JUDSON, EDWARD: Baptist; b. at Maulmain (95 m. s.e. of Rangoon), Burma, Dec. 27, 1844. He was brought to the United States while still an infant, and was educated at Madison (now Colgate) University and Brown University (A.B., 1865), after which he was principal of the academy at Townshend, Vt., for two years (1865-67). He was then professor of Latin in Madison University from 1867-74, and, after a year of travel and study in Europe in 1874-75, accepted a call to the pastorate of the Baptist church at Orange, N. J., where he remained until 1881. In the latter year he became pastor of the Berean Baptist Church, New York City, where he engaged actively in educational and philanthropic work among the poorer classes. The church becoming too small for the congregation which he gathered, he raised funds for the erection of the Judson Memorial Church, New York City, which is one of the leading "institutional" churches of the city. He has since been pastor of this church, which is named in honor of his father, Adoniram Judson (q.v.). He was president of the American Baptist Missionary Union in 1885-87 and has been a trustee of Brown University, Vassar College, and Colgate University. He has written: Life of Adoniram Judson (New York, 1883); and The Institutional Church: Primer in Pastoral Theology (1899).

JUELICHER, yü'lih-er, GUSTAV ADOLF: German Protestant; b. at Falkenberg (a suburb of Berlin) Jan. 26, 1857. He was educated at the University of Berlin (Ph.D., 1880), and was chaplain of the orphan asylum at Rummelsberg, a suburb of Berlin, from 1882 to 1888. In 1887 he became privat-docent at the university of the same city for New-Testament history and church history, and in the following year was appointed associate professor of the same subjects at Marburg, where he has been full professor since 1889. He is a member of the committee on Church Fathers of the Royal Prussian Academy of Berlin and in this capacity is engaged in the preparation of a Prosopographia imperii Romani from the reign of Diocletian to Justinian. In theology his position is that of a rigid limitation to strict historical investigation. He has written: Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2 vols., Freiburg, 1888-99), Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1894; Eng. transl., Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1904); and Paulus und Jesus (Tübingen, 1907).

JULIAN: The Emperor Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus), frequently known as "the Apostate," was born at Constantinople in 331, some time after June 26, the son of Julius Constantius, a younger stepbrother of Constantine the Great, by Basilina, his second wife; d. in Persia June 26, 363.

Authorities for his Life.

Among the authorities for his life and policy, his own works take the first place, although their history is obscure and their text defective. They include eight orations; a long treatise addressed to Themistius and another to the Athenians; the "Symposium"; the "Beardhater" (Gk. Misopogon); more than eighty letters, some decrees, and some fragments contained almost wholly in Cyril's ten books against Julian. In the "Symposium" (also called Kaisares) he criticizes his predecessors in the empire, assembled at a feast on Olympus, chastises their vices, and ends with a panegyric of Marcus Aurelius. The " Beard-hater " is a satirical treatise written at Antioch in the beginning of 363, containing a witty characterization of himself and of the Christian population of Antioch. The letters, of which a few are spurious or doubtful, were almost all written during his reign, and are the best source for his philosophic and political standpoint. Unfortunately the work "Against the Christians," with the composition of which he was busy in the last months of his life, is only partially extant.

Next in importance come the pagan historians, especially Ammianus Marcellinus, Eutropius and Zosimus. The first-named is the main authority for the external events of Julian's reign; he was a writer of great impartiality, and, like Eutropius, a


contemporary if not an eyewitness. Zosimus writes with unconcealed sympathy for the restorer of Hellenism. Aurelius Victor tells little. Among the orators and men of letters, Libanius is the most important; seven of his orations refer directly to Julian and offer valuable material. The statements of Eunapius in his lives of the sophists and of the panegyrist Mamertinus are to be received with caution.

