Page images
PDF
EPUB

at least to one of his works, is made by Eusebius a, in which he bore witness to a remarkable answer to prayer received a year or two before by the Christian soldiers of that very Emperor's army in the celebrated war with the Quadri. Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200, and also in a public Apology, urges the same fact upon the Proconsul of Africa whom he addresses.

The words of Eusebius introductory of the evidence of Apollinaris and Tertullian are these: "It is said that when "Marcus Aurelius Cæsar was forming his troops in order of "battle against the Germans and Sarmatians, he was re"duced to extremities by a failure of water. Meanwhile the "soldiers in the so called Meliteneb legion, which for its faith "remains to this day, knelt down upon the ground, as we are "accustomed to do in prayer, and betook themselves to sup"plication. And whereas this sight was strange to the enemy, another still more strange happened immediately ;— "thunderbolts, which caused the enemy's flight and overthrow; and upon the army to which the men were attached, "who had called upon God, a rain, which restored it entirely when it was all but perishing by thirst." He adds, that this account was given by heathens as well as by Christians, though they did not allow that the prayers of Christians were concerned in the event. Then he quotes Apollinaris for the fact, that in consequence the legion received from the Emperor the name of "Thundering." Again, Tertullian speaks of "the letters of Marcus Aurelius, an Emperor of great character, in which he testifies to the quenching of that German thirst by the shower gained by "the prayers of soldiers who happened to be Christian "." He adds, that "while he did not openly remove the legal "punishment from persons of that description, yet he did in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

"fact dispense with it, by placing a penalty, and that a more "fearful one, on their accusers." And in his ad Scapulam : "Marcus Aurelius in the German expedition obtained "showers in that thirst by the prayers offered up to God by "Christian soldiers d." The statement then, as given by two writers, one writing at the very time, the other about twenty years later, is this: that soldiers, in or of one of the Roman legions, gained by their prayers a seasonable storm of rain and thunder and lightning, when the army was perishing by thirst, and was surrounded by an enemy; and they add two evidences of it,-Apollinaris, that the legion in which these soldiers were found was thenceforth called the Thundering Legion, and Tertullian, that the Emperor in consequence passed an edict in favour of the Christians."

Here we are only concerned with the fact, not with its alleged evidences; and this is worth noticing, for it so happens that the fact is true, but the evidences, as evidences, are not true, that is, there is just enough incorrectness in the statement to hinder their availing as evidences. This, I say, is worth noticing, because it may serve in other cases to make us cautious of rejecting facts stated by the Fathers because we discredit (rightly or wrongly is not the question) the grounds on which they rest them. Did we know no other evidence than what Apollinaris and Tertullian allege for the sudden relief of the Roman legions in Germany, we should have rejected the fact, when we had invalidated the evidence; which, as the event shews, would have been a hasty proceeding. Sometimes facts are so notorious that proof is ex abundanti; and sometimes writers like those in question hurt a good cause by not leaving it to itself.

Now as to the corroborative statement made by Apollinaris, writers of great authority assume that he, or other early writers, speak as if a legion in the Roman army was com

[blocks in formation]

posed wholly of Christians.

Yet even Eusebius does but speak of "the soldiers in the Melitene legion," which is an ambiguous form of expression; while Tertullian uses the phrase, "Christianorum forte militum precationibus," "Christiano"rum militum orationibus," no mention being made of a legion at all, and the word "forte" strongly opposing the idea of the Christians forming an entire body of troops. As to Apollinaris, he, it is true, stated in his lost work, that in consequence of the miracle a legion was called "Thundering;" but we may not assume that he said more than that the Christians who prayed were in that legion, since there is nothing strange in the idea of a whole body obtaining a name from the good deed of some of them, nor strange again, considering that bodies of troops were drawn, then as now, from particular places, and were open to various local or other influences, that Christians should have been numerous enough in one particular legion to give a character to it. This difficulty, however, being disposed of, a more important objection remains; there was indeed a Thundering Legion, as Apollinaris says, but then it was as old as the time of Trajan, nay, of Augustusf. This circumstance of course is fatal to his argument. Moyle upon this observes, that Apollinaris, the first broacher of the miracle, was grossly mistaken, to say no worse;" but, though it was a mistake,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

who "absolutely affirms the soldiers "of the Melitenian Legion to be all "Christians." ap. Moyle, p. 116; vid. also Milman, Christ. vol. ii. p. 190. Moyle answers that King is the first person who has interpreted Eusebius, &c. otherwise, p. 212. Lardner, Testim. vol. ii. ch. 15. and Mosheim, ant. Constant. sec. 2. ch. 17. side with Moyle, Mosheim connects "forte" with "pre"cationibus impetrato."

He retracts and throws the blame on Eusebius, p. 221, almost denying that Apollinaris made the statement imputed to him. So does Neander, Church Hist., vol. 1. i. 2.

it surely is not grosser than if a country clergyman at this day were to commit a blunder in speaking of the Queen's regiments serving in India or Canada. In spite of our advantages from the present diffusion of knowledge, certainly our parish priests do not know much more of the constitution or history of the British army, than the Bishop of Hierapolis of the military establishments of Rome.

66

Tertullian, on the other hand, tells us that the Emperor Marcus, in a formal document, acknowledged the miracle as obtained by the prayers of the Christians; and favoured the whole body so far as, without repealing the laws against them, to put a heavier punishment on informers against them than on themselves. And it would appear, that the Emperor did issue a rescript in their favour in an earlier period of his reign, which Eusebius has preserved, to the effect that "the "parties accused of Christianity shall be pardoned, though it "be proved against them, and the informer shall undergo the penalty instead ;" and in the reign of Commodus, the son of Marcus, a Pagan actually had his legs broken and was put to death, for bringing an accusation against a Christiani. And further, that the Emperor about the time of the German war shewed a leaning towards "foreign rites," which might easily be mistaken by the Christians to include or even to imply Christianity, is made clear by one of the authors to whom reference has just been made at the foot of the page. Moreover, that the Emperor recognised the miracle is very certain, as will appear directly; but, all this being undeniable, still there is no evidence for the very point

Moyle denies the genuineness of this Rescript, and Dodwell suspects it. Dissert. Cypr. xi. 34. fin. Moyle adds, p. 337, that G. Vossius wrote a Dissertation to prove it a forgery. Pagi and Valesius maintain it; so does Jablonski in loc., assigning it with Pagi to the ninth year of Antoninus, while Valesius assigns it to the first.

i Jablonski, ibid. p. 18. Moyle suspects the story, yet without strong grounds, p. 249. It is found in Eusebius.

Jablonski, ibid. Moyle, with a different purpose, gives instances of the Emperor's leaning towards Chaldeans, magicians, &c. p. 235: vid. also p. 356.

on which the force of Tertullian's proof depends, viz. that his act of grace towards the Christians was in consequence of his belief in the miracle, and his belief that they were the cause of it. So far from it, he was in course of persecution against the Church both before and after its date. How severely that persecution raged a few years afterwards, the well known epistle of the Churches of Gaul informs usm; though its force must at least have been suspended as regards Asia Minor, or Apollinaris, writing at the time, could not have fancied that the Emperor had recognised the miracle as the result of Christian intercession.

Dismissing however these two statements, which, though they cannot be supported as they stand, are not necessary to the fact of the alleged miracle, and admit, as we have seen, of a very natural solution, we have the following decisive evidence in proof of the occurrence of some extraordinary and providential storm, when the Roman army were in very critical circumstances in the course of the German war.

Eusebius observes, that even the Pagans confessed the miracle, though they did not allow that it was attributable to the prayers of the Christians; and what is left of antiquity sufficiently confirms the assertion. Indeed, so certain was the fact, that nothing was left to the former but to account for it, and to record it. They accounted for it by referring it to their own divinities, they recorded it on medals and on monuments. Dio Cassius calls it a "wonderful and provi"dential" preservation, and attributes it to an Egyptian magician, of the name of Arnuphis, who invoked "Mercury, "who is in the air, and other spirits." Julius Capitolinus attributes it to the Emperor's prayers. Themistius, who says

1 Moyle maintains, p. 244, that Tertullian does not assert this connection of Antoninus's acknowledgment of the miracle and his edict, nor any other ancient writer.

Witsius, to evade the difficulty,

maintains that the persecution was the consequence of a riot and the hostility of local governors, Diatrib. c. 66. King maintains the same, ap. Moyle, p. 309. Eusebius certainly speaks of it as ἐξ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν δήμων. Hist. v. proam.

« PreviousContinue »