abused their transient favour, thought it prudent to shave their beards and disguise their profession; and the Christians rejoiced, that they were now in a condition to forgive, or to revenge, the injuries which they had suffered under the preceding reign.[1] The consternation of the Pagan world was dispelled by a wise and gracious edict of toleration; in which Jovian explicitly declared that, although he should severely punish the sacrilegious rites of magic, his subjects might exercise, with freedom and safety, the ceremonies of the ancient worship. The memory of this law has been preserved by the orator Themistius, who was deputed by the senate of Constantinople to express their loyal devotion for the new emperor. Themistius expatiates on the clemency of the Divine Nature, the facility of human error, the rights of conscience, and the independence of the mind; and, with some eloquence, inculcates the principles of philosophical toleration; whose aid Superstition herself, in the hour of her distress, is not ashamed to implore. He justly observes that, in the recent changes, both religions had been alternately disgraced by the seeming acquisition of worthless proselytes, of those votaries of the reigning purple who could pass, without a reason and without a blush, from the church to the temple, and from the altars of Jupiter to the sacred table of the Christians.[2]
His progress from Antioch, A.D. 363, OctoberIn the space of seven months, the Roman troops, who were now returned to Antioch, had performed a march of fifteen hundred miles; in which they had endured all the hardships of war, of famine, and of climate. Notwithstanding their services, their fatigues, and the approach of winter, the timid and impatient Jovian allowed only, to the men and horses, a respite of six weeks. The emperor could not sustain the indiscreet and malicious raillery of the people of Antioch.[3] He was impatient to possess the palace of Constantinople, and to prevent- ↑ Socrates, 1. iii. c. 24. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. iv. p. 131) and Libanius (Orat. Parentalis, c. 148, p. 369) express the living sentiments of their respective factions.
- ↑ Themistius, Orat. v. p. 63-71, edit. Harduin, Paris, 1684. The Abbé de la Bléterie judiciously remarks (Hist, de Jovien, tom. i. p. 199) that Sozomen has forgot the general toleration, and Themistius the establishment of the Catholic religion. Each of them turned away from the object which he disliked, and wished to suppress the part of the edict the least honourable, in his opinion, to the emperor Jovian. [We cannot infer from Themistius that an edict of toleration was issued; the orator wished to induce Jovian to issue such an edict. Cp. the fears of Libanius, loc. cit., and Epitaph., p. 614. So Schiller, Gesch. der röm. Kaiserzeit,ii. 347.]
- ↑ Οἱ δὲ ᾿Αντιοχει̂ς οὐχ ἡδέως διεκειντο πρὸς αὐτόν: ἁλλ᾽ ἀπέσκωπτον αὑτον ᾠδαἳς καὶ ουμένοις Φαμώσσοις (famosis libellis). Johan. Antiochen. in Excerpt. Valesian. p. 845 [Müller, F. G. H. iv. p. 607]. The libels of Antioch may be admitted on very slight evidence.