As to the Christian writers, their hatred of the emperor led them sometimes into distortions of fact or malicious lies, or at least made them willing to lend an ear to calumny, except during the short period when Julian's recall of the orthodox bishops won a favorable judgment from some, such as Hilary. The two orations in which Gregory Nazianzen denounced the emperor, his contemporary and acquaintance, form a strong contrast to Eusebius' life of Constantine. Among the historians, even Socrates here lays aside his usual impartiality. Rufinus, as a contemporary, deserves most attention; then follow Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, with some fragments of Philostorgius. Isolated notices occur in most of the Fathers, and there are four poems against Julian by Ephraem Syrus written in 363 and containing legendary material mingled with valuable notes. In spite of their prejudice, the ecclesiastical writers are not to be undervalued, as they complete the material of the pagan historians in some important particulars, and demonstrably rest in not a few places upon documentary evidence. Modern historians have learned only in the last two centuries to take a broad and abstract view of Julian's career, and to see with increasing clearness that his admirable qualities were his own, while his obvious and by no means insignificant defects were the product of his education and environment.

Sketch of His Life.

When the sons of Constantine secured the empire in 337 by the slaughter of their male relations (see CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS SONS), Julian was spared on account of his tender age, and remained in Constantinople under the charge of his distant kinsman, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and of the eunuch Mardonius, who was a professing Christian, though his ideals seem to have been Hellenistic. It is possible that he laid the foundation for Julian's later attitude; but he also awakened in him the enthusiasm for what was noble and good that distinguished his manhood. In 342 Eusebius died, and the suspicious Constantius confined Julian and his sickly half-brother Gallus in the fortress of Macellum in Cappadocia for the next six years, surrounded by Christian clerics. The lad read the Bible, copied religious books, built a chapel to St. Mamas, and is said to have officiated as a lector in public worship, which presupposes (unless there was some departure from the ordinary practise) that he had been baptized, as indeed Cyril positively asserts, though neither Julian nor any of his contemporaries speak of his baptism. At any rate, there is no reason to suppose that Julian's religious views were at this time hostile to the Christian Church. About 350 the brothers were allowed to leave Macellum, and Julian, returning to Constantinople, devoted himself to study. The emperor objected, however, to his presence in the capital, and he went to Nicomedia, promising not to attend the lectures which Libanius was then delivering there. But he read them; and here at this time, later in Pergamum, and finally in Ephesus he was introduced by the foremost Hellenistic teachers of the day to the Neoplatonic philosophy and mysticism. In 351 he formally, though unobtrusively, became a convert to paganism. The dreams of poets and the speculations of philosophers were to him the living truth; in Neoplatonism he found the revelation of all the wealth of the highest ideals of antiquity and of Greek civilization. His feelings, principles, and aims were, however, not those of the ancient masters whom he thought to follow, but modern, and such as might nearly all have been justified from the teachings of Christian leaders of his day. The fortunes of his life, his imagination and his education inclined him to Greek mythology and learning, as similar elements had brought thousands of others to Christianity. The great task of reforming Hellenism and abolishing the system of his predecessor seems to have been put before him by his philosophic friends in Nicomedia and Ephesus. Whether he was already longing for the throne is not definitely known, but it is likely that he was; and the teachers, who never lost their hold over him, seem to have exacted promises as to his conduct in the event of his accession. In 354 Constantius put Gallus to death, and kept Julian practically in confinement at Milan for six months. Then he was allowed to return to Bithynia, and in the summer of 355 to go to Athens, where he associated with the most prominent Hellenic leaders and was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. In October he was recalled to northern Italy, where the emperor needed an heir-apparent and a leader against the Germanic inroads in Gaul. He played a valiant part for four years of military activity amid great difficulties, carrying the war into the enemy's own country and winning the respect and confidence of the army. He was in Paris in the winter of 359-360. There he received the command to send his best soldiers to the East to Constantius. They answered by hailing Julian as Augustus, apparently without any suggestion from him, if not against his will. After some hesitation he allowed them to crown him, and notified Conatantius of what had happened, without assuming the imperial title. Constantius answered with the sword; but Julian was ready to meet him. During the winter of 360-361 he was making his preparations at Vienne. He celebrated the feast of the Epiphany with Christian rites; then he threw off the mask, and went south by forced marches, opening the closed pagan temples wherever he passed. Constantius came from Syria to meet him but died Nov. 3 in Cilicia; and on Dec. 11, 361, Julian entered Constantinople as undisputed emperor. He remained there the rest of that winter, occupied with plans for far-reaching reforms, but at the same time making preparations for a campaign against the Persians. In the summer of 362 he went through Asia Minor, receiving discouraging reports of the results of his


policy, to Antioch, where the excitable and vivacious populace received him with open scorn of his views and plans, and the Christian portion indulged in ominous demonstrations. On Mar. 4, 363, he started out for his campaign, pressing forward boldly to meet his Persian enemies, sharing all the fatigues and privations of his soldiers, and busily occupied at the same time with his studies and his great reform plans. After several successful skirmishes, he received a spear-wound in the battle of June 26, and died a few hours afterward. The famous narrative of Theodoret, according to which he cried out just before he died, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!" is apparently an outgrowth of the account written by Ephraem Syrus in the same year, which relates how "he turned aside, groaning, and thought of the threats which at his departure he had made by letter against the Church." It is significant that the Persians, according to Ammianus (XXV., vi. 6), on the following day mocked the Romans as traitors to their own emperor, since it was a Roman spear that had pierced his side. The rumor soon spread in the empire, and Libanius in his funeral oration put into words the suspicion that a Christian had been responsible for his death. Gregory Nazianzen, Rufinus, and Socrates treat the question as indifferent, and Sozomen shows that the Christians were capable of the deed by claiming it for one of them and lauding it. But Libanius did not offer the slightest evidence in support of his accusation, and several considerations may be urged against it. Similar rumors have often arisen in the case of a sudden death; Julian was a bold and reckless soldier, who had often exposed himself to great danger; he himself gave utterance to no suspicion--according to Ammianus he thanked the gods that he had fallen by "no clandestine ambush"; Eutropius says espressly that he was wounded by one of the enemy, and Ephraem knows nothing different; and Ammianus says that no offers of reward produced the Persian who had given the wound--he may have been dead--which gave rise to their reproach of the Romans, and thus to the growth of the legend. Julian was buried at Tarsus, leaving no heir; and his wife, Helena, the sister of Constantius, had died at Vienne in the winter of 360-361.

His Policy and Character.

The restoration of Hellenism was the great aim of Julian's reign. On his arrival in Constantinople he made a clean sweep of the old court, and the Neoplatonic philosophers, with Maximus at their head, hastened to appear there in support of one who was an emperor after their own heart. The worship of the ancient gods in its traditional form was declared the privileged religion; the temples were ordered to be opened or rebuilt, and their property restored. Julian was especially anxious to restore the complete sacrificial system; and the way in which he went to work shows that the ideas underlying the old public worship were not his, but that he designed to bring about the restoration of the old paganism under the forms of certain mystic cults, and to unite all the older religions into a sort of pagan imperial church. It is from the mysteries that all the determining lines of his policy are taken. If the whole of public life was to be ordered according to the piety prescribed in the mysteries, the plan would not have been a reaction but a reform in the highest sense. The return to the ancient gods is the only reactionary feature of it; the ascetic-pietistic and mystic-hierarchical ordering of the worship, with its organized associations and priesthood, would have been an unheard-of innovation. To change paganism into a State religion, and thus to modify the whole relation between religion and the State as it had been understood in antiquity, was a thing which could be done only by force. The remnant of the pagan population showed itself indifferent or actually hostile to the plans which Julian promulgated in a series of edicts which combined, so to speak, imperial and papal characteristics. The reforming tendencies of his plans were displayed especially in his provisions for the ceremonial reception of converts to paganism, who were to be admitted to draw near to the gods only after spiritual and bodily purification, and for the creation of a definitely graduated and strictly organized hierarchy, with the emperor as pontifex maximus, and high priests (answering to metropolitans) for the provinces. In yet other particulars the imitation of the Church's discipline is obvious. It is most direct in regard to the care of the poor, as to which Julian made no secret of his admiration for the Christian model; other resemblances are indirect, coming through the influence which the mysteries had already exercised upon the Christian system.

In discussing the question of Julian's actual relations to the Christian Church, it is necessary to distinguish between what was in his mind and what he actually did, and even between the different parts of his short reign--since, though his policy did not essentially change, there are traces of increasing irritation in his mind, which influenced his edicts. In principle, however, he rejected the use of force as an aid to conversion. Christianity, which he regarded as a pitiable superstition of weak-minded people, a distorted form of worship suited to barbarians with no knowledge of history, an assemblage of discordant elements held together only by an ambitious clergy, was to be allowed to fall to decay of itself. In the army the cross was to be replaced by pagan emblems, and the pretorian guard was to be purged of Christians. Christian officials were to be removed from the government. All privileges were withdrawn from the clergy and the Church, including support from State funds and such rights of jurisdiction as had been conceded. The restoration of pagan temples at the cost of those who had destroyed them imposed this burden upon the Christians. All Christian factions were to be treated alike, including the Donatists, and this involved the recall of the banished orthodox bishops. The old idea that he did this with the purpose of fostering discord among his antagonists, while in view of the short-sightedness of his policy it is possible, is not probable; and the result was actually beneficial to the Church. His school law of June 17, 362, which required candidates for teachers' positions, to obtain the


license of the local authorities or of the emperor, while apparently not affecting religious questions, really excluded the Christians from such positions. The assertion that he forbade them to attend the schools is apparently based on a misunderstanding. Another weapon in his religious campaign was his treatise "Against the Christians," which he circulated not long before his death. The whole first book is extant, some fragments of the second, and scarcely any of the third. For knowledge and acuteness it is not to be compared with the works of Celsus and Porphyry. It tells much of the religious and historical attitude of Julian and his partizans, but little of his relations with the Church, whose real weak points are seldom touched upon. If it were possible positively to decide as to the truth of the statements that he threatened severe repressive measures against his return from the Persian campaign, it would be easier to arrive at a final judgment of the man; but sober history will at least regard him most truly as a belated son of a great bygone age, deceived in his ideals but noble in nature, and deserving of honor as a man who attempted to do justice to his fellows at a time when this was a rare virtue.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best edition of the works of Julian in the original Greek is by F. C. Hertlein, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1875-76; the fragments of his Books against the Christians were edited by K. J. Neumann (ib. 1880), who also translated them into German, Kaiser Julians Bucher gegen die Christen, ib. 1880. In English translation are Gregory Nazianzen's two invectives against, and Libanius' funeral oration upon Julian; and Julian's essays "Upon the Sovereign Sun," and "Upon the Mother of the Gods" (transl. by C. W. King, Julian the Emperor, London, 1888). In French there is a complete translation of Julian's works and letters, by Eugène Talbot, Œuvres complètes de l'empereur Julièn, Paris, 1863, The most elaborate biography of Julian is by Gætano Negri, transl. from the 2d ed. of the original Italian, 2 vols., London and New York, 1905; other noteworthy biographies are by Neander, Eng. transl., London, 1850; F. J. Holgwarth, Freiburg, 1874; A. Naville, Neuchâtel, 1877; G. H. Rendall, Cambridge, 1877; Alice Gardner, London and New York, 1895; W. Koch, Leipsic, 1899; E. Müller, Hanover, 1901; P. Allard, 3 vols., Paris, 1902. Special treatises are: F. Rode, Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians gegen die christliche Kirche, Jena, 1877; E. J. Chinnock, A Few Notes on Julian and a Translation of his Public Letters, London, 1901. Consult also Tillemont, Mémoires, vi.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, iii. 398-412; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps. xxii.-xxiv.; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 41-59; DCB, iii. 484-525.


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely