Изображения страниц

ginning of the fifth century. He " has an article for Julian; but does not say that he attempted to build the temple at Jerusalem, and was wonderfully defeated. He was greatly offended with Julian, and seems to aim to hint at all his incivilities to the christians, of which the attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem has been generally reckoned one; but yet says nothing of it.” If Julian had attempted to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, and had been defeated by a miraculous interposition, it was an event much to his purpose, and altogether suited to the great design of his history, and could not have been omitted by him. To me the silence of these three writers appears very remarkable. I do not know how others may be affected by it; but I acknowledge that I was much struck with it when I first observed it in my inquiries into this transaction. And I must now add farther, that I do not recollect, that Cyril of Alexandria, in his books against Julian, or in any other of his works elsewhere, has at all spoken of an attempt of that emperor to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and that he was miraculously defeated. What Zonaras says, in the 12th century, may likewise deserve notice. ‘He " gave leave to the Jews to rebuild the “temple at Jerusalem; and they having begun to build with ‘great labour, and at much expense, when they endea‘ voured to dig up the earth in order to lay the founda‘tion, it is said, that flames of fire burst out, and consumed “ the workmen, so that they were obliged to desist from the ‘ building.’ Let not any be offended, that I hesitate about this point; I think we ought not too easily to receive accounts of miraculous interpositions, which are not becoming the Divine Being. There are many things said of Julian, which all wise and good men do not believe. Julian, and his elder brother Gallus, as is said, while they were young, undertook to build a church over the sepulchre of a martyr, named Mamas, who had suffered at Caesarea, in Cappadocia. They divided the work between them, and both carried on their parts severally with great diligence. That part of the building which was the care of Gallus advanced prosperously; but some invisible power obstructed Julian's attempt; there was no fixing the foundations, the earth throwing up the stones again; or if any part of the building was raised up to some height, it was presently shattered and tumbled down to the ground. This is related by Gregory Nazianzen" as a miracle, and with great parade; and for the truth of it, he appeals to eye-witnesses. The same story is told by Sozomen; * who says, “there were ‘many still living, who received the account from those who ‘ saw it.’ It is also briefly related by Theodoret." Again, it is said, that when Julian was sacrificing, a cross within a circle was found impressed upon the entrails of the victim. This also is related by Gregory Nazianzen,8 and Sozomen." Both these accounts are scornfully rejected as monkish fables, by the truly learned and right reverend the lord bishop of Gloucester ; ; though, as he owns, ‘church ‘ history informs us of them.’ And very unfortunately, those observations are in the conclusion of a volume composed with great labour and zeal, in which divers other accounts are received, which are not more probable in their own nature, nor supported by better authority. The truth of history is not all affected by rejecting improbable relations; nor is the cause of christianity at all hurt by our refusing to assent to some things which christian writers have said of Julian. That he pretended favour for the Jews, and sometimes talked of rebuilding their city and their temple, is allowed; but that he actually attempted it, and ordered money for the work out of the public treasury, when he was setting out upon the Persian expedition, and that his attempt was frustrated by many miraculous interpositions, is not so certain. Though these things should be contested or denied, it can be of no bad consequence. Other histories, which are void of the like improbabilities, are not affected by it; and the evangelical history remains firm and inviolate, having in it all possible marks of truth and credibility. At the beginning of his discourse on the attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, his lordship says, “that * the evidence of the miracles recorded in ‘church history, doth not stand on the same foot of credit ‘with the miracles recorded in gospel history.’ As for the testimony of the two Jewish writers, upon which some insist, I have above put it down from Wagenseil's Tela Ignea Satanae; but I do not think the testimony of writers in the fifteenth or sixteenth century to be of much value. They appear to have borrowed from christian writers: therefore one of them calls the emperor Julian, the apostate. However, though they relied chiefly upon christian authors, they may have in part altered and perverted the christian accounts, to abate the reproach which this story, as told by them, casts upon the Jewish people. Nevertheless, that it may not be said I affect to slight what others reckon material, I shall now be a little more particular in my remarks upon those two Jewish testimoIn 16S, Rabbi David Gans, in the sixteenth century, says: ‘The ‘ emperor Julian' ordered, that the most holy temple should ‘ be rebuilt with great beauty and magnificence, at his own ‘ expense; but by interposition from heaven an impediment ‘ was thrown in the way, so that the building could not be ‘ finished ; for the emperor died in the Persian war.” This is very agreeable to what I have said; and may be thought to confirm my argument; but, indeed, I am not disposed to set much value upon so late a testimony. Rabbi Gadaliah, in the fifteenth century, says: “ In the ‘ days of R. Channan, " and his brethren, about the year ‘ of the world 4349, our annals tell us, that there was a ‘great earthquake over all the world : by which the temple, ‘ which the Jews had raised at Jerusalem, with vast expense, “at the command of the emperor Julian the apostate, was ‘thrown down. The next day after the earthquake, a dread‘ ful fire fell from heaven, by which all the iron-work of the “building [or “perhaps all the iron tools employed about ‘the work”] were melted, and many, yea, innumerable Jews ‘ were consumed.” Upon this account it appears to me very obvious to observe: First, this testimony is too late to be of any considerable value. Secondly, the author had his account from christian writers ; therefore he calls Julian the apostate. Thirdly, in some things, and as I suppose at will, and of his own invention, he differs from ancient christian writers. Fourthly, the account is confused, and in some respects ' Apud Wagenseil, p. 231. The words are cited above at note*, p. 610.

* Oros. l. vii. cap. 30. * Kat kar’ ax\ov Ós Tpotrow 6 (3aot)\svg rag Xpustavec (3\atrrew otrečačov– K. A. Socrat. l. iii. cap. 20. in p. 192. C. D. * Dr. Warburton, in his Julian, p. 118, mentions Orosius among other ancient writers who have borne testimony to this attempt. If that be right, I have overlooked the place. * Ośrog kat row sv ‘Ispoookvploug aveysupal vaow roug Iedatoic stretpelle. Koikeuvov a trečn troX\p kal psya)\atc Čatravaig Tng oucoöopmg apčapevov, kat opvrretv rmv ymv, sig karagoNny rov Sepowy struxelpavrov, Trvp \systal tww opvyplatov a6poov avačičous vov, karap\systv rag akatrovraç, dog avaykao0mvat avrag rmg otroëoung atrooxegoat. Zonar. Tom. 3. 21, 22.

* Gr. Naz. Or. 3. p. 59–61. * Soz. l. v. cap. 2. p. 594. A. * Theod. l. iii. cap. 2. § Gr. Naz. Or. 3. p. 70–77. * Sozom. l. v. cap. 2. p. 592. B. C. * See his Lordship's Julian, p. 319, 320. * Julian, p. 1.

* For the time of writing that work, and of Cyril's answer to it, see above, p. 601, 602.

