throughout the whole world say. We neither commit nor command slaughters and deaths; and you rage far more wickedly against those who do these things, you who commit these things in the minds of men against eternal life. Petilian said: If you wish us to be your friends, why do you drag us in unwilling?

But if you feign us to be enemies, why do you kill your enemies? Augustine answered: We neither drag in the unwilling nor kill enemies, but whatever we do with you—though we do it to you unwilling—we nevertheless do it out of charity, that you may willingly correct yourselves and, being corrected, may live. For no one avoids vices unwillingly: and yet a boy, in order that he may willingly learn this, is beaten unwilling, and that often by a most dear person. And these things indeed the kings would say to you, if they were to strike; for to this end their power has been divinely ordained. But when even they do not strike, you cry out. Petilian said: But what reason is there, or what inconstancy of vanity, that, while you call us heretics by a false name, you greatly desire our communion?

Augustine answered: If we greatly desired the communion of heretics, we should be unwilling that you be corrected from your heretical error; but since we do this with you—that you should not be heretics—how do we greatly desire the communion of heretics? For dissension and division make you heretics, but peace and unity make Catholics. When, therefore, you come hither from thence, you cease to be what we hate and begin to be what we love. Petilian said: Choose at last, of two things, which of them you say. If innocence is yours, why do you pursue us with the sword? Or if you call us guilty, why do you seek us who are innocent? Augustine answered: O most keen dilemma—or rather, most inept loquacity!

Is it not the custom to propose that one of two things be chosen as the answer, precisely where both cannot be chosen? For if you were to propose to me that I choose one of two things to say—whether we are innocent or guilty—or again, out of two others, whether you are guilty or are not—I could not but choose one thing to say. But now you propose these two: whether we are innocent or you are guilty, and you wish that I choose one of these two to answer. Yet I refuse to say one, because I say both—that we are innocent and that you are guilty.

We say that we are innocent of your false and calumnious accusations, whoever of us in the Catholic Church can say with a safe conscience that we neither surrendered the holy codices, nor consented to the supplications of idols, nor killed anyone, or whatever other evil you are wont to charge; and that those who by chance did these things—which indeed you have not even proved of them—shut the kingdom of heaven not against us, but against themselves, because each one of us bears his own burden—behold, you have one point—; and that you are all guilty and criminal, not by the crimes of some against others, which are committed among you by certain persons and reprehended by certain persons, but by the crime of schism, from which most monstrous sacrilege none of you can say he is exempt, so long as he does not

communicate with the unity of all nations, unless he be compelled to say of the Church—which is spread through all nations, beginning from Jerusalem—that Christ lied—behold, you have the other point. See, I have rendered you the two, of which you wished that we should say one. Surely you ought to have observed that both could be said by us, and at least, if you wished this, to have asked us to say one, since you saw that we could say both. 'But if innocence is yours,' you say, 'why do you pursue us with the sword?' Look for a moment at your own bands, which are armed not, after the ancient custom of their fathers, with clubs alone, but have added both axes and lances and swords; and recognize whose voice this ought rather to be: Why do you pursue us with the sword?

'Or if you call us guilty,' you say, 'why do you seek us who are innocent?' Here I answer briefly: for this reason are you sought as guilty by the innocent, that you may cease to be guilty and begin to be innocent. Behold, I have chosen both of ours and have answered both of yours. Now you choose one of the two: are you innocent or guilty? You cannot say both; but say both, if that pleases you. For assuredly you cannot in the same cause be innocent, in which you are guilty. If, then, you are innocent, do not marvel that you are sought for peace by brethren; but if guilty, do not marvel that you are sought for punishment by kings.