was beholden to a mere accident; while the power, that should have supported it, was not at hand to vindicate its credit and reputation? And it was well if they had said no more. For the popular story, which the malice of the Pagans, and the indiscretion of some Christians, had set agoing, that Julian was assassinated by a Christian soldier, would, in that case, have been enough to raise suspicions that the faith had been propagated, at first, by as indirect means as it was now supported.. The Jews had twice before projected the resto-ration of their temple-worship: once under Hadrian; and once again, under Constantine. At those junctures the attempt had none of this malice and formed impiety against the divinity of our holy faith. The Gentiles then gave the Jews no assistance or support: and it was in them a simple, natural desire of returning to their own land, and of re-establishing their country-rites. But still, it being contrary to God's religious economy, the design was defeated by the policy of Hadrian, and the seal of Constantine; and these civil impediments were sufficient to cover the honour of religion. For, in these two instances, God's transaction was only with his church. He promised to support it to the end of time, and he equally performs his promise, whether that protection be conveyed by the mortal instruments with which he works in the course of his general providence, and whose blindness is guided by his all-seeing eye; or whether it be immediately afforded by the sudden arrest and new direction of nature, irresistibly impelled by his all-powerful hand. But the case was different in the affair before us. Here God had a controversy with his enemies. His power was defied, his protection scorned, and his Godhead Godhead dared and challenged to interpose between them and his servants. At this important juncture, to let a natural event decide the quarrel; and to urge that as a proof of his victory, would be taking for granted the thing in question. For the affair was not with his friends, who believed his superintendency; but with his enemies, who laughed at and despised it. Not to shew himself, on this occasion, in all the terror of offended majesty, must have exposed his religion to the same contempt as if the very pinnacles of the new-projected temple had been completed. But this is not all. A PROPHECY, such as this, concerning the final destruction of the temple, is of the nature of a PROHIBITORY LAW. For God's fore-、 telling a thing should never be, contains in it a prohibition to do it: because that information is founded in his own will, or command; not in the will or command of another: therefore that will binds all, to whose knowledge it arrives. This law came to the knowledge of our projectors, as appears from their very impiety in defying it *. But it is of the nature. and essence of Law, to have penal sanctions. Without them, all laws are vain; especially prohibitory. laws. Now these transgressors were as culpable in beginning the foundations, as they could have been had they lived to finish their work. Therefore to see them escape punishment, and safely and quietly go off when the change of times forbad them to proceed (a * Πάλα δὲ τὰ ἄλλα δεύτερα ἦν τὸ πονεμένη, βασιλεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησι, καὶ πᾶσιν Ἰεδαίοις· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἔτε Ιεδαίοις συννες, ἐκοινώνουν, αὐτοῖς τῆς σπεδῆς, ὑπολαβόνες, δύνασθαι κατορθῶν τὸ ἐρχεία ξημα, καὶ ψευδῶς ἀπελέγξαι τῇ Χρισε τὰς προῤῥήσεις. οἱ δὲ, ἅμα τέτο διενοῦντος καὶ καιρὸν ἔχειν ᾤονο ἄναςῆσαι τὸ ἱερόν.—τὴν δεσπολικὴν ὑπολαμβάνων ὁ Μάταια πρόῤῥησιν διελέγχειν. Theod. 1. iii. c. 20. Sozom. 1. v. c. 22. change, change, which had nothing in it more wonderful than the death of a rash adventurer in battle) must have argued, that God was no more concerned in the issue of this, than of all other natural events; and consequently, that these boasted prophecies, and this pretended gospel, were the inventions of men. I believe modern infidels would scarce have spared us, had they taken church-history at this advantage. But now, by a timely interposition, the honour of religion was secured: And, an exemplary punishment being inflicted, the reverence of his laws, the credit of his messengers, and the regal dignity of his Son, were all amply vindicated. While I am upon this subject, let me observe, what, perhaps, I might have found a better place for, that the forbearance of Jovian and Valentinian to revenge, on those forward creatures in power, the insults and injuries offered on this occasion to many peaceable and honest men, is no slight proof of the reality of a miraculous interposition. For it shewed the church fully satisfied that God had avenged his own cause. Gregory Nazianzene ends his Discourse against Julian with an excellent persuasive to forgiveness; wherein he exhorts the Christians to sacrifice their resentments, as a Thank-offering, to God: ἐνον]ιδωμεν (says he) τῷ Θεῷ χαρισήριον. Thus having set this objection in the best light we were able, both for the honour of religion, and the credit of M. Basnage's criticism; and seen to what it amounts: we leave it to the reader to make his conclusions on the general question. M. Basnage goes on in these words,-Besides, the historian [Sozomene] refers his readers in a vague indefinite manner to the eye-witnesses of the fact, without pointing out one single person by name. Objector's Objectors are often too careless where their random reflections will light. This will fall upon the Apostle's narrative as well as our historian's. St. Paul, arguing against some who denied the Resurrection from the dead, confutes them by the Resurrection of Jesus; who was seen, after he was risen, of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom (says he, without specifying any one by name) the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep*: Sozomene writes a general history of the church, for the use of the whole Christian world: and speaking, in its place, of the event at Jerusalem, he concludes his account in this manner: Should these things seem incredible to any one, those who have had their information from eye-witnesses, and are yet alive, will confirm it to himt. Of which number, if he himself was not one; yet, at least, he had his account from one. In either case, this was proper satisfaction to a doubter. And it had been impertinent to add, that "amongst these were John, Thomas or Andrew of Jerusalem;" obscure names, which would have given his reader no more satisfaction, than what his general information had conveyed before. But it may be said, that St. Paul, besides his vague account of five hundred, adds the names of Cephas, James, and himself. And so, doubtless, would Sozomene have done, had he either seen it himself, or known any that had, with whose names his reader was as well acquainted, as the Corinthians were with Cephas, James, and the rest of the Twelve. What he hath done was what common sense dictated he should do. But M. Basnage seems to expect in a general history all the circumstance and precision of a procés-verbal: * 1 Cor. xv. 6. † Ταῦτα ὅτῳ πιτὰ ο καταφαίνεται, τις έσθωσαν οἱ παρὰ τῶν θεασαμενών ἀκηκοότες ἔτι τῷ βίῳ περιόντες. 1. v. c. 22. However, However, thus much we learn from these vague words of Sozomene, that he was not a mere copier ; but, to verify his story, went as nigh the fountain-head as he could get. And this being the practice of these three honest and judicious historians, we need not wonder that one should mention this incident, and another, that, just as they received their information from the most credible of the first ear-witnesses they could find then alive: which too, by the way, is sufficient to take off all M. Basnage urges on the head of variations. But had we taken his VARIATIONS from him, what were he then? An artist without the tool of his trade; for a professed objector never borrowed more than this from the magazine of Quintilian— ARTIFICIS est invenire in actione adversarii quæ inter semetipsa pugnent, aut PUGNARE VIDEANTUR. proper We are now come to the end of this long piece of criticism, which concludes in these words: But lastly, Cyril of Jerusalem, who was at that time, Bishop of the place, and must have been upon the spot, since it was he, who, confiding in a prophecy of Daniel (which had foretold, as he thought, that the attempt would prove unsuccessful) encouraged and animated the people to repose their confidence in God. Notwithstanding, this same Cyril hath never taken the least notice of these many miracles: and yet it certainly was not, because he was no friend to miracles: we are told he wrote to Constantine the Younger, to inform him, that he was more happy than his father, under whose empire the Cross of Christ had been found here on earth; since Heaven, to grace his reign, had displayed a more illustrious prodigy: which was a cross much brighter than the Sun, seen in the firmament for a long time together, by the whole city of Jerusalem. Why now was that cross remembered, and all these miracles forgotten? |