Jovian, or, An answer to Julian the Apostate by a minister of London.

CHAP. III. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in Words. (Book 3)

I Shall begin with their Behaviour towards him in Words, as it is set down in his Third Chap∣ter, where all along he most unjustly charges what was said but by one, or a few Christians upon the whole Number, altho the Examples, which he hath brought are nothing in proportion to the whole Eastern Empire, much less to the Western, in which perhaps not one Instance of that which he calls Barbarous Behaviour towards Julian, can be produced. At his rate of arguing from one, or a few Examples to the whole Church, a man may prove out of the Scriptures, that the Christians were a very unto∣ward People, for there, as he is pleased to phrase it, A man may almost lose himself in the great variety of Instances, which may be given of their great, and manifold Miscarriages, if what some particular Men or Churches did amiss, might be charged upon the whole Body of Christians, and be called theirs.

Thus saith he of the Christians in general; They sufficiently requited him for calling them Galilaeans, for they named him Idolianus instead of Julianus, and Pisaeus, and Adonaeus from his worshipping of Jupiter, and Adonis; and Bull-burner from the great number of them, which he sacrificed. One would think as he

hath represented the matter, that all the Christians used thus to Nickname Julian, and yet if we con∣sult that place of Nazianzen, which he cites for it in the Margent, we shall find that it was not the general Practise of the Christians so to call the A∣postate in requital, but of some of one sort. (†) 1.1 For (saith the Fa∣ther) if the Christians had a mind to give new Names, they might find many base ones very fit, and applicable to him; for what should hinder us jearing of him as he doth us, to call him Idolianus and Pi∣saeus, and Adonaeus, and Bull-Burner, as some of the merry and facetious men among us have taken the liberty to call him?

But yet, though they were but the Facetious, and some of the Facetious Christians too, who called Ju∣lian by those Names; yet our trusty Author makes no Bones of charging the matter upon them in Ge∣neral: They (saith he) requited him for calling them Galilaeans, for they named him Idolianus, &c.

But this is not the only Instance, where Mr. J. hath plaid the Jesuit with good Authors, and what sair dealing is to be expected from a man, who im∣poses upon his Reader in the ve∣ry (†) 1.2 first Citation, with which he begins his Book?

Constan∣tine the Great (saith he) Famous for being the first Christian Emperor, divided the whole Empire at

his death amongst his three Sons, as a Father doth his Estate among his Children; that part which came by his Ancestors, the West, he gave to the eldest—.

This indeed sounds somewhat like an Entailed Inheritance, whereas, had he truly and entirely rendred the place, it would not have fa∣voured that Design; For Eusebius saith, That Con∣stantius the Great (‖) 1.3 when he had gotten the whole World into his Power, he divided the whole Em∣pire, like a Patrimony, amongst his three Sons; as being the most Beloved of his Heirs. That Part which came by his Father he gave to the Eldest—. There is some difference betwixt saying, That Constantine divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony, and as a Father divides his Estate, and very much betwixt saying simply, That he divided it among his Sons, and that he divided it among his Sons, as the best beloved of his Heirs. It was not for the Interest of a man, that asserted the Roman Empire to be Hereditary, to let his Reader know, that Constantine had other Heirs in View besides his Sons, this would have given them to understand, That he might have passed by his Sons, and given the Empire to them, or made these Co-partners with those. So it was for his Interest to render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which came by his Ance∣stors, as if the West-part of the Empire which Con∣stantine received from his Father, had Lineally de∣volved upon him through many Hereditary De∣scents.

But to return to the Nicknames, which the pleasanter sort of Christians gave unto Julian, what Injury did they do him thereby? There was nothing more common among the Pagan Emperors, than to surname themselves from their Gods. Dio∣clesian assumed the Surname of Jovius, and Maxi∣mian of Herculeus; and if some of the Wits among the Christians sportingly did the same thing for Julian, that other Emperors did for themselves, what Pre∣cept of the Christian Religion did they transgress thereby? But these were (†) 1.4 Instances of their Hatred and Con∣tempt of Julian; perhaps they were so, but not of the Man, nor of the Emperor, but of the Apostate and Idolater, whom the Christi∣an Religion would have allowed a Confessor to have called so to his very face. And be it known unto Mr. J. that many of those who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion, would think it ra∣ther their Duty, than any Breach of it, to tell not only a Popish Prince, but a Popish King to his Face, did he openly profess the Popish Religion, that he was an Idolater, a Bread-worshipper, a Goddess-wor∣shipper, a Creature-worshipper, an Image-worshipper, a Wafer-worshipper, &c. which would be a far greater contempt of him, than to Nickname him from his Po∣pish-Idols, and mock him with them behind his back.

But let us suppose that these merry Gentlemen did transgress the duty of Christians in playing upon the Name of Julian, yet there was nothing of tendency to Rebellion in it, nothing specifick that can tempt a man to think, that they did it because he persecuted the Christians contrary to Law. Our blessed Lord called Herod Fox, and St. Paul called Nero Lyon,

and had Mr. J. found these Names for his Julian in the Writings of the Christians, he would in all pro∣bability have told us, that they looked upon him as a Wild Beast, whom every man had a right to slay. St. Cyprian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, calls the Emperor Decius Antichrist; and in his Epist. to Antonianus, he calls him Tyrant, and Raging Tyrant, and Lucianus the Presbyter in his (†) 1.5 Epist. to Celerinus calls him the Great Snake, and fore∣runner of Antichrist, which are as ill Names, as any Mr. J. can shew that Julian received from the Christians of his Time. The Proconsul in the Roman Empire, was in every Pro∣vince the next in Authority under the Emperor, and yet Cyprian in the Reply, which he sent unto De∣metrianus Proconsul of Africa, calls him, Impious, Mad, Raging, Blind, Deaf, and Brute, and he tells him in the very beginning of it, That he had long despised him, who barked with his Sacrilegious Mouth, and Impious Words against the one true God.

I do not justifie the Father for this contumelious way of speaking, it seems to me not strictly consistent with that respect, which he ought to an ordinary Judge, or Subselliar Counsellor, as the Learned Annotator in the Oxford Edition, endeavours, against the com∣mon opinion, to make it probable Demetrianus was; but notwithstanding his Conjectures, to which I refer my Reader, the common opinion still remains as probable, and therefore may very well be preferred.

But of that very small number of Ancient Chri∣stians, who were guilty of rude and undutiful Lan∣guage to Princes, none were comparable to Lucifer C••laritanus, who in his Defence of Athanasius, and

Tract of Apostate Princes, both written to Constan∣tius, calls his Majesty, Persecutor, Heretick, Saul, Ahab, Murderer, Apostate, Impious, Antichrist, Lyar, Executioner, Enemy and Despiser of God, and De∣stroyer of Gods Religion, with many more most re∣proachful Names and Passages, which I love not to recite.

What would Mr. J. have given to have found Julian treated at this contumelious rate in any Christian Writer, especially in a Bishop of his time, he would doubtless have gloried in the Discovery, and it must not have been charged upon the peevish, and morose Temper, and monastick Manners of the Father; but it must have been solved, like his other Phaenomena, by his new, but friendly Hypo∣thesis to Rebellion of reproaching, and ruffling of Ju∣lian, nay of pursuing him like a Midnight Thief, or High-way-Robber, because he persecuted them con∣trary to Law.

His next Instance which he produces of Julians reproachful usage among the Christians, is the Antio∣chians; wherein he hath not dealt fairly in represent∣ing the matter so, as if the Christians of Antioch only were guilty of those abuses, which provoked him to write his Misopogon against them. For first it is plain, That there were yet a considerable number of Hea∣thens in Antiock, from the Anniversary Rites of A∣donis, which hapned to be kept on the same day, (†) 1.6 when Julian made his Entrance into the City, and it seemed to many a sad Omen, that the Emperor should then enter into it, when

so much howling, and weeping, and lamentation was heard. Indeed it is difficult to guess, what proportion the Heathens had to the Christians, but if we may take measure from the City of (‖) 1.7 Alexandria at that time, they were enough to make head against them, though 'tis certain they were the lesser part. Sozomen after he had said in general, that the Antiochians reproached Julian, and that he wrote his Misopogon against the Antiochians, he im∣mediately adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the Christians that were there he treated as usually, and studied to advance the Heathen Interest, and Religion: But Mr. J. without taking notice of the Heathens, covertly lays the whole blame of Julians evil treat∣ment upon the Christians of An∣tioch, (†) 1.8 when all the Writers lay it upon the Antiochians in general, and assign the com∣mon Causes thereof.

These common Causes were first the great (‖) 1.9 scarcity and want of Provisions caused by one of Julians Edicts, to lessen the market Prices, which made the Victuallers and Heglars of all sorts keep up their Provisions, which the Antiochians, being a luxuri∣ous People, were not able to endure. Secondly, his (†) 1.10 dis∣countenancing of the Spectacula, and Playes in which they so much delighted, and affecting an austere Garb and strict sort of Life, so disagreeable to their Effeminate Humour.

These were the Common Causes, which set the Antiochians against him, who at first (†) 1.11 received him with the highest demonstration of Affe∣ction, and Duty, as if he had been some God. But (‖) 1.12 being by nature Lovers of Theaters, and plentiful and delicious Fare, which he despised, they soon began to hate him, and from hating of him, as soon proceeded to lam∣poon him, being, as (†) 1.13 Socra∣tes describes them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a most invective People, and given to Libelling. This is the Matter of Fact, in which both the Heathen, and Christian Historians agree, and from hence it is plain, that the Heathens, as well as Christians at Antioch, were guilty of Burlesquing Julian, as appears out of his Misopogon, where for the most part he speaks of them in general, but more particularly (†) 1.14 p. 87. char∣ges the whole City, and all the Citizens without distinction, for loving to make, and hear Lam∣poons. Indeed there are some particular Passages in it, which relate to the Christians, as that of chi, and kappa, which our Author seems to cite on purpose to make his Reader think they were all Christians, but then there are others which as cer∣tainly relate to the Heathens, as where he (‖) 1.15 chides them for not providing at least an Ox to sa∣crifice on the Solemn Festival of

Apollo, and for (†) 1.16 flocking un∣to him in the Temples, and receiv∣ing of him in them with Theatri∣cal Applause. In another place he distinguish∣eth betwixt the Pagan, and Christian part of the People: I have (saith he) offended most, I had almost said all of you, the Senate, the Wealthy, and the Peo∣ple: (‖) 1.17 For most of the People are grieved at me, but especially all those who deny the Gods, because they see me addicted to the Rites of our Ancestors. And unless there were a considerable Num∣ber of Heathens among them, it cannot be imagined that Libanius would have writ∣ten an Apologitical Oration for them unto Julian, wherein (†) 1.18 he tells him, that when he was in Gaul, they prayed in private meetings for him unto Jupiter, that he might be Emperor.

From these Passages it is plain, that the Heathens were exasperated against Julian, and guilty of his ill usage at Antioch, as well as the Christians; and that, the first occasion of their despightful carriage against him was upon a General Account, although afterwards he might become more particularly od∣ous unto the Christians for removing the Bones of Babylas, and shutting up the (†) 1.19 Cathedral Church. But what if all Antioch had been Christians, or what if only the Christians of Antioch had been the Libellers of Julian, or what if they had Libelled him mere∣ly upon the account of his Apostacy, or Tyranny, what is that to us? Must we follow the Example of such Luxurious, Dissolute, and Profane Chri∣stians,

who daily flocked to the Theaters, Cirques, and Hippodroms, whither, the former, Christians, would have dyed, rather than have come. It was against the very Letter of their Baptismal Vow, and was always aggrava∣ted by the (†) 1.20 Christian Wri∣ters as Idolatrous, and as one of the most provoking and dange∣rous Sins, which a Christian could commit.

Certainly their Scommatical and Burlesquing hu∣mour, was none of their Vertues; They were cen∣sured for it by many Authors, and commended for it by none, no not by (‖) 1.21 Theodo∣ret, who only saith, they abomina∣ted Julian, without commending their Scurrility, for which (†) 1.22 So∣crates and (†) 1.23 Sozomen justly con∣demn them, as an (‖) 1.24 Heathen Writer, did the Alexandrians for Burlesquing the Emperor Caracalla: But they paid

dearly for it, and if the Antiochians, our Author brave Antiochians, who followed their example, had been so requited, their Blood had been upon their own Heads.

They were the only City of the Empire, and the only Body of Christians in it, who thus abused the Emperor Julian; and had they done so for a sound Reason, which would have justified their doing of it, and given satisfaction to other Christian Cities, doubtless they would have done so too. But alas! it was the Evil Humour of the Place; they were given to libelling in Songs, and Pasquills; and to shew that there was nothing peculiar in their abu∣sive usage of Julian; they treated his Successor Jo∣vian, who was a Christian, and had been a Chri∣stian (†) 1.25 Confessor under Julian, as bad, or worse than they trea∣ted Julian, Lampooning him in (‖) 1.26 Ballads, and Libels, and Fragments of Poetry, for the Dishonourable Peace, which he made with the Persians, and for Burning a Fine Temple erected by the Emperor Adrian in Ho∣nour of Trajan, which Julian had converted into a Library with all the Books. Some of their Libels against him they (†) 1.27 cast about the Streets for any to take up, others they fix∣ed upon the Walls, and among

many more, which may be seen in Suidas, they applyed this following Verse in Homer unto him.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We see thee Safe, but wish some Persian Dart Had struck through thine, as well, as Julians Heart.

This is a great deal worse than calling of Julian Bull burner, and drolling upon his Beard. Nay, so fa∣shionable was Scurrility, & Impudence among them, that an Old Woman beholding his Goodly Stature, took the confidence to say, What a longitude, and pro∣fundity of a Fool is this! And another took the boldness to Deride him openly in the Cirque, and Mischief had followed upon it, if Sallustius had not appeased the Stir. Had Julian been treated thus by them, we should have heard of it from Mr J. at both Ears, and then he would have brought them off with say∣ing, But it was Julian, and those who quietly submitted to the Laws under Dioclesian, do nevertheless pursue an Apostate, as if he were a Midnight-Thief.

As for the Story of the Berean Noble Man, there is nothing in it, but what became a Valiant Christian; and as for that of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, it is no∣thing to his Purpose, having nothing singular, or spe∣cifick in it to serve his Supposition about Julian, but is an ordinary Instance of that great Courge, bold∣ness, and liberty of speaking, and acting, which was common among Confessors, by which they shewed to the Enemies of God, the Greatness of their Zeal to suffer for him, and how much they despised their Authority, and Threatnings, when they stood in competition with their Duty to God.

The Jews called this the Spirit of Fortitude, and the Greeks by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which our Tran∣slation

renders (‖) 1.28 boldness, and (†) 1.29 confidence: And from hence the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in the New Testament to signi∣fie that (*) 1.30 boldness, with which the Apostles preached the Gospel in danger of their Lives; and from the New Testament both the Noun, and the Verb came to be used in Ecclesiastical Writers for (†) 1.31 Confession in the special signification, as it signifies to confess Christ boldly among his Enemies in (‖) 1.32 actual Torment, or in apparent danger of Tor∣ture, or Death. Now this Bold∣ness was always looked upon as the Effect of Divine Zeal and Fervent Love of God, as in A∣pollos, Acts 18.25, 26. who be∣ing fervent in Spirit, began [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to speak boldly in the Synagogue, where he was in danger to be torn in pieces by the Jews. So Eusebius speaking of Vettius Epagathus, who at the hazard of his Life voluntarily undertook to plead for the Christians be∣fore the Tribunal, he saith, he had (†) 1.33 much Zeal for God, and was Fervent in Spirit. It was also looked upon in part as the effect of supernatural courage, with which God was wont to inspire those, whom he called to suffer for his Holy Name. And there∣fore St. Peter prayed for it, Acts 4.29. Lord (saith he) behold their Threatnings, and grant unto thy Ser∣vants 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that with all boldness we may speak thy Word. This inspired

Courage is most evident in very Young, and very Old People, as also in Women, who have little Natural Courage, as (†) 1.34 Euse∣bius observes in the Martyrdom of Young Blandina, and old Po∣thius, and many others, as of Young ‖ 1.35 Apphianus, and † 1.36 Theodosia the Virgin, to whom I refer the Reader in his History of the Palaestine Martyrs.

Now the Persons thus inspired with Zeal and Courage, used ordinarily to shew it in the Freedom of their Speech before Kings, and Governours, especi∣ally before those whom they knew to be spiteful E∣nemies of their Religion, and Blasphemers of God. Thus one of the Seven Brethren in the ‖ 1.37 Macchabees called An∣tiochus Fury, another told him He despised his Laws, a third bid him remember, that though he was a King, yet he was Corruptible; a fourth called him Godless Man, and of all other most Wicked; and the rest threatned him with the Judgments of God. The three Jews in Daniel told King Nebu∣chadnezzar very bluntly;

that they cared not to an∣swer him in the matter of the Image, but if his De∣cree was so, God was able to deliver them, but if he will not, (say they like true Confessors) be it known unto thee, we will not serve thy Gods, nor worship the Golden Image that thou hast set up.

When Numerianus, or Decius (for my † 1.38 Author knows not which of the two it was) would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Worship, Ba∣bylas the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch, shut the Door against him, telling him that he would

not suffer him, who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheepfold of Christ. Domninus was Famous among the Christians of Palaes;tine for this singular Freedom of Speech, and is celebrated for it by Eusebius in the 7th Chapter of his History of the Palaestine Mar∣tyrs; and in Justin the Martyr's first Apology we read of one Lucius, who standing by at the condemna∣tion of Ptolemaeus a Christian, boldly spoke to the President thus:

What reason hast thou, O Ʋr∣bioius! to condemn a man merely for the Name of Christian, who is neither Whoremonger, nor A∣dulterer, nor Murderer, nor Thief, nor Robber, nor is guilty of any one Crime; let me tell thee, thy Sentence is very unworthy of the Emperour, who is called Pious, and of his Son surnamed Philo∣sopher, and of the Senate, which is styled the Ho∣ly.

It would be endless to enumerate all the Exam∣ples of the Confessorian Parrhesia, or Liberty of Speech; there are Examples of it in most Persecu∣tions, but these may suffice to let Mr. J's Admirers see, how Fallaciously he hath dealt with them, in representing the Free Speeches of the Berean Noble-Man, and Maris the Bishop, unto Julian, as singular Instances of Contempt, whereas such Freedom was of ordinary practise in former Persecutions among Christian Cofessors, a sort of men, I fear, for whom he hath but little Veneration, or Respect.

But more particularly, as to Maris Bishop of Chal∣cedon, if there be any thing singular, or unjustifiable in that Dialogue of his with Julian, it may fairly be laid at his own Door, who was a most violent Ar∣rian, guilty of many blameworthy Practises, which are not to be put upon the general Account.

(†) 1.39 He was one of the 18 Bi∣shops in the Nicene Council that defended Arrius, and his Do∣ctrine; (‖) 1.40 he was one of Atha∣nasius his most bitter Enemies; (*) 1.41 he is reckoned among the Arrianizers, that ordained Ma∣cedonius Bishop of Constantinople [after Eusebius died] in opposition to Paulus elected by the Ortho∣dox. (†) 1.42 He is called an Acasi∣an, and subscribed the Confessi∣on of the Council of Arimini, in a Council of 50 Bishops at Constantinople, where they abrogated the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (‖) 1.43 He was one that witnes∣sed against Athanasius in the Council of Tyre, attesting the Charge against him of breaking the Chalice, &c. in a Parish Church of Maraeotis, and afterwards before (*) 1.44 the Emperor Con∣stantine. (†) 1.45 He was one of the Bishops sent by the Council of Tyre into Aegypt to enquire into the matter, where (‖) 1.46 Sozom. saith, they managed the Enquiry partially; but (*) 1.47 Theodoret plainly accuses him and his Com∣panions, of framing a Lye against him, forgeing false Acts, and revi∣ving the old confuted Slanders a∣gainst him. Lastly the (†) 1.48 Fathers of the Council of Sardica in their Synodical Epistle, reckon him among the False Accusers of Athanasi∣us, Marcellus, and Asclepas, though they do not de∣pose him with the rest of his Arrian Accomplices,

all which shew that he was a Man of Heterodox Opi∣nions and Irregular Practises, whose Example ought not to be cited, as a Precedent to conclude any thing in general upon the Christians, or Bishops of his Time.

In the Conclusion of the Chapter he tells us,

That it would be endless to reckon up the Sayings of Juventi∣nus, and Maximus in their Anniversary Sermon of St. Chrysost, of those Souldiers that were trepan∣ned into Sacrificing by Julian, and of many others, who did not spare him in the least.

One would wonder how this man should come to be so learned in all that was said against Ju∣lian, (‖) 1.49 but that Petavius in 4 lines hath directed him to all that e∣ver was written against him, out of which he hath taken all that was for his purpose; and not∣withstanding he tells his Rea∣der, that he must be satisfied with a Tast, yet he hath served him up with his whole Store. For the Sayings of Juvent. and Max. and of those Souldiers, whom Julian had trepanned to sacri∣fice, are so far from making for him, that they are very much against him, or else we may be sure, had they been to his purpose, they had not been suppressed. As for the former, they are such as they said at Table; such as they said when they were cast into Prison for what they had said at Table; such as they said to those whom Ju∣lian under-hand sent to tempt them in Prison; or lastly, to give him the benefit of Theodoret, such as they said to the Emperor himself.

That which they said at Table among other Soul∣diers by way of Discourse, was this:

They bewai∣led the Sadness of the Times they lived in, and blessed the former days. They said it was not worth the while to live, to see the Holy Laws trod∣den under foot, the Lord of all put to open shame, and to behold all places so full of the Nidor and Smoke of profane Sacrifices, that a man could not breath in pure Air.

When they were in Prison, they exceedingly rejoyced and said, They had no fur∣ther need of Money, or Fine Cloathes. To the Temp∣ters, whom Julian sent to tempt them with hopes of greater Honours, and the Example of other Officers who had lapsed, they answered thus;

We are resol∣ved for this Reason to stand out manfully, that we may offer up our selves as it were Sacrifices to expiate for their Fall: For if we do not dye now, we shall dye (we are certain) shortly after; and it is bet∣ter to dye for the King of Angels, than in the Ser∣vice of such a Wicked Man; it is better to lay down our Lives for an Heavenly Kingdom; than for an Earthly one, which we tread under foot. for if a man dye in the Emperors Service, he can receive no Reward for his Valour, nay perhaps he may not get a Grave, but be left to be devoured by Dogs; but if we dye for the King of Angels, we shall be sure to receive Glorious Bodies, and to have Crowns and Rewards greater than our Sufferings can deserve. Wherefore let us take up Spiritual Weapons; we have no need of Darts and Arrows, and other Bodily Armour, our Tongues [by which we are to confess Christ] are sufficient Arms for us, and out of our Mouths shall we shoot Arrows against the Devils Head.

These are the Sayings of these two Captains in St. Chrysost.

but they sounded so like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius in the Thebaean Legion, that our Au∣thor durst not recite them, lest his Readers should find out such a Famous Instance of Passive Obedi∣ence among the Commanders of Julians own Army, who were so willing to be put to death by him contrary to Law.

What they said to the Tyrants Face was this:

We have been educated in the True Religion; we have always been Obedient to the Laws which were made by Constantine and his Sons; and now we cannot but lament to see all things filled with Abo∣minations, and even Meat and Drink defiled with Impure Sacrifices: This we have bewailed in pri∣vate with Tears, and now lament in your pre∣sence.

This is all they said to Julians Face; and now all that our Author can get by it, (to use his own petulant Phrase) he may put in his Eye.(†) 1.50 Theodoret com∣mends their Zeal, and put this Confession wholly upon that Score.

As for the Souldiers who were trepanned to Sa∣crifice by Julian, this is the short of the Story: Ju∣lian on a certain day called his Army unto him to receive Donatives according to their Quality, and places. The Ceremony was ordered as in the time of the Pagan Emperors: The Emperor sat in great State, there was Gold set before him on one hand, and Frankincense on the other, and the Souldiers were told, that according to Ancient Custom they were to cast a bit of this into the Fire, * 1.51 before they re∣ceived

any of that. The (‖) 1.52 whole Army, were ensnared, some, it is likely, through love of the Gold, but many of them as it afterwards appeared, through mere Ignorance, and Simplicity, and the specious pretence of An∣cient Custom: For when the Solemnity was done, the Souldiers went to their Quarters, where they eat together; and as some of them (†) 1.53 looking up to Hea∣ven, and signing themselves with the Sign of the Cross, gave thanks unto Christ: One among the rest asked them, how they could call up∣on Christ after they had denyed him? How, re∣plyed they half-dead with the Question, how have we denyed Christ? Insomuch (replyed the other) as you have Sacrificed Frankincense, which is in effect to deny Christ. Upon this immediately ri∣sing from the Table, they became like distracted Men; and being heated with Zeal and Indignati∣on, they ran about the Market-place, crying, out, and saying,

We are Christians, we are Christians in our Hearts; we declare it to all men, and before all men unto God, to whom we live, and for whom we will dye. O Saviour Christ we have not betrayed thee, we have not denyed the Faith; for however we have offen∣ded thee with our Hands, we are upright in our Hearts; the Emperor deceived us, and we are not tainted with his Gold, we renounce this ungodly Act, we will wash it off with our Blood.

And then running to the Em∣peror, and throwing down their Gold,

cryed out, Sir, we have not received Gifts from you, but our own Death and Damnation; you called us, not to Honour us by them, but to mark us with Disgrace; Now do us who

are your Souldiers, the Favour, as to kill us for Christ to whom alone we are Subject; as we are polluted, so let us be purged by Fire; reduce us into Ashes, as we did the Frankincense; cut off our Hands, which we stretched out in offering of it, and our Feet, which carried us to the place; and give our Gold to others, who have not repented of that, they have already received: Christ is sufficient for us, whom we prefer above all things in the World.

Having said this to the Em∣peror, they informed others of the Cheat he had put upon them, and exhorted them to make Sa∣tisfaction to their Saviours Honour with their Blood. The Emperor was very mad at them, but would no kill them, because they should not be counted Martyrs, but banished them.

If the Thebaean Legion was an Example of Passive Obedience, much more were these Souldiers of Julian, who behaved themselves with such Exem∣plary Modesty, and Submission towards an Apostate Emperor, who dealt so basely with his Army, and persecuted the greater part of his Subjects (as Mr. J. saith) not only without, but against Law. One would think upon Mr. J's Principles, that they should ra∣ther have mutined, and formed themselves into a Po∣sture of Resistance against such a Lawless Tyrant; but instead of that, they speak unto him like Apo∣stles, and desire to be killed for the Sake of Christ. Mr. J. knew this very well, which made him only re∣fer unto the Story, which he knew not one of an hundred among his Readers would, nor one in ten could examine: I am confident neither of his Su∣pervisers, neither he, who is now with God, nor he, who is still among Men, knew the Truth of these Stories; if they did, they were very ill-advised not

to blot out the Reference, which hath caused me to bring them upon the Stage: We thank them for it, and to requite them, we will Thunder no more with the musty Thebaean Legion, but Juven∣tinus, and Maximus, and the Souldiers of Julian shall be our Thundring Legion for the time to come.

Notes

• (†) 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naz. 1. Invect. p. 87, 88.
• (†) 1.2

  P. 1.
• (‖) 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 52.
• (†) 1.4

  P. 32.
• (†) 1.5

  Cyprian Epist. Oxon. edit. p. 47.
• (†) 1.6

  Evenerat autem iisdem diebus annuo cursu completo Adonia veteri ritu celebrari—Et visum est triste, quod amplam urbem intro∣cunti Imperatori, nunc primum, ululabiles undi{que} planctus, & lugubres sonitus audiebantur Marcell. l. 22. Vid. Liban. Legat. ad Julianum. p. 162. Edit. Lut. 162.
• (‖) 1.7

  Sozom. de caede Georgii Alexandrini. l. 5. c. 9.
• (†) 1.8

  Socrat. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. 18. Zosim. l. 3. p. 713. Amm. Mare. l. 22. Juliani Misopog.
• (‖) 1.9

  Socrat. Sozom. Marcel. loc. cit. Miso∣pog. p. 90, 108. Liban. Legat. ad Jul. p. 155.
• (†) 1.10

  Misopog. p. 59, 60, 75, 78, 90.
• (†) 1.11

  Urbi propinquans, in speciem alicujus nu∣minis votis excipitur publicas miratus voces multitudinis magnae sa∣lutare sidus illuxisse E∣ois partibus acclaman∣tis. Marcell. l. 22.
• (‖) 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Zosim. l. 3: p: ••13.
• (†) 1.13

  L. 3. c. 17.
• (†) 1.14

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. ib. p. 164.
• (‖) 1.15

  P. 97, 98, 99.
• (†) 1.16

  P. 67.
• (‖) 1.17

  P. 90. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—
• (†) 1.18

  P. 162.
• (†) 1.19

  Majorem Eccle∣siam Autiochiae Clau∣di — Marcell. l. 22.
• (†) 1.20

  Tertul. de Spe∣ctaculis. Igitur si ex Idololatriâ universam spectaculorum paratu∣ram constare constiterit, indubitati praenuntia∣tum erit etiam ad spe∣ctacula pertinere renuntiationis nostrae testimonium in lavacro—Sed circo quid Amarius, ubi ne principibus quidem, nec civibus suis parcent. Ignotus autor de Spectaculis in Cypriano. Nam quando id, quod in honore alicujus idoli ab ethnicis agitur a fide∣libus Christianis spectaculo frequentatur, & Idololatria gentilis as∣seritur, & in contumeliam Dei — ad scenae jam sales invere∣cundos transitum faciam — Salvian l. 6. In Baptismo salutari Christianorum prima confessio ut renuntiare se diabolo, ac pompi•• ejus, at{que} spectaculis, & operibus protestentur.—Quomodo Chri∣stiani spectacula post Baptismum sequeris — Chrysost. Homil. 15. de calamitate Antioch. de paenitentiâ. Hom. 8. &c.
• (‖) 1.21

  P. 35. Theodor. l. 3. c. 28.
• (†) 1.22

  Socr. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. c. 19.
• (†) 1.23

  Socr. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. c. 19.
• (‖) 1.24

  Herod. l. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—
• (†) 1.25

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sui∣das.
• (‖) 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Fam••sis Libellis. Excerpt. per Hen. Va∣les. Ed. 1634. p. 345. Vid. Suid.
• (†) 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Suidas.
• (‖) 1.28

  Acts 4.13, 21.
• (†) 1.29

  Acts 28.31.
• (*) 1.30

  Acts 13.46.18.25, 26.1 Thessal. 2.2.
• (†) 1.31

  A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. p. 128.
• (‖) 1.32

  Chrysost. Hom. 5. in. Ep. ad Phil. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (†) 1.33

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. p. 126.
• (†) 1.34

  L. 5. c. 1.
• ‖ 1.35

  De Mart. Palaest. c. 4.
• † 1.36

  C. 7. ib.
• ‖ 1.37

  2 Mach. ch. 7.
• † 1.38

  Philostorg. l. 7. p. 506.
• (†) 1.39

  Gelas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2. c. 2. Acta Metroph. a∣pud Phot. Cod. 256.
• (‖) 1.40

  Socrat. l. 1. c. c. 27, 31, 35.
• (*) 1.41

  Socrat. l. 2. c. 12.
• (†) 1.42

  Id. lib. c. 2. 41.
• (‖) 1.43

  Sosom. l. 4. c. 24.
• (*) 1.44

  Sosom. l. 2. c. 25.
• (†) 1.45

  Ib. c. 28.
• (‖) 1.46

  L. 2. c. 25.
• (*) 1.47

  Lib. 1. c. 30.
• (†) 1.48

  Theodor. l. 2. c. 8.
• (‖) 1.49

  De Juliano Te∣stimonia before Julians Works. — Vitupera∣tionem autem apud Gregorium Nazianz. Steletenticis 11. ac Cy∣rill. Meminit & Chry∣sostomus contra Judaeos. Hom. 3. & in S.S. Ju∣ventinum & Maximum & in S. Babylani. I∣tem Hieron. in 3. cap. Habacuc. August. vide civitate Dei. cap. 25.
• (†) 1.50

  L. 3. c. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.51

  Vid. Sozom lib. 5. c. 17.
• (‖) 1.52

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nazianz. p. 85.
• (†) 1.53

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ib.