Изображения страниц
[ocr errors]

apology for our faith, addressed to the Roman senate in the Latin tongue, (of which we also before made mention,) strongly confirms the truth of this history; saying, that there is still extant the letter of that worthy emperor Marcus, in which he testifies that, when his army was in great danger of perishing in Germany for want of water, it was saved by the prayers of the christians. He likewise says that the same emperor threatened the punishment of death to such as should accuse them. But of these things let every one judge as he sees fit. We now proceed in the course of our history to other matters.” III. I now intend to make some observations for clearing up this history. Obs. 1. It seems that Eusebius did not rely upon the truth of this history. For, as we have seen, he begins the account in this manner: “It is said.’ And in the end he leaves every one to judge of it as he sees good. A like observation has been already made by 8 divers learned men. Obs. 2. Eusebius quotes Apollinarius, as saying that, by Marcus's order, there was a legion called the thundering, or thunderbolt legion, in memory of the wonderful event here spoken of. But" he does not quote the words of Apollinarius, nor name the book in which he said it. And, moreover, it has been observed by learned men of late times that

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

* AAAa ravra usv Órm rig stop tw8scow. Merwpsv Čs ipsic stru rmv row {&ng atroX80iav. Ib. p. 170. A. B. & Sed et verba, quibus totam hanc narrationem concludit, satis indicant, ipsum de veritate rei dubitässe. Sic enim ait : A\\a ravra usy Örn ric séeXg rt0soôw. Id est, sed de his quisque pro abitrio Suo judicet. Wales, in loc. . 93. p Equidem, si certum fuisset, et a legione christianorum advocatum fuisse imbrem, et Marcum hoc scripsisse Senatui, nunquam narrationi suae colophonem ejusmodi imposuisset Eusebius: “Sed de his quisque pro suo arbitratu statuat: indicio, Eusebium ipsum ea de traditione dubitässe, etsi Tertulliami verba immutórit, omisso forte adverbio, quod habet Tertullianus. Basnag. ann. 174. m. viii. * Quiet in eo peccat, quod Apollinaris locum non protulit, nec librum ipsum, in quo hac Apollinaris scripserat, indicavit. Wales. ib. Le premier de ceux qu' Eusèbe allégue sur ce sujet est S. Apollinaire Evêque d'Hiéraple, dont le temoignage est d’autant plus authentidue, qu'il vivolt au méme temps que ce miracle arriva. , Mais il seroit à Souhaiter, qu' Eusèbe nous eit rapporté ses propres paroles. Tillem. L'Emp. M. Aurele, art. xvi. " Jamdudum monuit Scaliger in Animadversionibus Eusebianis, legionem fulminatricem ab hoc miraculo cognominatam non fuisse, quippe quae diu ante tempora M. Antonini ita vocata fuerit. Docet id manifeste Dio Cassius in libro 55, ubi legiones omnes enumerat. Vetus quoque inscriptio, a Scaligero probata, id ipsum confirmat. Quamobrem de ipso quidem miraculo pluviae a christianis militibus impetratae, et Apollinari et Tertulliano testantibus, facile credimus legionem vero Melitinam obid fulminatricem esse dictam a M. Antomino Imp, nondum mihi persuasit Apollinaris. Dicet fortasse aliquis, fulmi

there had been a legion with that denomination long before the times of Marcus Antoninus. Obs. 3. Eusebius calls it the Melitenian legion, or the legion of Melitene, tes ée esri Tijs MeVittvms etw ca)\epsevms Neqewvos gratuotas. If there was any legion so called, it is likely that it had its denomination from Melitene in Cappadocia, where the soldiers, of which it was composed, had been enlisted, or where it had resided. And it appears from writers of good authority," that the twelfth legion, called the thunderbolt legion, was sometimes quartered in Cappadocia. However, Walesius denies that there was any legion called the Melitenian legion. Obs. 4. Eusebius seems to have supposed that the legion, of which he speaks, consisted chiefly, or entirely, of christians; whereas it is not easy to think so of any legion at that time. There" may have been christian soldiers in Marcus's army: but it is altogether improbable that there should then have been an entire legion of christians, or near it. Obs. 5. Eusebius quotes Tertullian as of great weight in this matter. ‘Tertullian,’ says he, “is another witness “worthy of credit: who, in his apology for our faith, ad“dressed to the Roman senate in the Latin tongue, strongly * confirms the truth of this history, saying that there is still ‘ extant the letter of that worthy emperor Marcus, in which ‘ he testifies that when his army was in great danger of ‘ perishing in Germany, for want of water, it was saved by ‘the prayers of the christians 9 Now I shall transcribe below" the passage of Tertullian from his Apology, in his own words.

natricem quidem legionem fuisse ante tempora M. Antonini, Sed Marcum ob acceptum a Melitiná legione beneficium, ei quoque fulminatricis cognonem indidisse. Verum, si ita esset, secunda fulminatrix dici debuerat. Dio tamen nullam ejus mentionem facit, quamvis omnes legiones a superioribus principibus conscriptas accurate recenseat. Wales. ib. * Kat ro 606skarov rosv Katriračokug, to kepavvopopov. Dio Cass. l. 55. p. 564. al. 795. Wid. ibid. Annotata a Reimaro. Et conf. Gruter. p. cxciii. 3. Itaque quod de Legione Melitina tradit Eusebius, parum mihi probabile videtur. Adde quod Rufinus hoc legionis nomen consulto, ut arbitror, praetermissit; quippe qui nósset, Melitinam nomen esse oppidi minoris Armeniae, in quo legio 12 fulminea, adhuc suá astate praetenderet. Wales. ib. p. 92. et conf. Basm. ann. 174. n. v. * Caeterum, utingenue dicam quod sentio, parum mihi probabile videtur, totam legionem militum Romanorum eo tempore christianam fuisse; quod tamen affirmare videtur Eusebius. Wales. ut supr. * At nose contrario edimus protectorem. Si literae Marci Aurelii gravissimi Imperatoris requitantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur. Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus poenam dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjectàetiam accusatoribus damnatione, et quidem tetriore. Ap, cap. 5. p. 6. D.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In English they are to this purpose: ‘Nero and Domitian ‘ have been our enemies. But annong good emperors we ‘ can allege a patron. If the epistle of that worthy emperor ‘Marcus Aurelius be sought for, it will perhaps be seen ‘that he ascribes his deliverance from a great drought in ‘the German war to the prayers of christian soldiers.' I shall put below also" the account which we find in Eusebius's Chronicle, as we have it in Jerom's Latin translation. And now it will be proper to make some remarks upon what we have just seen. (1.) Hence it seems that Eusebius chiefly relied upon Tertullian for the truth of this relation. He quotes him with the character of an author of good credit. He also mentions the name of his work, whereas he omits the title of the work of Apollinarius, to which he refers. (2) Eusebius never saw any letter of the emperor in which he ascribed his deliverance in Germany to the prayers of christian soldiers. If he had met with it, he would have inserted it in his Ecclesiastical History. So P says the great Joseph Scaliger. (3) Nor had Tertullian seen any such letter. He does not say that he had seen it. And in the Latin original of Tertullian's Apology, and also as cited in the Latin edition of Eusebius's Chronicle, there is an unlucky forte, or perhaps:’ wherein he seems to express a doubt whether the emperor did in his letter to the senate expressly acknowledge that his deliverance in a time of great drought was owing to the prayers of christians—quibus illam Germanicam sitim christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur. This does not appear in Eusebius's Greek translation of Tertullian, which he inserts in his Ecclesiastical History—ev ais avtos uapTwpet— Taus Twu Xptottavtov evyats aea wa 6at. Possibly some may think that we ought not to lay much stress upon this observation. Nevertheless, it must be allowed that if this forte, “perhaps,”

• Imperator Antoninus multis adversum se nascentibus bellis saepe ipse intererat, saepe duces nobilissimos destinabat; in quibus semel Pertinaci, et exercitui, quicum eo in Quadorum regione pugnabat, Siti oppresso, pluvia divinitus missa est; quum e contrario Germanos et Sarmatas fulmina persequerentur, et plurimos eorum interficerunt. Exstant literae M. Aurelii gravissimi Imperatoris, quibus illam Germanicam sitim christianorum fortemilitum precationibus impetrato imbridiscussum contestatur. Euseb. Chron. p. 170.

P Non igitur illam epistolam vidit, [Orosius, non magis quam Tertullianus. Quinetiam ea non exstabat tempore Eusebii. Eam enim Graece a se converSam in Suá Historià Ecclesiastică posuisset, quae est ejus diligentia, nulla ejusmodi praetermittere, ne Latina quidem, quae ipse convertere solet, ut multa ex Tertulliano. Scal. in Euseb. p. 222. fin.


has no meaning, it comes in here very unhappily. Nor am I the first who have mentioned it. Basnage's also supposeth it a proof that neither Tertullian, nor Jerom, who so allegeth it in the Chronicle, had seen the emperor's letter. Before I proceed any farther, it may be observed that, in his book to Scapula, Tertullian speaks again of this matter, where he says: “And Marcus Aurelius in a German war, ‘where he was in danger by a great drought, obtained rain ‘ by the prayers which the christian soldiers offered to God.” But here he says nothing of the emperor's letter. We now proceed to some other observations. Obs. 6. There is little notice taken of this event in the most ancient christian writers. .. It would be without reason for any to allege here so late writers as * Nicephorus Callisti, and Zonaras. I now intend early writers of the second, third, and fourth century. If indeed Marcus Antoninus had obtained a signal deliverance in a hazardous war, and had acknowledged the benefit to be owing to the christian soldiers in his army, we might expect to see particular notice taken of it in christian apologies, and other writings of christian authors, published not long afterwards. I allow that there is a reference to this story in one" of Gregory Nyssen's homilies, near the end of the fourth century. But " I think that if an heathen emperor, and his army, had obtained a very extraordinary deliverance by the prayers of christian soldiers in the year of Christ 174, and he had ascribed it to their prayers in a letter to the senate, it would have been mentioned by many christian writers, both Greek and Latin, before the end of the fourth century. This argument is largely insisted on by Basnage, whose words I have just now transcribed below. And this is also one of Mr. Moyle's arguments. It is his fifth proposition, that ‘ the christians " in general did not believe this miracle, notwithstanding the testimony of Apollinaris and Tertullian.” ‘For this,” says he, “no better argument can be alleged than the silence of all the christian writers of the third century: not one of whom, except Tertullian, that I ever read or heard of, has made the least mention of this miracle. Is it possible that so signal a testimony in favour of christianity could escape the knowledge and industry of so many able apologists as wrote after i.i. ? Could they have failed to urge so strong an argument against the heathens, as a miracle so publicly avouched and attested and owned, as is pretended, by imperial edicts: No other rational account can be given to this silence but that they gave no credit to the story, and were too wise to expose their religion to the scorn of the heathens by employing so mean an artifice to defend it.” ‘Eusebius, though he has given a full relation of the miracle in all its circumstances, yet it appears plainly, by the close of his narration, that he did not believe it, as Walesius rightly observes: so that the whole credit of this miracle rests on the authority of Apollinaris and Tertullian. As for the first, I know little of his character, his works, I think, being all lost. But it is remarkable that the only particular which is preserved of his relation is undoubtedly false. Tertullian wanted neither wit nor learning ; but he must be allowed to be a very credulous writer, and an er“rant enthusiast.’ So Mr. Moyle. Obs. 7. Paulus Orosius, a christian historian, who flourished not far from the beginning of the fifth century, and is placed by Cave at the year 416, gives a particular account of this emperor's war with the Marcomans, Quadians, and other people in Germany. He says that ‘ the Roman army.*

* Si Marci literae exstitissent de impetrato a christianis imbre, vix ac ne vix quidem magnum Eusebium in conquirendis ejusmodi monumentis diligentiam effugissent. Atqui in has literas christianorum nemo est qui se conjecisse oculos scripto prodiderit. Non Tertullianus, non Eusebius, imo non Hieronymus, cujus hæc verba Sunt Dixisset me ‘christianorum forte militum “precationibus, siliteras perlegisset Siccine Marcus Senatui scripsit Basnag. ann. 174, n. viii.

* Marcus quoque Aurelius in Germanică expeditione, christianorum militum orationibus ad Deum factis, imbres in siti illä impetravit. Ad Scap. c. iv. p.

87. D. * Niceph. Cal. l. 4. c. 12. p. 297, &c. * * Zon. Ann. Tom. 2. p. 207. * De Quadr. Martyr. Or. 2. T. 3. p. 505.

* Cum igitur ostensum sit, neque Romano in exercitu christianam fuisse legionem, neque Marci animum id subiisse cogitationis, quod a christianis pluvia sit impetrata, consentaneum est, nullas Patribus Conscriptis a Marco literas datas esse, quibus hoc maximi beneficii christianis ascriberet. Quae res aliunde non pertenuibus patefit argumentis. Post exhaustum bellum Marcomannicum scripta est Melitonis apologia, consorte jam imperii Commodo. Quo potius argumento uti Melito debuit, exstinguendae persecutioni, quam beneficio, quo Marcus a christianis effectus fuerat, dum ună cum exercitu pene siti conficiebatur? Quod tamen argumenti non attulit—At immeritonegatur, Athenagorae apologiam Marcomannico bello fuisse posteriorem. Quid, meminitne Athenagoras pluviae a christianis impetratae, ut, eo beneficio Marci in memoriam revocato, miseris undique vexatis, benevolentiam conciliaret 2 At qui certe certoque meminisset. Imo ea de re scriptas ad Senatum literas memoråsset. Basnag. ann. 174, n. vii.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

" Moyle's Works, Vol. ii. p. 97.

* Hoc quidem bellum [Marcomannicum] providentiá Dei administratum fuisse, cum plurimis argumentis, tum praecipue epistolà gravissimi ac modestissimi Imperatoris apertissime declaratum est. Nam cum insurrexissent gentes immanitate barbarae, multitudine innumerabilis, hoc est, Marcomanni, Quadi,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »