A

DISCOURSE

ON THE ATTEMPT OF THE EMPEROR

JULI A N

TO REBUILD THE

TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM.

BOOK II.

AVING now so well established the MIRACLE,

HA

we have little need to inquire into the objections. that may be made to it, any further than as we may be led by our own curiosity, or inclined to gratify the curiosity of others, in seeing how far the capricious. ness of wanton wit can go in its frolics towards perplexing the plainest and inost evident of useful truths.

CHAP. I. ·

FIRST then it may be objected, "That the credit of the miracle rests entirely on the truth of this supposition, That the holy oracles of God have declared, that the Jewish Temple should never be rebuilt: For if this were not predicted, the restoration of it did not impeach the divine veracity; nor, `consequently, was its honour concerned in frustrating the

attempt.

attempt. Now the word of God no where says that the Jewish Temple should never be rebuilt; on the contrary, it insinuates that it should. It predicts, in general terms, the total, but not final destruction of the Temple; and, in express words, says, That Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles UNTIL the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Which imply there was to be a period to the desolation, though the time be so obscurely marked as to make the fixing it uncertain."

The objection is plausible, and well deserves a solution. On which account (the method of the Discourse concurring) it was thought proper to obviate it in the very entrance on this argument: where it is shewn, from the nature of the Jewish and Christian religions, that the total destruction, mentioned in the Prophecies, necessarily implied a final one: For that, in the order of God's dispensations, the Jewish and the Christian Religions could never stand together: when This became established, That was to be done away. But while the temple remained, Judaism still existed when That was overthrown, the religion fell with it; and consequently must rise again with the temple. But as this religion was not to rise while Christianity continued, the Temple was never to be restored. The consequence of all is, that, if it were restored, Christianity could no longer support its pretensions, nor the prophets nor Jesus the truth of their predictions.

CHAP. II.

SECONDLY, The testimony of Amm. Marcellinus, decisive as it is, hath been cavilled. It is

suspected,

suspected, "That He is no original Evidence; but hath taken the account, he gives us of what then passed at Jerusalem, from the Christian writers: the work in which we find it being composed near twenty years after the event, when the fathers had turned what there was of the natural fact into a miracle; and, by their declamatory eloquence, had made it famous throughout the now believing empire."

This objection abounds with absurdities: but it is not of my invention.

It supposes Marcellinus to have taken his account from the Christian writers, because there were no other to be had: for if there were other, then the Historian's authority does not rest on their testimony; or, if it does, it rests on a good foundation, the evidence of Christian writers, supported by the Pagan. But is it likely that an unbeliever, a man of sense, and a lover of truth, should so confide in those of the new persuasion, speaking in their own cause, and unsupported by other evidence, as to deliver a fact, in terms of absolute certainty which discredited a religion he reverenced, and a master he idolized? Could we, under these circumstances, suppose him capable of preserving the memory of so unsupported a story, we should at least look to find it delivered in such terms of doubt and suspicion as he must needs think were justly due unto it.

But the Objector * seems to have attended as little to the situation and circumstances, as to the character of the Historian. When this event happened at Jerusalem, Ammianus was not in winter-q arters afar off in Gaul or Germany; but near at hand, in the emperor's court at Antioch, and in an office of distinction. The objector, I suppose, will allow that Julian made

VOL. VIII.

* Lr. S.

H

the

the attempt. The attempt, I have shewn, was in its nature, such as must draw the attention of the whole empire upon it. Ammianus represents it as one of the most considerable enterprises of his master's reign; and that it was projected to perpetuate his memory. It miscarried. And is it possible the cause of the miscarriage could, at that time, be more a secret to him than the undertaking? Yet, if we believe the objector, the first news he heard of it was from the Christian Priests. Be it so. I ask no more, to shew the objection devoid of all common sense. A courtier

of credit, a curious observer of what passed about him, hears nothing of what happened in his neighbourhood, at the time it did happen, though in an affair that engaged all men's attention. Many years after, in hunting for materials to compose his history, he starts this story. And where, I pray, does he find it! Why truly, skulking in the cover of a thorny and perplext invective, or flaunting amongst the meretricious ornaments, and on the authority, of loose and prejudiced declaimers, records it, in his Annals, as a fact unquestionable. Not, as was said, to derive credit to his master or his religion, but to entail eternal dishonour upon both: and all this without giving either of them the least relief; as was easy to be done by only telling from whom he had his story.

In a word, we see, the objection arises out of this circumstance, The distance of time between the fact and the historian's account of it. But such a circumstance can never support a conclusion of this nature, but in the case where a writer, who had an occasion to record a memorable fact at the time it happened, omits to do so; and afterwards, at the distance of many years, sticks it into his history, without any reason given for his preceding silence. But this was

not the case here: Amm. Marcellinus tells the story as soon as ever he had an opportunity of so doing; which was when he retired from business to write history. And the distance between that and the event is so far from taking from the credit of his relation, that, as was observed, it adds greatly to it.

For we cannot but conclude, that as a soldier and man of business, he kept a journal of every thing that passed; though we should not suppose, what is equally probable, that as a lover of letters he had very early formed his design of writing history. In what, therefore, concerned the transactions of those times, he had a sure and easy way of coming to the truth; which was by comparing his own diary with the later, and better digested, accounts of others But indeed the nature of the fact, and the quality of the writer, shew us, there was little danger of mistake. An authentic account of this whole matter was doubtless amongst the papers of state; to all which our historian had free access. And if we should suppose his rela tion to be no other than a faithful abstract of Alypius's letter to Julian, we should not, I believe, be a great way from the truth. It is certain, that a prudent historian, circumstanced as Marcellinus then was, could not have acted a wiser part than to relate so nice an adventure in the very words of the person, to whose conduct it was committed: for in so doing, he found himself in that rare situation of adherence strictly to truth, without offending either of the parties who then strove for the possession of it. We may further observe, that this supposition clears up another objection which has been made to his narrative. For,

Thirdly, we are told, "that the testimony of Marcellinus does but half our business; for though he gives

H 2