manifestly false. He seems to say, that the temple “ had ‘ been built ’ at a great expense, and that after it had been built, it fell down, occasioned by an earthquake. Here he differs from christians, who speak only of an ‘attempt to raise the temple. And it is a falsehood; for it certainly was not rebuilt, or raised up in Julian's time. He also speaks of an earthquake “over all the world; ' which is his own invention, without any ground. Upon the whole, this account appears to me confused and absurd, as well as very late, and therefore of no authority; but, as I said before, let others judge. However I am of opinion, that if the christian testimonies fail, we are not to expect any thing relating to this event of much importance from the Jews. Finally, to put an end to these critical observations; Julian's favourable regards for the Jewish people, and his intention (or desire at least) to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and the temple there, are manifest, and fully attested by contemporary witnesses, and by his own writings: it is as manifest, that his design to rebuild Jerusalem and the Jewish temple was never accomplished, but was frustrated and defeated. Whether it was owing to miraculous interpositions, or to his expensive preparations for the Persian war, and other circumstances of his affairs, and to his death and defeat in that war; the overruling providence of God ought to be acknowledged in the event: and the argument for the truth of the christian religion, taken from the fulfilment of our Saviour's predictions in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the overthrow of the Jewish people by Vespasian and Titus, and their continued dispersion, remains in all its force. It is an argument which I never intended to weaken; it is, I think, a demonstrative argument for the truth of the christian religion; and, as I have often hinted in this work, deserving the attentive regard and serious consideration of all mankind. IV. I have now written the history of Julian, so far as I can suppose to be needful; I therefore proceed to a more particular account of his work against the christians, and to make extracts out of " it. 1. Cyril's answer to it consists of ten books; the first of which is an introduction of his own. In the second book he begins to make quotations from Julian's work; and from the many passages quoted from it by Cyril in his several books, it may be concluded, that Julian's performance was intended to be a laboured confutation both of judaism and christianity. 2. Julian's preface or introduction to his work, as we learn from Cyril, was in these words: “ I” think it right for me to show to all men the reasons, by which I have been convinced, that the religion of the Galileans is a human contrivance, badly put together, having in it nothing divine; but abusing the childish, irrational part of the soul, which delights in fable, they have introduced a heap of wonderful works, to give it the appearance of truth.” 3. Afterwards, and near the beginning of the work: “It" will be worth the while, he says, “to compare together the things said of the Deity by the Greeks and the Hebrews; and then we shall inquire of those, who are neither Greeks nor Jews, but of the sect of the Galileans, why they have referred their notions to ours; and then, why they have not stood to them neither, but forsaking them also, they have taken to a way peculiar to themselves; holding nothing good and valuable taught by us Greeks, or by the Hebrews, the disciples of Moses; but collecting what is bad in both, they have taken atheism from the Jewish absurdity, and a wicked dissolute life from our carelessness and indifference. And this they call a most excellent religion.’ 4. ‘That P Moses says, God was the God of Israel only, and of Judea, and that they were his chosen people, I shall demonstrate presently; and that not only he, but the prophets after him, and Jesus the Nazarene, say the same ; yea, and Paul also, who exceeded all the jugglers and impostors that ever were.” For this, he presently after allegeth, Exod. iv. 22, 23; v. 3; vii. 1. 5. Soon afterwards, Julian proceeds in this manner: “But ‘ that God from the beginning took care of the Jews only, and that they were his chosen lot, appears not only from Moses, and Jesus, but from Paul also ; though this may be justly thought strange in Paul; but upon every occasion, like a polypus upon the rocks, he changeth his notions of God : at one time affirming, that the Jews only are God’s heritage; at another time, to persuade the Greeks, and gain them over to his side, saying: “Is he the God of

" KaNog exsiv plot pauveral tag atttaç Ek0500at traow av0pwrotc., iiq' div streto.6mv, Ört twy Taxi\awy is okévopta TAaopia estv av000twv, Üto kakapytag ovvrš0sv' exaga psy 80s v Setov, atroXpmoapávn Ös top ptXoplv64), kat trauðapwóst, kat avomrp rmg puxng uoptq., tmw tepatoxoytav Elg trusty myayev axm{}stag. Cyril. contr. Julian. l. ii. p. 39. edit. Spanhem. ° Ibid. l. ii. p. 42, 43.

P ITAmv Črt ra IopamA avre pova 6801, Kat timg Iačatag, kat rareg, sk\skreg onaivetval, avrog re, kat of past’ &cstvov trgopmrat, kat Imoag ö Načapatoc, sortÖstéw' ax\a kat rov Tavrag travrax8 Tove Totors yonraç kai atrarewvac ūtrepòa)\\opsvov IsavXov. Contr. Jul. l. iii. p. 100. A.

° Lib. iii. p. 106. B–D.

* —-kai k\mpoc avrov yeyovsy Övrog &alperog. B.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »