Section 1. The Thundering Legion{241} 115. CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, Bishop of Hierapolis, addressed an Apology for Christianity to the Emperor Marcus, about A.D. 176. It is lost, but reference to it, as it would appear, or at least to one of his works, is made by Eusebius [Note 1], in which Apollinaris 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 is addressing. 116. The words of Eusebius, introductory of the evidence of Apollinaris and Tertullian, are these: "It is said that when Marcus Aurelius Cęsar was forming his troops in order of battle against the Germans and Sarmatians, he was reduced to extremities by a failure of water. Meanwhile the soldiers in the so-called {242} Melitene [Note 2] 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 supplication. 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 Christians." [Note 3] He adds that, "while the Emperor did not openly remove the legal punishment from persons of that description, yet he did in 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 {243} in that thirst by the prayers offered up to God by Christian soldiers." [Note 4] The statement, then, as given by two writers, one writing at the very time, the other about twenty years later, is this: that the 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. 117. 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; but this, as {244} the event shows, 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. 118. 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 composed wholly of Christians [Note 5]. 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," "Christianorum militum orationibus," no mention being made of a legion at all, and the word "forte" strongly opposing the idea that the Christians formed 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 the 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 {245} 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 Augustus [Note 6]. 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;" [Note 7] but, though it was a mistake, 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 {246} 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. 119. Tertullian, on the other hand, tells us that the Emperor, in a formal document, acknowledged the miracle as obtained by the prayers of the Christians, and favoured the whole body in consequence; not, indeed, repealing the laws against them, but putting 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 [Note 8], 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 Christian [Note 9]. And, further, that the Emperor, {247} about the time of the German war, showed 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 [Note 10]. Moreover, that the Emperor recognized the miracle is very certain, as will appear directly; but, all this being undeniable, still there is no evidence for the very point 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 [Note 11]. So far from it, he was in a 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 us [Note 12]; though its force must at least have been suspended as regards Asia Minor, otherwise Apollinaris, writing at the time, could not {248} have fancied that the Emperor had recognized the miracle as the result of Christian prayer. 120. Dismissing, however, these two statements, which, though they cannot be maintained as they stand, still are not necessary conditions of the alleged miracle, and which admit, as we have seen, of a very ready explanation, we have, nevertheless, the following decisive evidence in proof of the occurrence of some extraordinary and providential storm, when the Roman army was in very critical circumstances in the course of the German war. 121. 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 his statement. Indeed, so certain was the fact, that nothing was left to the Pagans but to record it and to account for 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 providential" 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 the same, adds that he had seen a picture, "in the middle of which the Emperor was praying in the line of battle, and his soldiers were catching the rain in their helmets, {249} and quenching their thirst with the draught thus providentially granted." Moreover, the memorial of it is sculptured on the celebrated Antonine column at Rome, where is a figure of Jupiter Pluvius scattering lightning and rain, the enemy and their horses lying prostrate, and the Romans, sword in hand, rushing on them. A medal, too, is or was extant, of the very year of the occurrence, with the head of Antoninus crowned with laurel on one side, and a figure of Mercury on the reverse. 122. The very fact of this event being recorded with such formality on the column of Antoninus, is of itself a sufficient proof of its importance; but perhaps the reader will be more impressed by the pagan Dio's description of it, which runs as follows: "When the Barbarians would not give them battle, in hopes of their perishing by heat and thirst, since they had so surrounded them that they had no possible means of getting water, and when they were in the utmost distress from sickness, wounds, sun, and thirst, and could neither fight, nor retreat, but remained in order of battle and at their posts in this parched condition, suddenly clouds gathered, and a copious rain fell, not without the mercy of God. And when it first began to fall, the Romans, raising their mouths towards heaven, received it upon them; next, turning up their shields and helmets, they drank largely out of them, and gave to their horses. And when the Barbarians {250} charged them, they drank as they fought; and numbers of them were wounded, and drank out of their helmets water and blood mixed. And while they were thus incurring heavy loss from the assault of the enemy, because most of them were engaged in drinking, a violent hail-storm and much lightning were discharged upon the enemy. And thus water and fire might be seen in the same place falling from heaven, that some might drink refreshment, and others be burned to death; for the fire did not touch the Romans, or if so, it was at once extinguished; nor did the wet help the Barbarians, but burned like oil; so that, drenched with rain, they still needed moisture, and they wounded their own selves, that blood might put out the fire." [Note 13] This of course is rhetorically written, but men do not write rhetorically without a cause, and the effort of the composition shows the marvellousness of the occurrence. 123. We are sure, then, of the providential deliverance of the army, as Eusebius and the others state it. And that there were Christians in the army we may be quite sure, from what we gather from the general history of the times [Note 14], even independently of what these {251} writers state. And further, we may be sure also, even before we have definite authority for the fact, that they offered up prayers for deliverance. 124. Under these circumstances I do not see what remains to be proved. Here is an army in extreme jeopardy, with Christians in it; the enemy is destroyed and they are delivered. And Apollinaris, Tertullian, and Eusebius, attest [Note 15] that these Christians {252} in the army prayed, and that the deliverance was felt at the time to be an answer to their prayers; what remains but to accept their statement? We, who are Christians as well as they, can feel no hesitation on the score that pagan writers attribute the occurrence to another cause, to magic or to false gods. Surely we may accept the evidence of the latter to the fact, without taking their hypothetical explanation of it. And we may give our own explanation to it for our own edification, in accordance with what we believe to be divine truth, without being obliged to go on to use it in argument for the conversion of unbelievers. It may be a miracle, though not one of evidence, but of confirmation, encouragement, mercy, for the sake of Christians. 125. Nor does it concern us much to answer the objection that there is nothing strictly miraculous in such an occurrence, because sudden thunder-clouds after drought are not unfrequent; for in addition to other answers which have been made to such a remark in other parts of this Essay, I would answer, Grant me such miracles ordinarily in the early Church, and I will ask no other; grant that upon prayer benefits are vouchsafed, deliverances are effected, unhoped-for {253} success obtained, sickness cured, tempests laid, pestilences put to flight, famines remedied, judgments inflicted, and there will be no need of inquiring into the causes, whether supernatural or natural, to which they are to be referred [Note 16]. They may or they may not, in this or that case, follow or surpass the laws of nature, and they may surpass them plainly or doubtfully, but the common sense of mankind will call them miraculous; for by a miracle, whatever be its formal definition, is popularly meant an event which impresses upon the mind the immediate presence of the Moral Governor of the world. He may sometimes act through nature, sometimes beyond or against it, but those who admit the fact of such interferences will have little difficulty in admitting also their strictly miraculous character, if the circumstances of the case require it, and those who deny miracles to the early Church will be equally strenuous against allowing her the grace of such intimate influence (if we may so speak upon the course of Divine Providence,) as {254} is here in question, even though it be not miraculous. 126. On the whole then we may conclude that the facts of this memorable occurrence are as the early Christian writers state them; that Christian soldiers did ask, and did receive, in a great distress, rain for their own supply, and lightning against their enemies; whether through miracle or not we cannot say for certain, but more probably not through miracle in the philosophical sense of the word. All we know, and all we need know is, that "He made darkness His secret place, His pavilion round about Him, with dark water and thick clouds to cover Him; the Lord thundered out of heaven, and the Highest gave His thunder; hail-stones and coals of fire. He sent out His arrows, and scattered them; He sent forth lightnings against them." Notes1. Hist. v. 5. 2.
On the question of this Melitine or Melitene legion, vid. Vales. in
loc. Euseb. 3.
Apol. c. 5. 4.
Ad Scap. c. 4. 5.
Vales. In Euseb. Hist. v. 5. Moyle's Posthumous Works, Vol. ii. p. 82.
Jablonski's Opusc. Tom. iv. p. 9. 6.
