No More Learning

By the gods, Men of Alexandria, I should be very much ashamed, if,
in short, any Alexandrian should acknowledge himself to be a Galilæan.

"The ancestors of the Hebrews were formerly slaves to the Egyptians.
But now, Men of Alexandria, you, the conquerors of Egypt (for Egypt
was conquered by your founder), sustain a voluntary servitude to the
despisers of your national dogmas, in opposition to your ancient sacred
institutions. And you do not recollect your former

{60}

felicity, when all Egypt had communion with the gods, and we enjoyed an
abundance of good. But, tell me, what advantage has accrued to your city
from those who now introduce among you a new religion? Your founder was
that pious man Alexander of Macedon, who did not, by Jupiter! resemble
any one of these, or any of the Hebrews, who far excelled them. Even
Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, was also superior to them. As to Alexander,
if he had encountered, he would have endangered even the Romans. What
then did the Ptolemies, who succeeded your founder? Educating your city,
like their own daughter, from her infancy, they did not bring her to
maturity by the discourses of Jesus, nor did they construct the form
of government, through which she is now happy, by the doctrine of the
odious Galilæans.

"Thirdly: After the Romans became its masters, taking it from the
bad government of the Ptolemies, Augustus visited your city, and thus
addressed the citizens: 'Men of Alexandria, I acquit your city of all
blame, out of regard to the great god Serapis,

and also for the sake of the people, and the grandeur of the city. A
third cause of my kindness to you is my friend Areus. ' This Areus,
the companion of Augustus Caesar, and a philosopher, was your
fellow-citizen.

{61}

"The particular favours conferred on your city by the Olympic gods
were, in short, such as these. Many more, not to be prolix, I omit. But
those blessings which the apparent gods bestow in common every day, not
on one family, nor on a single city, but on the whole world, why do you
not acknowledge? Are you alone insensible of the splendour that flows
from the sun? Are you alone ignorant that summer and winter are produced
by him, and that all things are alone vivified and alone germinate from
him? Do you not, also, perceive the great advantages that accrue to your
city from the moon, from him and by him the fabricator of all things?
Yet you dare not worship either of these deities; but this Jesus, whom
neither you nor your fathers have seen, you think must necessarily be
God the word, while him, whom from eternity every generation of mankind
has seen, and sees and venerates, and by venerating lives happily, I
mean the mighty sun, a living, animated, intellectual, and beneficent
image of the intelligible Father, you despise. If, however, you listen
to my admonitions, you will by degrees return to truth. You will not
wander from the right path, if you will be guided by him, who to the
twentieth year of his age pursued that road, but has now worshiped the
gods for near twelve years. "

{62}


EXTRACTS FROM THE FRAGMENT OF AN ORATION OR EPISTLE ON THE DUTIES OF A
PRIEST.

"If any are detected behaving disorderly to their prince, they are
immediately punished; but those who refuse to approach the gods, are
possessed by a tribe of evil dæmons, who driving many of the atheists
[i. e. of the Christians] to distraction, make them think death
desirable, that they may fly up into heaven, after having forcibly
dislodged their souls. Some of them prefer deserts to towns; but man,
being by nature a gentle and social animal, they also are abandoned to
evil dæmons, who urge them to this misanthropy; and many of them*
have had recourse to chains and collars. Thus, on all sides, they are
impelled by an evil dæmons, to whom they have voluntarily surrendered
themselves, by forsaking the eternal and saviour gods.

"Statues and altars, and the preservation of the unextinguished fire,
and in short all such particulars, have been established by our fathers,
as symbols of the presence of the gods; not that we should believe that
these symbols are gods, but that through these we should worship the
gods. For since we are connected with body, it is also

* i. e. The Cappadocian monks and hermits.

{63}

necessary that our worship of the gods should be performed in a
corporeal manner; but they are incorporeal. And they, indeed, have
exhibited to us as the first of statues, that which ranks as the second
genus of gods from the first, and which circularly revolves round the
whole of heaven*. Since, however, a corporeal worship cannot even be
paid to these, because they are naturally unindigent, a third kind of
statues was devised in the earth, by the worship of which we render the
gods propitious to us. For as those who reverence the images of kings,
who are not in want of any such reverence, at the same time attract to
themselves their benevolence; thus, also, those who venerate the statues
of the gods, who are not in want of any thing, persuade the gods by
this veneration to assist and be favourable to them. For alacrity in the
performance of things in our power is a document of true sanctity;
and it is very evident that he who accomplishes the former, will in a
greater degree possess the latter. But he who despises things in his
power, and afterwards pretends to desire impossibilities, evidently does
not pursue the

* Meaning those divine bodies the celestial orbs, which in
consequence of participating a divine life from the
incorporeal powers from which they are suspended, may be
very properly called secondary gods.

{64}

latter, but overlooks the former. For though divinity is not in want
of any thing, it does not follow that on this account nothing is to be
offered to him. For neither is he in want of celebration through the
ministry of _words_. What then? Is it, therefore, reasonable that he
should also be deprived of this? By no means. Neither, therefore, is he
to be deprived of the honour which is paid him through _works_; which
honour has been legally established, not for three or for three thousand
years, but in all preceding ages, among all nations of the earth.

"But [the Galilaeans will say], O! you who have admitted into your
soul every multitude of dæmons, whom, though according to you they are
formless and unfigured, you have fashioned in a corporeal resemblance,
it is not fit that honour should be paid to divinity through such works.
How, then, do we not consider as wood and stones those statues which
are fashioned by the hands of men? O more stupid than even stones
themselves! Do you fancy that all men are to be drawn by the nose as
you are drawn by execrable dæmonss, so as to think that the artificial
resemblances of the gods are the gods themselves? Looking, therefore, to
the resemblances of the gods, we do not think them to be either stones
or wood; for neither do we

{65}

think that the gods are these resemblances; since neither do we say that
royal images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that they are the kings
therefore, but the images of kings. Whoever, therefore, loves his king,
beholds with pleasure the image of his king; whoever loves his child is
delighted with his image; and whoever loves his father surveys his image
with delight. Hence, also, he who is a lover of divinity gladly surveys
the statues and images of the gods; at the same time venerating and
fearing with a holy dread the gods who invisibly behold him*. If,
therefore, some

* The Catholics have employed similar arguments in defence
of the reverence which they pay to the images of the men
whom they call saints. But the intelligent reader need not
be told, that it is one thing to venerate the images of
those divine powers which proceed from the great first Cause
of all things, and eternally subsist concentrated and rooted
in him, and another to reverence the images of men, who when
living were the disgrace of human nature. In addition to
what is said by Julian on this subject, the following
extract from the treatise of Sallust, on the Gods, and the
World, is well worthy the attentive perusal of the reader:
"A divine nature is not indigent of any thing; but the
honours which we pay to the gods are performed for the sake
of our advantage. And since the providence of the gods is
everywhere extended, a certain habitude or fitness is all
that is requisite, in order to receive their beneficent
communications. But all habitude is produced through
imitation and similitude. Hence temples imitate the
heavens, but altars,. . .

{66}

one should fancy that these ought never to be corrupted, because they
were once called the images of the gods, such a one appears to me to
be perfectly void of intellect. For if this were admitted, it is also
requisite that they should not be made by men. That, however, which
is produced by a wise and good man may be corrupted by a depraved and
ignorant man. But the gods which circularly revolve about the heavens,
and which are living statues, fashioned by the gods themselves as
resemblances of their unapparent essence,--these remain for ever. No
one, therefore, should disbelieve in the gods, in consequence of seeing
and hearing that some persons have behaved insolently towards statues
and temples. For have there not been many who have destroyed good men,
such as Socrates and Dion, and the great Empedotimus? And who, I well
know, have, more than statues or temples, been taken care of by the
gods. See, however, that the gods, knowing the body of these to

. . . the earth; statues resemble life, and on this account
they are similar to animals. Prayers imitate that which is
intellectual; but characters, superior ineffable powers.
Herbs and stones resemble matter; and animals which are
sacrificed, the irrational life of our souls. But, from all
these, nothing happens to the gods beyond what they already
possess; for what accession can be made to a divine nature?
But a conjunction with our souls and the gods is by these
means produced.

{67}

be corruptible, have granted that it should yield and be subservient
to nature, but afterwards have punished those by whom it was destroyed;
which clearly happened to be the case with all the sacrilegious of our
time.

"Let no one, therefore, deceive us by words, nor disturb us with
respect to providential interference. For as to the prophets of the
Jews, who reproach us with things of this kind, what will they say of
their own temple, which has been thrice destroyed, but has not been
since, even to the present time, rebuilt? I do not, however, say this as
reproaching them; for I have thought of rebuilding it, after so long
a period, in honour of the divinity who is invoked in it. But I have
mentioned this, being willing to show, that it is not possible for any
thing human to be incorruptible; and that the prophets who wrote things
of this kind were delirious, and the associates of stupid old women.
Nothing, however, hinders, I think, but that God may be great, and yet
he may not have worthy interpreters [of his will]. But this is because
they have not delivered their soul to be purified by the liberal
disciplines; nor their eyes, which are profoundly closed, to be opened;
nor the darkness which oppresses them to be purged away. Hence, like men
who survey a great light through thick darkness,

{68}

neither see purely nor genuinely, and in consequence of this do not
conceive it to be a pure light, but a fire, and likewise perceiving
nothing of all that surrounds it, they loudly exclaim, _Be seized with
horror, be afraid, fire, flame, death, a knife, a two-edged sword_;
expressing by many names the one noxious power of fire. Of these men,
however, it is better peculiarly to observe how much inferior their
teachers of the words of God are to our poets. "


AN EDICT, FORBIDDING THE CHRISTIANS TO TEACH THE LIFE-RATURE OF THE
HEATHENS.

"We are of opinion that proper erudition consists not in words, nor
in elegant and magnificent language, but in the sane disposition of an
intelligent soul, and in true opinions of good and evil, and of what is
beautiful and base. Whoever, therefore, thinks one thing, and teaches
another to his followers, appears to be no less destitute of erudition
than he is of virtue. Even in trifles, if the mind and tongue be
at variance, there is some kind of improbity. But in affairs of the
greatest consequence, if a man thinks one thing, and teaches another
contrary to what he thinks, in what respect does this differ from the
conduct of those mean-spirited, dishonest, and abandoned traders, who
generally affirm what they know to be false, in order to deceive and
inveigle customers?

{60}

"All, therefore, who profess to teach, ought to possess worthy manners,
and should never entertain opinions opposite to those of the public;
but such especially, I think, ought to be those who instruct youth, and
explain to them the works of the ancients, whether they are orators
or grammarians; but particularly if they are sophists. For these last
affect to be the teachers, not only of words, but of manners, and
assert that political philosophy is their peculiar province. Whether,
therefore, this be true or not, I shall not at present consider. I
commend those who make such specious promises, and should commend
them much more, if they did not falsify and contradict themselves, by
thinking one thing, and teaching their scholars another. What then? Were
not Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and
Lysias, the leaders of all erudition? And did not some of them
consider themselves sacred to Mercury, but others to the Muses? I think,
therefore, it is absurd for those who explain their works to despise the
gods whom they honoured.

"I do not mean (for I think it would be absurd) that they should change
their opinions for the sake of instructing youth; but I give them their
option, either not to teach what they do not approve, or, if they choose
to teach, first to persuade their

{70}

scholars that neither Homer, nor Hesiod, nor any of those whom they
expound and charge with impiety, madness, and error concerning the gods,
are really such as they represent them to be. For as they receive a
stipend, and are maintained by their works, if they can act with such
duplicity for a few drachms, they confess themselves guilty of the most
sordid avarice.

"Hitherto, indeed, many causes have prevented their resorting to the
temples; and the dangers that everywhere impended, were a plea for
concealing the most true opinions of the gods. But now, since the gods
have granted us liberty, it seems to me absurd for any to teach those
things to men which they do not approve. And if they think that those
writers whom they expound, and of whom they sit as interpreters, are
wise, let them first zealously imitate their piety towards the gods.
But if they think they have erred in their conceptions of the most
honourable natures [the gods], let them go into the churches of the
Galilæans, and there expound Matthew and Luke, by whom being persuaded
you forbid sacrifices. I wish that your ears and your tongues were (as
you express it) regenerated in those things of which I wish that myself,
and all who in thought and deed are my friends, may always be partakers.

{71}

"To masters and teachers let this be a common law. But let no youths be
prevented from resorting to whatever schools they please. It would be
as unreasonable to exclude children, who know not yet what road to
take, from the right path, as it would be to lead them by fear and with
reluctance to the religious rites of their country. And though it would
be just to cure such reluctance, like madness, even by force, yet
let all be indulged with that disease. For I think it is requisite to
instruct, and not to punish the ignorant. "

{72}




APPENDIX


LIBANIUS'S ORATION FOR THE TEMPLES*.

[The occasion of the oration was this. In the reign of Theodosius
several heathen temples, some of them very magnificent, were pulled down
and destroyed in the cities, and especially in country-places, by the
monks, with the consent and connivance, as Libanius intimates, of the
bishops, and without express order of the Emperor to that purpose. Of
this Libanius complains, and implores the Emperor's protection, that the
temples may be preserved. ]

"Having already, O Emperor, often offered advice which has been approved
by you, even when others have advised contrary things, I come to you now
upon the same design, and with the same hopes, that now especially you
will be persuaded by me. But if not, do not judge the speaker an

* From Dr. Lardner's Heathen Testimonies.

{73}

enemy to your interests, considering, beside other things, the great
honour* which you have conferred upon me, and that it is not likely that
he who is under so great obligations should not love his benefactor.
And, for that very reason, I think it my duty to advise, where I
apprehend I have somewhat to offer which may be of advantage; for I have
no other way of showing my gratitude to the Emperor but by orations, and
the counsel delivered in them.

"I shall, indeed, appear to many to undertake a matter full of danger
in pleading with you for the temples, that they may suffer no injury, as
they now do. But they who have such apprehensions seem to me to be very
ignorant of your true character. For I esteem it the part of an angry
and severe disposition, for any one to resent the proposal of counsel
which he does not approve of: but the part of a mild and gentle and
equitable disposition, such as yours is, barely to reject counsel not
approved of. For when it is in the power of him to whom the address is
made to embrace any counsel or not, it is not reasonable to refuse a
hearing which can do no harm; nor yet to resent and punish the proposal
of counsel, if it appear contrary to his own judgment;

* The office of Præfectus Prætorio.

{74}

when the only thing that induced the adviser to mention it, was a
persuasion of its usefulness.

"I entreat you, therefore, O Emperor, to turn your countenance to me
while I am speaking, and not to cast your eyes upon those who in many
things aim to molest both you and me; forasmuch as oftentimes a look is
of greater effect than all the force of truth. I would further insist,
that they ought to permit me to deliver my discourse quietly and without

interruption; and then, afterwards, they may do their best to confute us
by what they have to say. [Here is a small breach in the Oration. But
he seems to have begun his argument with an account of the origin of
temples, that they were first of all erected in country places. ] Men
then having at first secured themselves in dens and cottages, and having
there experienced the protection of the gods, they soon perceived how
beneficial to mankind their favour must be: they therefore, as may be
sup-, posed, erected to them statues and temples, such as they could
in those early times. And when they began to build cities, upon the
increase of arts and sciences, there were many temples on the sides of
mountains and in plains: and in every city [as they built it] next to
the walls were temples and sacred edifices raised, as the beginning of
the rest of the body. For from such governors they expected the

{75}

greatest security: and, if you survey the whole Roman empire, you
will find this to be the case every where. For in the city next to the
greatest * there are still some temples**, though they are deprived
of their honours; a few indeed out of many, but yet it is not quite
destitute. And with the aid of these gods the Romans fought and
conquered their enemies; and having conquered them, they improved their
condition, and made them happier than they were before their defeat;
lessening their fears and making them partners in the privileges of
the commonwealth. And when I was a child, he*** led the Gallic army
overthrew him that had affronted him; they having first prayed to the
gods for success before they engaged. But having prevailed over him who
at that time gave prosperity to the cities, judging it for his advantage
to have another deity, for the building of the city which he then
designed he made use of the sacred money, but made no alteration in the
legal worship. The temples indeed were impoverished, but the rites
were still performed there. But when the empire came to his son****, or
rather the form of empire, for the government was really in the hands of
others, who

* He means Constantinople.

** He alludes to the ancient temples of Byzantium.

*** Constantine.

**** Constantius.

{78}

from the beginning had been his masters, and to whom he vouchsafed equal
power with himself: he therefore being governed by them, even when he
was Emperor, was led into many wrong actions, and among others to forbid
sacrifices. These his cousin*, possessed of every virtue, restored: what
he did otherwise, or intended to do, I omit at present. After his death
in Persia, the liberty of sacrificing remained for some time: but at
the instigation of some innovators, sacrifices were forbidden by the
two brothers**, but not incense;--which state of things your law has
ratified. So that we have not more reason to be uneasy for what is
denied us, than to be thankful for what is allowed. You, therefore, have
not ordered the temples to be shut up, nor forbidden any to frequent
them: nor have you driven from the temples or the altars, fire or
frankincense, or other honours of incense. But those black-garbed
people***, who eat more than elephants, and demand a large quantity of
liquor from the people who send them drink for their chantings, but who
hide their luxury by their pale artificial countenances,--these men, O
Emperor, even whilst your law is in force, run to the temples, bringing
with them wood, and stones, and iron, and

* Julian.

**Valentinian and Valens.

*** The monks.

{77}

when they have not these, hands and feet. Then follows a Mysian prey*,
the roofs are uncovered, walls are pulled down, images are carried off,
and altars are overturned: the priests all the while must be silent upon
pain of death. When they have destroyed one temple they run to another,
and a third, and trophies are erected upon trophies: which are all
contrary to [your] law. This is the practice in cities, but especially
in the countries. And there are many enemies every where. After
innumerable mischiefs have been perpetrated, the scattered multitude
unites and comes together, and they require of each other an account
of what they have done; and he is ashamed who cannot tell of some great
injury which he has been guilty of. They, therefore, spread themselves
over the country like torrents, wasting the countries together with the
temples: for wherever they demolish the temple of a country, at the same
time the country itself is blinded, declines, and dies. For, O Emperor,
the temples are the soul of the country; they have been the first
original of the buildings in the country, and they have subsisted for
many ages to this time; and in

* This proverbial expression took its rise from the Mysians,
who, in the absence of their king Telephus, being plundered
by their neighbours, made no resistance. Hence it came to be
applied to any persons who were passive under injuries.

{78}

them are all the husbandman's hopes, concerning men, and women, and
children, and oxen, and the seeds and the plants of the ground. Wherever
any country has lost its temples, that country is lost, and the hopes of
the husbandmen, and with them all their alacrity: for they suppose they
shall labour in vain, when they are deprived of the gods who should
bless their labours; and the country not being cultivated as usual, the
tribute is diminished. This being the state of things, the husbandman
is impoverished, and the revenue suffers. For, be the will ever so
good, impossibilities are not to be surmounted. Of such mischievous
consequence are the arbitrary proceedings of those persons in the
country, who say, 'they fight with the temples. ' But that war is the
gain of those who oppress the inhabitants: and robbing these miserable
people of their goods, and what they had laid up of the fruits of the
earth for their sustenance, they go off as with the spoils of those whom
they have conquered. Nor are they satisfied with this, for they also
seize the lands of some, saying it is sacred: and many are deprived of
their paternal inheritance upon a false pretence. Thus these men riot
upon other people's misfortunes, who say they worship God with fasting.
And if they who are abused come to the pastor in the city, (for so they
call a man who is not one of the meekest,) complaining of the injustice
that has been done

{79}

them, this pastor commends these, but rejects the others, as if they
ought to think themselves happy that they have suffered no more.
Although, O Emperor, these also are your subjects, and so much more
profitable than those who injure them, as laborious men are than the
idle: for they are like bees, these like drones. Moreover, if they
hear of any land which has any thing that can be plundered, they cry
presently, 'Such an one sacrificeth, and does abominable things, and
an army ought to be sent against him. ' And presently the reformers are
there: for by this name they call their depredators, if I have not used
too soft a word. Some of these strive to conceal themselves and deny
their proceedings; and if you call them robbers, you affront them.
Others glory and boast, and tell their exploits to those who are
ignorant of them, and say they are more deserving than the husbandmen.
Nevertheless, what is this but in time of peace to wage war with the
husbandmen? For it by no means lessens these evils that they suffer from
their countrymen. But it is really more grievous to suffer the things
which I have mentioned in a time of quiet, from those who ought to
assist them in a time of trouble. For you, O Emperor, in case of a war
collect an army, give out orders, and do every thing suitable to the
emergency. And the new works which you now carry on are designed as a
further

{80}

security against our enemies, that all may be safe in their habitations,
both in the cities and in the country: and then if any enemies should
attempt inroads, they may be sensible they must suffer loss rather than
gain any advantage. How is it, then, that some under your government
disturb others equally under your government, and permit them not to
enjoy the common benefits of it? How do they not defeat your own care
and providence and labours, O Emperor? How do they not fight against
your law by what they do?

"But they say, 'We have only punished those who sacrifice, and thereby
transgress the law, which forbids sacrifices. ' O Emperor, when they
say this they lie. For no one is so audacious, and so ignorant of the
proceedings of the courts, as to think himself more powerful than the
law. When 1 say the law, I mean the law against sacrifice». Can it be
thought, that they who are not able to bear the sight of a collector s
cloak, should despise the power of your government? This is what
they say for themselves. And they have been often alleged to Flavian*
himself, and never have been confuted, no not yet. For I appeal to the
guardians of this law: Who has known any of those whom you have

* Bishop of Antioch

{81}

plundered to have sacrificed upon the altars, so as the law does not
permit? What young or old person, what man, what woman? Who of those
inhabiting the same country, and not agreeing with the sacrificers in
the worship of the gods? Who of their neighbours? For envy and jealousy
are common in neighbourhoods. Whence some would gladly come as an
evidence if any such thing had been done: and yet no one has appeared,
neither from the one nor from the other: [that is, neither from the
country, nor from the neighbourhood. ] Nor will there ever appear, for
fear of perjury, not to say the punishment of it. Where then is the
truth of this charge, when they accuse those men of sacrificing contrary
to law?

"But this shall not suffice for an excuse to the Emperor. Some one
therefore may say: 'They have not sacrificed. ' Let it be granted. But
oxen have been killed at feasts and entertainments and merry meetings.
Still there is no altar to receive the blood, nor a part burned, nor do
salt-cakes precede, nor any libation follow.
But if some persons meeting
together in some pleasant field kill a calf, or a sheep, or both, and
roasting part and broiling the rest, have eat it under a shade upon the
ground, I do not know that they have acted contrary to any laws. For
neither have you, O Emperor, forbid

{82}

these things by your law; but mentioning one thing, which ought not to
be done, you have permitted every thing else. So that though they
should have feasted together with all sorts of incense, they have not
transgressed the law, even though in that feast they should all have
sung and invoked the gods. Unless you think fit to accuse even their
private method of eating, by which it has been customary for the
inhabitants of several places in the country to assemble together in
those [places] which are the more considerable, on holidays, and having
sacrificed, to feast together. This they did whilst the law permitted
them to do it. Since that, the liberty has continued for all the rest
except sacrificing. When, therefore, a festival day invited them, they
accepted the invitation, and with those things which might be done
without offence or danger, they have honoured both the day and the
place. But that they ventured to sacrifice, no one has said, nor heard,
nor proved, nor been credited: nor have any of their enemies pretended
to affirm it upon the ground of his own sight, nor any credible account
he has received of it.

"They will further say: 'By this means some have been converted, and
brought to embrace the same religious sentiments with themselves. '
Be not deceived by what they say; they only pretend it, but are not
convinced: for they are averse to

{83}

nothing more than this, though they say the contrary. For the truth is,
they have not changed the objects of their worship, but only appear
to have done so. They join themselves with them in appearance, and
outwardly perform the same things that they do: but when they are in a
praying posture, they address to no one, or else they invoke the gods;
not rightly indeed in such a place, but yet they invoke them. Wherefore
as in a tragedy he who acts the part of a king is not a king, but the
same person he was before he assumed the character, so every one of
these keeps himself the same he was, though he seems to them to be
changed. And what advantage have they by this, when the profession only
is the same with theirs, but a real agreement with them is wanting? for
these are things to which men ought to be persuaded, not compelled. And
when a man cannot accomplish that, and yet will practise this, nothing
is effected, and he may perceive the weakness of the attempt. It is said
that this is not permitted by their own laws, which commend persuasion,
and condemn compulsion. Why then do you run mad against the temples?
When you cannot persuade, you use force. In this you evidently
transgress your own laws.

"But they say: 'It is for the good of the world, and the men in it, that
there should be no temples. '

{84}

Here, O Emperor, I need freedom of speech; for I fear lest I should
offend. Let then any of them tell me, who have left the tongs and the
hammer and the anvil, and pretend to talk of the heavens, and of them
that dwell there, what rites the Romans followed, who arose from small
and mean beginnings, and went on prevailing, and grew great; theirs, or
these, whose are the temples and the altars, from whom they knew by
the soothsayers, what they ought to do, or not to do? [Here Libanius
instanceth in the successes of Agamemnon against Troy; and of Hercules
before, against the same place; and some other things. ] And many other
wars might be mentioned, which have been successfully conducted, and
after that peace obtained, by the favour and under the direction of
the gods. But, what is the most considerable of all, they who seemed to
despise this way of worship, have honoured it against their will. Who
are they? They who have not ventured to forbid sacrifices at Rome. But
if all this affair of sacrifices be a vain thing, why has not this vain
thing been prohibited? And if it be hurtful likewise, why not much more?
But if in the sacrifices there performed consists the stability of the
empire, it ought to be reckoned beneficial to sacrifice every where; and
to be allowed that the dæmonss at Rome confer greater benefits, these in
the country and other cities less. This is

{85}

what may be reasonably granted: for in an army all are not equal; yet in
a battle the help of each one is of use: the like may be said of rowers
in a vessel. So one [dæmons] defends the sceptre of Rome, another
protects a city subject to it, another preserves the country and gives
it felicity. Let there then be temples every where. Or let those men
confess, that you are not well affected to Rome in permitting her to do
things by which she suffers damage. But neither is it at Rome only that
the liberty of sacrificing remains, but also in the city of Serapis*,
that great and populous city, which has a multitude of temples, by which
it renders the plenty of Egypt common to all men. This [plenty] is the
work of the Nile. It therefore celebrates the Nile, and persuades him
to rise and overflow the fields. If those rites were not performed, when
and by whom they ought, he would not do so. Which they themselves seem
to be sensible of, who willingly enough abolish such things, but do not
abolish these; but permit the river to enjoy his ancient rites, for the
sake of the benefit he affords.

"'What then,' some will say: 'Since there is not in every country a
river to do what the Nile does

* i. e. Alexandria. The temple of Serapis was destroyed in 391.

{86}

for the earth, there is no reason for temples in those places. Let
them therefore suffer what these good people think fit. ' Whom I would
willingly ask this question: Whether, changing their mind, they will
dare to say, Let there be an end of these things done by [or for] the
Nile: let not the earth partake of his waters: let nothing be sown nor
reaped: let him afford no corn, nor any other product, nor let the mud
overflow the whole land, as at present. If they dare not own this, by
what they forbear to say they confute what they do say: for they who do
not affirm that the Nile ought to be deprived of his honours, confess
that the honours paid to the temples are useful.

"And since they mention him* who spoiled the temples [of their revenues
and gifts], we shall omit observing that he did not proceed to the
taking away the sacrifices. But who ever suffered a greater punishment
for taking away the sacred money [out of the temples], partly in what
he brought upon himself; partly in what he suffered after his death,
insomuch that his family destroyed one another, till there were none
left? And it had been much better for him that some of his posterity
should reign, than to enlarge with buildings a city of

* Constantine

{87}

his own name: for the sake of which city itself all men still curse his
memory, except those who live there in wicked luxury, because by their
poverty these have their abundance.

"And since next to him they mention his son *, and how he destroyed the
temples, when they who polled them down took no less pains in destroying
them, than the builders had done in raising them,---so laborious a work
was it to separate the stones cemented by the strongest bands;--since,
I say, they mention these things, I will mention somewhat yet more
considerable. That he indeed made presents of the temples to those who
were about him, just as he might give a horse, or a slave, or a dog, or
a golden cup; but they were unhappy presents to both the giver and the
receivers of them: for he spent all his life in fear of the Persians,
dreading all their motions as children do bugbears. Of whom, some were
childless, and died miserably intestate; and others had better never
have had children: with such infamy and mutual discord do they live
together who descend from them, whilst they dwell among sacred pillars
taken from the temples. To whom I think these things are owing, who
knowing how to enrich themselves, have taught

* Constantius.

{88}

their children this way to happiness! And at this time their distempers
carry some of them to Cilicia, needing the help of Æsculapius. But
instead of obtaining relief, they meet with affronts only for the injury
done to the place. How can such return without cursing the author of
these evils? But let the conduct of this Emperor be such as to deserve
praises living and dead; such as we know he* was who succeeded him; who
had overturned the Persian empire if treachery had not prevented it.
Nevertheless he was great in his death, for he was killed by treachery,
as Achilles also was; and is applauded for that, as well as for what
he did before his death. This has he from the gods, to whom he restored
their rites, and honours, and temples, and altars, and blood: from whom
having heard,« that he should humble the pride of Persia, and then die,'
he purchased the glory of his life, taking many cities, subduing a large
tract of land, teaching his pursuers to fly; and was about to receive,
as all know, an embassy which would have brought the submission of the
enemy. Wherefore he was pleased with his wound, and looking upon it
rejoiced, and without any tears rebuked those who wept, for not thinking
that a wound was better to him than any old age. So that the embassies
sent after his death were all

* Julian.

{80}

his right. And the reason why the Achemenidæ* for the future made use
of entreaties instead of arms, was that the fear of him still possessed
their minds. Such an one was he who restored to us the temples of
the gods, who did things too good to be forgotten, himself above all
oblivion.

"But I thought that he** who reigned lately would pull down and burn
the temples of those who were of the opposite sentiment, as he knew how
to despise the gods. But he was better than expectation, sparing the
temples of the enemies, and not disdaining to run some hazards for
preserving those of his own dominions, which had long since been erected
with much labour and at vast expense. For if cities are to be preserved
every where, and some cities outshine others by means of their temples,
and these are their chief ornaments, next to the Emperor's palaces,--how
is it that no care must be taken of these, nor any endeavours used to
preserve them in the body of the cities?

"But it is said: 'There will be other edifices, though there should be
no temples. ' But I think tribute to be of importance to the treasury.
Let

* Another name for the Persians.

** Valens.

{90}

these stand then, and be taxed. Do we think it a cruel thing to cut off
a man's hand, and a small matter to pluck out the eyes of cities? And
do we not lament the ruins made by earthquakes? and when there are no
earthquakes, nor other accidents, shall we ourselves do what they are
wont to effect? Are not the temples the possession of the Emperors
as well as other things? Is it the part of wise men to sink their own
goods? Does not every one suppose him to be distracted, who throws his
purse into the sea? Or if the master of the ship was to cut those ropes
which are of use to the ship; or if any one should order a mariner to
throw away his oar,--would you think it an absurdity? and yet think it
proper for a magistrate to deprive a city of such a part of it? What
reason is there for destroying that, the use of which may be changed?
Would it not be shameful for an army to fight against its own walls? and
for a general to excite them against what they have raised with great
labour; the finishing of which was a festival for those who then
reigned? Let no man think, Emperor, that this is a charge brought
against you. For there lies in ruins, in the Persian borders, a temple*,
to which there is none like, as may be learned from those who saw it, so
magnificent the stone work, and in

* Probably the temple at Odessa.

{91}

compass equal to the city. Therefore in time of war the citizens thought
their enemies would gain nothing by taking the town, since they could
not take that likewise, as the strength of its fortifications bid
defiance to all their attacks. At length, however, it was attacked, and
with a fury equal to the greatest enemies, animated by the hopes of the
richest plunder. I have heard it disputed,by some, in which state it
was the greatest wonder; whether now that it is no more, or when it
had suffered nothing of this kind, like the temple of Serapis. But
that temple, so magnificent and so large, not to mention the wonderful
structure of the roof, and the many brass statues, now hid in darkness
out of the light of the sun, is quite perished; a lamentation to them
who have seen it, a pleasure to them who never saw it. For the eyes and
ears are not alike affected with these things. Or rather to those who
have not seen it, it is both sorrow and pleasure: the one because of its
fall, the other because their eyes never saw it. Nevertheless, if it be
rightly considered, this work is not yours, but the work of a man *
who has deceived you; a profane wretch, an enemy of the gods, base,
covetous, ungrateful to the earth that received him when born, advanced
without merit, and abusing his greatness, when advanced;

* Probably Cynegius, the Emperor's lieutenant.

{93}

a slave to his wife, gratifying her in any thing, and esteeming her all
things, in perfect subjection to them* who direct these things, whose
only virtue lies in wearing the habit of mourners; but especially to
those of them who also weave coarse garments. This workhouse** deluded,
imposed upon him, and misled him; [and it is said that many gods have
been deceived by gods;] for they gave out, 'that the priests sacrificed,
and so near them that the smoke reached their noses:' and after the
manner of some simple people, they enlarge and heighten matters, and
vaunt themselves as if they thought nothing was above their power. By
such fiction, and contrivance, and artful stories, proper to excite
displeasure, they persuaded the mildest father [of his people] among the
Emperors***. For these were really his virtues, humanity, tenderness,
compassion, mildness, equity, who had rather save than destroy. But
there were those who gave lister counsel; that if such a thing had
been done, the attempt should be punished, and care taken to prevent
the like for time to come. Yet he who thought he ought to have a
Cadmean victory, carried on his conquest. But after he had taken his own
pleasures, he should have provided for his

* The monks.

**The monastery.

*** Probably Valens.

{93}

people, and not have desired to appear great to those who shun the
labours of the country, and converse in the mountains *, as they say,
with the Maker of all things. But let your actions appear excellent and
praiseworthy to all men. There are at this time many, so far friends as
to receive and empty your treasures, and to whom your empire is dearer
than their own souls; but when the time comes that good counsel and real
services are wanted, they have no concern upon them but to take care of
themselves; and if any one comes to them, and inquires what this means,
they excuse themselves as free from all fault. They disown what they
have done, or pretend 'that they have obeyed the Emperor's order; and if
there is any blame, he must see to it. ' Such things they say, when it is
they who are found guilty, who can give no account of their actions.
For what account can be given of such mischiefs? These men before others
deny this to be their own work. But when they address you alone, without
witnesses, they say, 'they have been in this war serving your family. '
They would deliver your house from those who by land and sea endeavour
to defend your person; than which there is nothing greater you can
receive from them. For these men, under the name of friends and
protectors,

* He refers to the monks near Antioch,

{94}

telling stories of those by whom they say they have been injured,
improve your credulity into an occasion of doing more mischief.

"But I return to them, to demonstrate their injustice by what they have
said: Say then, for what reason you destroyed that great temple? Not
because the Emperor approved the doing it. They who pull down a temple
have done no wrong if the Emperor has ordered it to be done. Therefore
they who pulled it down did not do wrong by doing what the Emperor
approved of. But he who does that which is not approved by the Emperor,
does Wrong; does he not? You, then, are the men who have nothing of this
to say for what you have done. Tell me why this temple of Fortune is
safe? and the temple of Jupiter, and of Minerva, and of Bacchus? Is it
because you would have them remain? No, but because no one has given
you power over them; which, nevertheless, you have assumed against those
which you have destroyed. How, then, are you not liable to punishment?
or how can you pretend that what you have done is right, when the
sufferers have done no wrong? Of which charge there would have been some
appearance, if you, O Emperor, had published an edict to their purpose:
'Let no man within my empire believe in the gods, nor worship them, nor
ask any

{95}

good thing of them, neither for himself, nor for his children, unless it
be done in silence and privately: but let all present themselves at the
places where I worship, and join in the rites there performed. And let
them offer the same prayers which they do, and bow the head at the hand
of him who directs the multitude. Whoever transgresses this law, shall
be put to death. ' It was easy for you to publish such a law as this; but
you have not done it; nor have you in this matter laid a yoke upon the
souls of men. But though you think one way better than the other, yet
you do not judge that other to be an impiety, for which a man may be
justly punished. Nor have you excluded those of that sentiment from
honours, but have conferred upon them the highest offices, and have
given them access to your table, to eat and drink with you. This you
have done formerly, and at this time; beside others, you have associated
to yourself (thinking it advantageous to your government) a man, who
swears by the gods, both before others, and before yourself: and you are
not offended at it; nor do you think yourself injured by those oaths:
nor do you account him a wicked man who placeth his best hopes in the
gods. When, therefore, you do not reject us, as neither did he who
subdued the Persians by arms reject those of his subjects who differed
from him in this matter, what pretence have these to reject us?

{96}

How can these men reject their fellow-subjects, differing from them in
this matter? By what right do they make these incursions? How do they
seize other men's goods with the indignation of the countries? How do
they destroy some things, and carry off others? adding to the injury of
their actions the insolence of glorying in them. We, O Emperor, if
you approve and permit these things, will bear them; not without grief
indeed; but yet we will show that we have learned to obey. But if you
give them no power, and yet they come and invade our small remaining
substance, or our walls: Know, that the owners of the countries will
defend themselves. "




EXTRACTS FROM BINGHAM'S ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*,

OF THE NAMES OF REPROACH WHICH THE JEWS, INFIDELS, AND HERETICS CAST
UPON THE CHRISTIANS.


"Besides the names already spoken of, there were some other reproachful
names cast upon them by their adversaries, which it will not be improper
here to mention. The first of these was Nazarens, a

* The edition from which these Extracts are taken it in one
vol. 8vo, London, 1708, and begins at p. 13.

{97}

name of reproach given them first by the Jews, by whom they are styled
the sect of the Nazarens, Acts xxiv. 5. There was indeed a particular
heresy, who called themselves [--------]: and Epiphanius* thinks the
Jews had a more especial spite at them, because they were a sort of
Jewish apostates, who kept circumcision and the Mosaical rites together
with the Christian religion: and therefore, he says, they were used
to curse and anathematize them three times a day, morning, noon, and
evening, when they met in their synagogues to pray, in this direful form
of execration,' [--------], 'Send thy curse, O God, upon the Nazarens. '
But St. Jerome** says this was levelled at Christians in general, whom
they thus anathematized under the name of Nazarens. And this seems
most probable, because both as St. Jerome*** and Epiphanius himself****
observe, the Jews termed all Christians by way of reproach, Nazarens.
And the Gentiles took it from the Jews, as appears from that of

* Epiphan. Haer. 29. n. 9.

** Hieron. Com. in Esa. xlix. t 5. p. 178. Ter per tingulos
dies sub nomine Nazaienorum maledicunt in synagogis suis.

*** Id. de loc. Hebr. t. 3. p. 289. Nos apnd veterei» quasi
opprobrio Nazaraei dicebamur, quos nunc Christianos vocant.

**** Epiphan. ibid.

{98}

Datianus the praetor in Prudentius*, where speaking to the Christians
he gives them the name of Nazarens. Some** think the Christians at first
were very free to own this name, and esteemed it no reproach, till such
time as the heresy of the Nazarens broke out, and then in detestation
of that heresy they forsook that name, and called themselves Christians.
Acts xi. 26. But whether this be said according to the exact rules of
chronology, I leave those that are better skilled to determine.

Another name of reproach was that of Galilæans, which was Julian's
ordinary style, whenever he spake of Christ or Christians. Thus in
his Dialogue with old Maris a blind Christian bishop, mentioned by
Sozomen***, he told him by way of scoff, "Thy Galilæan God will not cure
thee. " And again, in his epistle**** to Arsacius high-priest of Galatia,
"The Galilæans maintain their own poor and ours also. " The like may be
observed in Socrates(v), Theodoret (vi),

* Prudent. ---------]. Carm. 5. de S. Vincent.
Vos Nazareni assistite,
Rudemque ritum spernite.

Id. Hymno 9. de Rom. Mart.

** Junius, Parallel, lib. 1. c. 8. Godwyn, Jew.