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 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 ⁹. And, further, that the Emperor, 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 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 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 ¹²; though its force must at least have been suspended as regards Asia Minor, otherwise Apollinaris, writing at the time, could not 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, 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 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.” 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 ¹⁴, even independently of what these 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 ¹⁵ that these Christians 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 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 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 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.”

Footnotes

1. 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 “præter naturam.” Vid infr. n. 143, 193. ↩