tended to defer the re-establishment of the Jewish religion till that war was at an end. But his various attacks upon Christianity not succeeding to his hopes, he grew enraged by his defeat, and resolved to put this last effort of his malice in immediate execution.

We may be assured, this letter had brought the principal Jews, from all quarters of the world, to The manner in which he appeared to interest himself in their quarrel, could not but persuade them, that the apostate from Christianity was become more than half a proselyte to Judaism. While he, on his part, flattered himself, that those who adhered so obstinately to bloody sacrifices might be easily cajoled into idolatry.

These, apparently, were the men, then residing at court, and waiting for his favours, whom, Chrysostome and Gregory Nazianzen tell us, he called together, to inquire, Why they did not offer sacrifices as the law directed; at a time when the empire stood so much in need of the divine protection, and the emperor was so well disposed to implore it from all quarters. They replied, that it was not lawful to sacrifice but in the temple of Jerusalem only. This was what He would be at: so he took the advantage of their answer, to facilitate his secret purpose; which was to give the lie at once to all the prophets and messengers of God.

For

preserved, that the learned M. de la Bleterie is almost tempted, on this single circumstance, to give up the letter for a forgery. But he here forgets what he himself had before mentioned of the strange escapes of this fantastic monarch. "Saint Gregoire "Nazianze dit, que Julien chassoit à coups de pié & de poing "de pauvres gens qui venoient lui demander des graces. Ces “ pauvres gens (says M. de la Bleterie) pouvoient bien être des " DELATEURS." Vie de Julien, p. 314. 2d edit.

For we are by no means to suppose him so ignorant as not to know what the law in this case required. That very letter to the community plainly insinuates he did know it. His acquaintance with Scripture must have informed him of it: for if there was any part to which he would give greater attention than the rest, it was the ritual of sacrifices, a species of worship, to which he was inordinately addicted. Besides, in his discourse against the Christian Religion, he occasionally, but in express words, declares, that it was of the nature of the Mosaic Law, to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem only*. But as this discourse was written some time after the consultation in question, I would lay the less weight upon it.

However, no one, I think, can doubt, but that the whole conference was a farce; that Julian only wanted a screen for his impiety; and that the pretence of procuring the means of their intercession with the God of the universe, for the prosperity of the empire, was no other than a decent cover for putting this last effort of his malice in present execution. The Jews eagerly fell in with his project; and the issue was as we have related it.

This great event happened in the beginning of the year CCCLXIII, as appears from the words of Ammianus Marcellinus, quoted above. Julian, who then wintered at Antioch, was preparing for his Persian expedition; for which he did not set out till the month of March. So unexpected a traverse, we must suppose, would be immediately carried to him †, with all the circuinstances that attended it: Alypius could

*

Ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ τὴν κοινὴν θυσίαν εὑρόνες, ἐδὲν δεόμενοι τῆς Ιερεσαλήμ, ¿ïì río & Júsle; - apud Cyril, p. 306. Spanh. ed.

† ταῦτα ἔκασι μὲν Ιελιανός, Theod. 1. iii. c. 20.

not

not but assure him, that the repeated eruptions made it impracticable to persist in the attempt; and that the consumption of the materials utterly disabled his agents from speedily renewing it. What his first sentiments were, on this occasion, we have no certain or particular account: how he resented the disgrace in his cooler hours, I am now going to shew.

There is, amongst the writings of Julian, a notable fragment of an oration, or epistle, call it which you will, first given us by Petavius, wherein the emperor, with great abilities and learning, prescribes and marks out a method to reform Paganism, and set it up for a rival to the Gospel, in all the plausible pretences to piety and virtue. This, and his books against the Christian Religion, were the two master wheels of the same machine: the one was to degrade Christianity, the other to advance superstition: and therefore it is no wonder we find them written at the same time. St. Jerom expressly says*, that the books against our holy faith were composed during the Persian expedition. Libanius, indeed, intimates, they were written in his winter quarters at Antioch. Their

* Ep, lxxxiii. ad magnum oratorem. And his historian tells us, that, even to the last, while harassed with famine and the Persian cavalry, he continued to employ the silent hours of the night, in his usual sophistic exercises of reading and composing: which Ammianus, to do his master honour, says, was in imitation of Julius Cæsar.-Ipse autem ad sollicitam suspensamque quietem paulisper protractus, cum somno (ut solebat) depulso, ad æmulationem Cæsaris Julii quædam sub pellibus scribens, obscuro noctis, altitudine sensus cujusdam philosophi teneretur, vidit squalidius, ut confessus est proximis, speciem illam genii publici, &c, lib. xxv. c. 2, And it is not improbable but his favourite Libanius had those very writings in his eye, when he said that the life of his master, Julian, was then equally divided between his cares for religion and the state, Otros vág ἐσι ὁ μερίσας αὐτῷ τὸν βίον εἴς τε τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν ὅλων βαλὰς, εἴς τε τὰς Egì Bruès Aralpibás, De ulcisc. Julian, nece,

accounts

accounts may be easily reconciled, in supposing that this part was planned and begun before his remove. However, the other part, the directions for the reformation of Paganism, was as late as the Persian expedition; for this, we have the author's own word, where, speaking of the customary honours paid to the Gods, he says-" which not THREE years, nor says— "three thousand have established: but all past ages, amongst all the nations upon earth *." By the three years he evidently alludes to his restoration of idolatry; which, at any time sooner than the Persian expedition, was not intitled to so high a date. For he was first saluted Augustus in the spring of the year CCCLX, and the Persian expedition was in the spring CCCLXIII.

At this time, therefore, he had well digested his defeat at Jerusalem. What effects it left upon his temper, the following passage of this fragment will inform us; where, after having justified the Gods for suffering their temples, images, and most devout worshippers to be injuriously treated, he goes on thus:"Let no man, therefore, because he hath seen or "heard of those who have insulted their images and Temples, entertain any doubts concerning their "superintendency. For this reason too, let them not think to delude us with their sophistry, nor terrify us with the cry of Providence. For, the prophets amongst the Jews, who so much upbraid us with "these disasters, what will they say to their own "temple? that temple of theirs, which has been now

a third time destroyed †, and is not raised again

to

* τῆς ἐνομοθέτησαν ἐκ ἐνιαυλοὶ τρεῖς, ἐδὲ τρισχίλιοι πᾶς δὲ ὁ προλαβὼν αἱὼν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς τῆς γῆς ἔθνεσιν. p. 294. Spanh. Ed.

The learned J. A. Fabricius thinks this reírov aralgamíl

includes

"to this day. I say not this to upbraid them; for “I myself, after so long a desolation, would have "rebuilt it, in honour of the God which was there

worshipped. But I now mention it only as I was willing to shew, that nothing human is exempt "from the injuries of time. As to the prophets, "who write in this manner, they merely rave, and “cant to the capacities of dreaming old women. Not "that I would insinuate, the God they worship is "not great and mighty: but this I say, he hath no good prophets, nor interpreters of his will, amongst "them.

66

includes the defeat of Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple; and so, in his Lux Evangelii, he brings it to prove Julian's own acknowledgement of the miracle: in which he has been followed by M. de la Bleterie and others. But 1. Defeating an attempt to rebuild, cannot, in any known figure of speech, be called the overthrow of a building. 2. 'Eyespoμers dè édè võv can never be said of a building destroyed but two months before. In a word, Fabricius is mistaken; the three subversions here meant, were that by the Assyrians,-that by Herod, the son of Antipater,—and that by Vespasian. And though Herod's demolition of it was only in order to rebuild it more magnificently, yet it was such a destruction as Julian might properly enough urge for the support of his argument, against an objection, that supposed stability and duration amongst the qualities to be looked for in the domicile of the true God; which the Pagan temples not having, were concluded to belong to the false.-Or it may possibly be, that, instead of Herod's demolition, he might allude to the profanation of it by Antiochus, as a learned friend suggests. But what is decisive against Fabricius's interpretation is this; Julian in one and the same paragraph could never call his project a destruction of the temple, and an attempt to rebuild it.

* ὅσγε τοσέτοις ἕτερον χρόνοις αναςήσασθαι διενοήθην αὐτὸν-1 da not urge this independent declaration (which implies some hindrance of his purpose) against the unbelievers, because they will say, "the hindrance appears to have been the Persian ex“pedition; Julian having told the Jews, in his Letter still extant, "that he would rebuild their temple when he had ended that f war, which implies his inability of doing it before.".

#