Julian, does not understand how the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed three times. He says* that apparently Julian reckoned as a third destruction the catastrophe which happened during his reign. A curious destruction this!-the non-removal of the stones of an old foundation. What could prevent this writer from seeing that the temple, having been built by Solomon, reconstructed by Zorobabel, entirely destroyed by Herod, rebuilt by Herod himself with so much magnificence, and at last laid in ruins by Titus, manifestly made three destructions of the temple? The reckoning is correct. Julian should surely have escaped calumny on this point.+ The Abbé de la Blétrie calumniates him sufficiently by saying, that all his virtues were only seeming, while all his vices were real. But Julian was not hypocritical, nor avaricious, nor fraudulent, nor lying, nor ungrateful, nor cowardly, nor drunken, nor debauched, nor idle, nor vindictive. What then were his vices? 4. Let us now examine the redoutable argument made use of to persuade us that globes of fire issued from stones. Ammianus Marcellinus, a pagan writer, free from all suspicion, has said it. Be it so: but this Ammianus has also said, that when the Emperor was about to sacrifice ten oxen to his gods for his first victory over the Persians, nine of them fell to the earth before they were presented at the altar. He relates a hundred predictions-a hundred prodigies. Are we to believe in them? Are we to believe in all the ridiculous miracles related by Livy? Besides, who can say that the text of Ammianus Marcellinus has not been falsified? Would it be the only instance in which this artifice has been employed? I wonder that no mention is made of the little fiery crosses which all the workmen found on their bodies when they went to bed. They would have made an admirable figure along with the globes. * Page 399. + Julian might even have counted four destructions of the temple; for Antiochus Eupator had all its walls pulled down. La Blétrie's Preface. The fact is, that the temple of the Jews was not rebuilt, and it may be presumed never will be so. Here let us hold, and not seek useless prodigies. Globi flammarum-globes of fire, issue neither from stones nor from earth. Ammianus, and those who have quoted him, were not natural philosophers. Let the Abbé de la Blétrie only look at the fire on St. John's day, and he will see that flame always ascends with a point or in a cloud, and never in a globe. This alone is sufficient to overturn the nonsense which he comes forward to defend with injudicious criticism and revolting pride. After all, the thing is of very little importance. There is nothing in it that affects either faith or morals; and historical truth is all that is here sought for.* APOSTLES. Their Lives, their Wives, their Children. AFTER the article Apostle in the Encyclopedia, which is as learned as it is orthodox, very little remains to be said. But we often hear it asked-Were the apostles married? Had they any children? If they had, what became of those children? Where did the apostles live? Where did they write? Where did they die? Had they any appropriated districts? Did they exercise any civil ministry? Had they any jurisdiction over the faithful? Were they bishops? Had they an hierarchy, rites, or ceremonies? I. Were the Apostles married? There is extant a letter attributed to St. Ignatius the martyr, in which are these decisive words— "I call to mind your sanctity as I do that of Elias, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the chosen disciples Timothy, Titus, Evadius, and Clement; yet I do not Much of this argument might be spared in Great Britain, but not so in France, or possibly in any other Catholic country, during the life-time of Voltaire. If any one be disposed to doubt this fact, let him turn his attention to the recent alleged miracles of Prince Hohenloe.-T. blame such other of the blessed as were bound in the bonds of marriage, but hope to be found worthy of God in following their footsteps in his kingdom, after the example of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Isaiah, and the other prophets,-of Peter and Paul, and the apostles who were married." Some of the learned assert, that the name of St. Paul has been interpolated in this famous letter: however, Turrian and all who have seen the letters of Ignatius in the library of the Vatican, acknowledge that St. Paul's name appears there. And Baronius* does not deny that this passage is to be found in some Greek manuscripts :-Non negamus in quibusdam græcis codicibus. But he asserts that these words have been added by modern Greeks. In the old Oxford library, there was a manuscript of St. Ignatius's letters in Greek, which contained these words; but it was, I believe, burned with many other books at the taking of Oxford by Cromwell.+ There is still one in Latin in the same library, in which the words Pauli et apostolorum have been effaced, but in such a manner that the old characters may be easily distinguished. It is however certain, that this passage exists in several editions of these letters. This dispute about St. Paul's marriage is, after all, a very frivolous one. What matters it whether he was married or not, if the other apostles were married? His first Epistle to the Corinthians is quite sufficient to prove that he might be married, as well as the rest :—‡ "Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time. at his own charges?"§ 3d Baronius, anno 57. + See Cotelerius, tom. II. p. 242. Chap. ix. v. 4, &c. Who?-The Romans, who had no country; the Greeks; the Tartars, who destroyed so many empires; the Arabs; every conquering people. It is clear, from this passage, that all the apostles were married, as well as St. Peter. And St. Clement of Alexandria positively declares* that St. Paul had a wife. The Roman discipline has changed, which is no proof that the usage of the primitive ages was not different.+ II. Children of the Apostles. Very little is known of their families. St. Clement of Alexandria says that Peter had children, that Philip had daughters, and that he gave them in marriage.t The Acts of the Apostless specify St. Philip, whose four daughters prophesied, of whom it is believed that one was married, and that this one was St. Hermione. Eusebius relates that Nicholas, chosen by the apostles to co-operate in the sacred ministry with St. Stephen, had a very handsome wife, of whom he was jealous. The apostles having reproached him with his jealousy, he corrected himself of it, brought his wife to them and said, "I am ready to yield her up; let him marry her who will." The apostles, however, did not accept his proposal. He had by his wife a son and several daughters. Cleophas, according to Eusebius and St. Epiphanius, was brother to St. Joseph, and father of St. James the Less, and of St. Jude, whom he had by Mary, sister to the Blessed Virgin. So that St. Jude the apostle was first cousin to Jesus Christ. Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius,¶ tells us, that two grandsons of St. Jude were informed against to the emperor Domitian, as being descendants of David, and having an incontestable right to the throne of Jerusalem. Domitian, fearing that they might avail themselves of this right, put questions to them himself, and * Stromat, Book iii. + See Apostolical Constitutions, art. APOCRYPHA. Stromat, book vii; and Eusebius, book iii. chap. 30. Eusebius, book iii. chap. 20. they acquainted him with their genealogy. The Emperor asked them what fortune they had. They answered, that they had thirty-nine acres of land, which paid tribute, and that they worked for their livelihood. He then asked them when Jesus Christ's kingdom was to come; and they told him, "At the end of the world." After which, Domitian allowed them to depart in peace; which goes far to prove that he was not a persecutor. This, if I mistake not, is all that is known about the children of the apostles. III. Where did the Apostles live? Where did they die? According to Eusebius,* James, surnamed the Just, brother to Jesus Christ, was in the beginning placed the first on the episcopal throne of the city of Jerusalem; these are his own words. So that, according to him, the first bishopric was that of Jerusalem-supposing that the Jews knew even the name of bishop. It does, indeed, appear very likely that the brother of Jesus Christ should have been the first after him, and that the very city in which the miracle of our salvation was worked, should have become the metropolis of the Christian world. As for the episcopal throne, that is a term which Eusebius uses by anticipation. We all know that there was then neither throne nor see. Eusebius adds, after St. Clement, that the other apostles did not contend with St. James for this dignity. They elected him immediately after the Ascension. "Our Lord," says he, "after his resurrection, had given to James surnamed the Just, to John, and to Peter, the gift of knowledge;"-very remarkable words. Eusebius mentions James first, then John, and Peter comes last. It seems but just that the brother and the beloved disciple of Jesus should come before the man who had denied him. Nearly the whole Greek church and all the reformers ask, Where is Peter's primacy? The Catholics answer-If he is not placed first by the * Eusebius, book iii. |