|
'WHEN the winter,' says he, 'had lengthened the nights, the
emperor made an attack on those books which made the man of Palestine
both God, and the Son of God: and by a long series of arguments
having proved that these writings, which are so much revered by
Christians, are ridiculous and unfounded, he has evinced himself
wiser and more skillful than the Tyrian old man. But may this Tyrian
sage be propitious to me, and mildly bear with what has been affirmed,
seeing that he has been excelled by his son!' Such is the language of
Libanius the Sophist. But I confess, indeed, that he was an
excellent rhetorician, but am persuaded that had he not coincided with
the emperor in religious sentiment, he would not only have given
expression to all that has been said against him by Christians, but
would have magnified every ground of censure as naturally becomes a
rhetorician. For while Constantius was alive he wrote encomiums-upon
him; but after his death he brought the most insulting and reproachful
charges against him. So that if Porphyry had been emperor, Libanius
would certainly have preferred his books to Julian's: and had Julian
been a mere sophist, he would have termed him a very indifferent one,
as he does Ecebolius in his Epitaph upon Julian. Since then he has
spoken in the spirit of a pagan, a sophist, and the friend of him whom
he lauded, we shall endeavor to meet what he has advanced, as far as
we are able. In the first place he says that the emperor undertook to
'attack' these books during the long winter nights. Now to
'attack' means to make the writing of a confutation of them a task,
as the sophists commonly do in teaching the rudiments of their art; for
he had perused these books long before, but attacked them at this
time. But throughout the long contest into which he entered, instead
of attempting to disprove anything by sound reasoning, as Libanius
asserts, in the absence of truth he had recourse to sneers and
contemptuous jests, of which he was excessively fond; and thus he
sought to hold up to derision what is too firmly established to be
overthrown. For every one who enters into controversy with another,
sometimes trying to pervert the truth, and at others to conceal it,
falsities by every possible means the position of his antagonist. And
an adversary is not satisfied with doing malignant acts against one with
whom he is at variance, but will speak against him also, and charge
upon the object of his dislike the very faults he is conscious of in
himself. That both Julian and Porphyry, whom Libanius calls the
'Tyrian old man,' took great delight in scoffing, is evident from
their own works. For Porphyry in his History of the Philosophers
has treated with ridicule the life of Socrates, the most eminent of
all the philosophers, making such remarks on him as neither Melitus,
nor Anytus, his accusers, would have dared to utter; of Socrates,
I say, who was admired by all the Greeks for his modesty, justice,
and other virtues; whom Plato, the most admirable among them,
Xenophon, and the rest of the philosophic band, not only honor as one
beloved of God, but also are accustomed to think of as having been
endowed with superhuman intelligence. And Julian, imitating his
'father,' displayed a like morbidness of mind in his book, entitled
The Caesars, wherein he traduces all his imperial predecessors, not
sparing even Mark the philosopher. Their own writings therefore show
that they both took pleasure in taunts and reviling; and I have no
need of profuse and clever expressions to do this; but what has been
said is enough concerning their mood in this respect. Now I write
these things, using the oration of each as witnesses respecting their
dispositions, but of Julian in particular, what Gregory of
Nazianzus says in his Second Oration against the Pagans is in the
following terms:
'These things were made evident to others by experience, after the
possession of imperial authority had left him free to follow the bent of
his inclinations: but I had foreseen it all, from the time I became
acquainted with him at Athens. Thither he came, by permission of the
emperor, soon after the change in his brother's fortune. His motive
for this visit was twofold: one reason was honorable to him, viz. to
see Greece, and attend the schools there; the other was a more secret
one, which few knew anything about, for his impiety had not yet
presumed to openly avow itself, viz. to have opportunity of consulting
the sacrificers and other impostors respecting his own destiny. I well
remember that even then I was no bad diviner concerning this person,
although I by no means pretend to be one of those skilled in the art of
divination: but the fickleness of his disposition, and the incredible
extravagancy of his mind, rendered me prophetic; if indeed he is the
"best prophet who conjectures correctly" events. For it seemed to me
that no good was portended by a neck seldom steady, the frequent
shrugging of shoulders, an eye scowling and always in motion, together
with a frenzied aspect; a gait irregular and tottering, a nose
breathing only contempt and insult, with ridiculous contortions of
countenance expressive of the same thing; immoderate and very loud
laughter, nods as it were of assent, and drawings back of the head as
if in denial, without any visible cause; speech with hesitancy and
interrupted by his breathing; disorderly and senseless questions,
answers no better, all jumbled together without the least consistency
or method. Why need I enter into minute particulars? Such I
foresaw he would be beforehand as I found him afterwards from
experience. And if any of those who were then present and heard me,
were now here, they would readily testify that when I observed these
prognostics I exclaimed, "Ah! how great a mischief to itself is the
Roman empire fostering!" And that when I had uttered these words I
prayed God that I might be a false prophet. For it would have been
far better [that I should have been convicted of having formed an
erroneous judgment], than that the world should be filled with so many
calamities, and that such a monster should have appeared as never
before had been seen: although many deluges and conflagrations are
recorded, many earthquakes and chasms, and descriptions are given of
many ferocious and inhuman men, as well as prodigies of the brute
creation, compounded of different races, of which nature produced
unusual forms. His end has indeed been such as corresponds with the
madness of his career.'
This is the sketch which Gregory has given us of Julian. Moreover,
that in their various compilations they have endeavored to do violence
to the truth, sometimes by the corruption of passages of sacred
Scripture, at others by either adding to the express words, and
putting such a construction upon them as suited their own purpose, many
have demonstrated, by confuting their cavils, and exposing their
fallacies. Origen in particular, who lived long before Julian's
time, by himself raising objections to such passages of Holy
Scripture as seemed to disturb some readers, and then fully meeting
them, has shut out the invidious clamors of the thoughtless. And had
Julian and Porphyry given his writings a candid and serious perusal,
they would have discoursed on other topics, and not have turned to the
framing of blasphemous sophisms. It is also very obvious that the
emperor in his discourses was intent on beguiling the ignorant, and did
not address himself to those who possess the 'form' of the truth as it
is presented in the sacred Scriptures. For having grouped together
various expressions in which God is spoken of dispensationally, and
more according to the manner of men, he thus comments on them.
'Every one of these expressions is full of blasphemy against God,
unless the phrase contains some occult and mysterious sense, which
indeed I can suppose.' This is the exact language he uses in his
third book against the Christians. But in his treatise On the Cynic
Philosophy, where he shows to what extent fables may be invented on
religious subjects, he says that in such matters the truth must be
veiled: 'For,' to quote his very words, 'Nature loves
concealment; and the hidden substance of the gods cannot endure being
cast into polluted ears in naked words.' From which it is manifest
that the emperor entertained this notion concerning the divine
Scriptures, that they are mystical discourses, containing in them
some abstruse meaning. He is also very indignant because all men do
not form the same opinion of them; and inveighs against those
Christians who understand the sacred oracles in a more literal sense.
But it ill became him to rail so vehemently against the simplicity of
the vulgar, and on their account to behave so arrogantly towards the
sacred Scriptures: nor was he warranted in turning with aversion from
those things which others rightly apprehended, because forsooth they
understood them otherwise than he desired they should. But now as it
seems a similar cause of disgust seems to have operated upon him to that
which affected Porphyry, who having been beaten by some Christians at
Caesarea in Palestine and not being able to endure [such
treatment], from the working of unrestrained rage renounced the
Christian religion: and from hatred of those who had beaten him he
took to write blasphemous works against Christians, as Eusebius
Pamphilus has proved who at the same time refuted his writings. So
the emperor having uttered disdainful expressions against the
Christians in the presence of an unthinking multitude, through the
same morbid condition of mind fell into Porphyry's blasphemies.
Since therefore they both willfully broke forth into impiety, they are
punished by the consciousness of their guilt. But when Libanius the
Sophist says in derision, that the Christians make 'a man of
Palestine both God and the Son of God,' he appears to have
forgotten that he himself has deified Julian at the close of his
oration. 'For they almost killed,' says he, 'the first messenger
of his death, as if he had lied against a god.' And a little
afterwards he adds, 'O thou cherished one of the gods! thou disciple
of the gods! thou associate n with the gods!' Now although Libanius
may have meant otherwise, yet inasmuch as he did not avoid the
ambiguity of a word which is sometimes taken in a bad sense, he seems
to have said the same things as the Christians had done reproachfully.
If then it was his intention to praise him, he ought to have avoided
equivocal terms; as he did on another occasion, when being criticised
he avoided a certain word, cutting it out of his works. Moreover,
that man in Christ was united to the Godhead, so that while he was
apparently but man, he was the invisible God, and that both these
things are most true, the divine books of Christians distinctly
teach. But the heathen before they believe, cannot understand: for
it is a divine oracle that declares 'Unless ye believe, assuredly ye
shall not understand.' Wherefore they are not ashamed to place many
men among the number of their gods: and would that they had done this,
at least to the good, just, and sober, instead of the impure,
unjust, and those addicted to drunkenness, like the Hercules, the
Bacchus, and the AEsculapius, by whom Libanius does not blush to
swear frequently in his orations. And were I to attempt to enumerate
the unnatural debaucheries and infamous adulteries of these, the
digression would be lengthened beyond measure: but for those who desire
to be informed on the subject, Aristotle's Peplum, Dionysius'
Corona, Rheginus' Polymnemon, and the whole host of poets will be
enough to show that the pagan theology is a tissue of extravagant
absurdities. We might indeed show by a variety of instances that the
practice of deifying human beings was far from uncommon among the
heathen, nay, that they did so without the slightest hesitation: let
a few examples suffice. The Rhodians having consulted an oracle on
some public calamity, a response was given directing them to pay their
adoration to Atys, a pagan priest who instituted frantic rites in
Phrygia. The oracle was thus expressed: 'Atys propitiate, the
great god, the chaste Adonis, the blessed fair-haired Dionysius
rich in gifts.'
Here Atys, who from an amatory mania had castrated himself, is by
the oracle designated as Adonis and Bacchus.
Again, when Alexander, king of the Macedonians, passed over into
Asia, the Amphictyons courted his favor, and the Pythoness uttered
this oracle:
'To Zeus supreme among the gods, and Athene Tritogenia pay
homage, and to the king divine concealed in mortal form, him Zeus
begat in honor to be the protector and dispenser of justice among
mortals, Alexander the king.'
These are the words of the demon at Delphi, who when he wished to
flatter potentates, did not scruple to assign them a place among the
gods. The motive here was perhaps to conciliate by adulation: but
what could one say of the case of Cleomedes the pugilist, whom they
ranked among the gods in this oracle?
'The last of the heroes is Cleomedes, the Astypalian. Him honor
with sacrifices; for he is no longer a mortal.'
Because of this oracle Diogenes the cynic, and Oenomaus the
philosopher, strongly condemned Apollo. The inhabitants of Cyzicus
declared Hadrian to be the thirteenth god; and Adrian himself deified
his own catamite Antinous. Libanius does not term these 'ridiculous
and contemptible absurdities,' although he was familiar with these
oracles, as well as with the work of Adrias on the life of Alexander
(the pseudo-prophet of Paphlagonia): nor does he himself hesitate
to dignify Porphyry in a similar manner, when after having preferred
Julian's books to his, he says, 'May the Syrian be propitious to
me.' This digression will suffice to repel the scoffs of the
sophist, without following him farther in what he has advanced; for to
enter into a complete refutation would require an express work. We
shall therefore proceed with our history.
|
|