Moyle's Posthumous Works, Vol. ii. p. 90, and Scaliger and Valesius
before him. Baronius accounts for the fact by supposing that the
Christian soldiers were in all parts of the army, and after this were
incorporated into the existing Thundering Legion. "Par est credere,
ipsum eosdem ob tam egregium atque mirandum facinus Fulminantium
nomine nobilitasse, ac eosdem simul ejusdem nominis legioni pariter
aggregasse." Ann. 176, 20; vid. also Witsius, Diatrib. 46. Mr. King,
too, observes that Xiphilin is the only author 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, etc.,
otherwise, p. 212. Lardner, Testim. Vol. ii. Ch. 15; and Mosheim, ant.
Constant. Sec 2. Ch. 17, side with Moyle. Mosheim connects "forte"
with "precationibus impetrato." [Lumper, t. 7, p. 510 note, says that "forte"
is African Latin for "fortuito;" he seems to agree with Mosheim
in the construction. He gives a list of authors who have treated of
the occurrence, p. 515.] 7.
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. i. 1, 2. 8.
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, 1. c., assigning it with Pagi to the ninth year
of Antoninus, while Valesius assigns it to the first. 9.
Jablonski, ibid. p. 18. Moyle suspects the story, yet without strong
grounds, p. 249. It is found in Eusebius. 10.
Jablonski, ibid. Moyle, with a different purpose, gives instances of
the Emperor's leaning towards Chaldeans, magicians, etc., p. 235; vid.
also p. 356. 11.
Moyle maintains, p. 244, that Tertullian does not assert this
connection of Antoninus's acknowledgment of the miracle with his
edict, nor any other ancient writer. 12.
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 [ex epithiseos ton demon].
Hist. v. proœm. 13.
This is translated from Baronius; but it agrees with the original in
all important points, though not always literal. Dion. Hist. lxxi. p.
805. Vid. also Themist. Orat. 15. 14.
Moyle indeed contends "that there were few or none at all in the
army," and observes, "Considering the passive principles of the
age, I would as soon believe my Lord Marlborough had a whole regiment
of Quakers in his army as that Antoninus had a whole legion of
Christians in his." pp. 84, 85. He argues from the testimonies of the
early Fathers, of Celsus, etc., and from the oaths and other
idolatrous acts to which soldiers were obliged to submit, adding, "that
it was impossible for a Christian to serve in them unless it were by
the help of Occasional Conformity. At least in such a case the prayers
of such mock Christians would hardly work wonders." p. 87. This is an
objection which, if valid, strikes deeper than any of those which I
have noticed in the text. Mr. Milman observes of the alleged
apparition of the Cross to Constantine, "This irreconcilable
incongruity between the symbol of universal peace and the horrors of
war, in my judgment, is conclusive against the miraculous or
supernatural character of the transaction." Hist. of Christ, Vol. ii.
p. 354. He adds, "This was the first advance to the military
Christianity of the middle ages." He refers in a note to Mosheim for
similar sentiments, "for which," he says, "I will readily
encounter the charge of Quakerism." He then refers to the Empress
Helena's turning the nails of the Cross into a helmet and bits for
Constantine's war-horse. "True or false," he observes, "this story is
characteristic of the Christian sentiment then prevalent." [Vid. also
Lupus, Opp. t. xi. p. 94, etc. Pusey on Tertullian, p. 184. Gibbon,
Miscellan. Works, p. 759, ed. 1837.] 15.
Moyle indeed maintains that the Christians in general did not believe
it to be a miracle; he argues from the silence of St. Theophilus, St.
Clement, Origen, St. Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, p. 277. W.
Lowth, however, refers to a passage in St. Cyprian, ad Demetrian.
Routh, t. i. p. 153. It really seems unreasonable to demand that every
Father should write about everything. 16.
Moyle is obliged to allow so much as this, saying of the defeat of the
Philistines by a storm on Samuel's prayers, "This fact, though it
cannot properly, in the strict and genuine sense of the word, be
called a miracle, yet well deserves a place in the lower form of
miracles, because it was preternatural, and not performed by
the ordinary concurrence of second causes, but by the immediate hand
of God." p. 286. Vid Benedict. xiv. de Can. Sanct. iv. part i. 11, who
instances the hail-stones in Joshua's battle as "pręter naturam." Vid
infr. n. 143, 193. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |