CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, was one of the
most illustrious prelates of the second age. Notwithstanding the great
encomiums bestowed on him by Eusebius, St. Jerom, Theodoret, and others,
we know but very little of his actions; and his writings, which then
were held in great esteem, seem now to be all lost. Photius,[1] who had
read them, and who was a very good judge, commends them both for their
style and matter. He wrote against the Encratites, and other heretics,
and pointed out, as St. Jerom testifies,[2] from what philosophical sect
each heresy derived its errors. The last of these works was against the
Montanists and their pretended prophets, who began to appear in Phrygia
about the year 171. But nothing rendered his name so illustrious, as his
noble apology for the Christian religion, which he addressed to the
emperor Marcus Aurelius, about the year 175, soon after the miraculous
victory that prince had obtained over the Quadi by the prayers of the
Christians, of which the saint made mention.
Marcus Aurelius having long attempted, without success, to subdue the
Germans by his generals, resolved in the thirteenth year of his reign,
and of Christ 171, to lead a powerful army against them. He was beyond
the Danube, (for Germany was extended much further eastward than it is
at present,) when the Quadi, a people inhabiting that tract now called
Moravia, surrounded him in a very disadvantageous situation, so that
there was no possibility that either he or his army could escape out of
their hands, or subsist long where they were, for want of water. The
twelfth legion, called the Melitine, from a town of that name in
Armenia, where it had been quartered a long time, was chiefly composed
of Christians. These, when the army was drawn up, but languid and
perishing with thirst, fell upon their knees, "as we are accustomed to
do at prayer," says Eusebius, and poured forth earnest supplications to
God in this public extremity of their state and emperor, though hitherto
he had been a persecutor of their religion. The strangeness of the sight
surprised the enemies, who had more reason to be astonished at the
event; for all on a sudden the sky was darkened with clouds, and a thick
rain showered down with impetuosity just as the Barbarians had assailed
the Roman camp. The Romans fought and drank at the same time, catching
the rain, as it fell, in their helmets, and often swallowing it mingled
with blood. Though by this means exceedingly refreshed, the Germans were
much too strong for them; but the storm being driven by a violent wind
upon their faces, and accompanied with dreadful flashes of lightning,
and loud thunder, the Germans were deprived of their sight, beaten down
to the ground, and terrified to such a degree, that they were entirely
routed and put to flight. Both heathen and Christian writers give this
account of the victory. The heathens ascribe it, some to the power of
{109} magic, others to their gods, as Dio Cassius;[3] but the Christians
unanimously recount it as a miracle obtained by the prayers of this
legion, as St. Apollinaris in his apology to this very emperor, who
adds, that as an acknowledgment, the emperor immediately gave it the
name of the Thundering Legion, and from him it is so called by
Eusebius,[4] Tertullian,[5] St. Jerom,[6] and St. Gregory of Nyssa.[7]
The Quadi and Sarmatians brought back thirteen thousand prisoners, whom
they had taken, and begged for peace on whatever conditions it should
please the emperor to grant it them. Marcus Aurelius hereupon took the
title of the _seventh time emperor_, contrary to custom, and without the
consent of the senate, regarding it as given him by heaven. Out of
gratitude to his Christian soldiers, he published an edict, in which he
confessed himself indebted for his delivery _to the shower obtained_,
PERHAPS, _by the prayers of the Christians_;[8] and more he could not
say without danger of exasperating the pagans. In it he forbade, under
pain of death, any one to accuse a Christian on account of his religion;
yet, by a strange inconsistency, especially in so wise a prince, being
overawed by the opposition of the senate, he had not the courage to
abolish the laws already made and in force against Christians. Hence,
even after this, in the same reign, many suffered martyrdom, though
their accusers were also put to death; as in the case of St. Apollonius
and of the martyrs of Lyons. Trajan had in like manner forbid Christians
to be accused, yet commanded them to be punished with death if accused,
as may be seen declared by him in his famous letter to Pliny the
Younger. The glaring injustice of which law Tertullian demonstrates by
an unanswerable dilemma.
St. Apollinaris, who could not see his flock torn in pieces and be
silent, penned his apology to the emperor, about the year 172, to remind
him of the benefit he had received from God by the prayers of the
Christians, and to implore his protection. We have no account of the
time of this holy man's death, which probably happened before that of
Marcus Aurelius. The Roman Martyrology mentions him on the 8th of
January.
* * * * *
We believe the same great truths, and divine mysteries,--we profess the
same faith which produced such wonderful fruits in the souls of the
saints. Whence comes it that it has not the like effects in us?--that
though we acknowledge virtue to be the richest treasure of the soul of
man, we take little pains about it, passionately seek the things of this
world, are cast down and broken under every adversity, and curb and
restrain our passions only by halves?--that the most glorious objects,
God and heaven, and the amazing and dreadful truths, a judgment to come,
hell, and eternity, strike us so feebly, and operate so little in us?
The reason is plain: because we meditate not sufficiently on these great
truths. Our notions of them are dim and imperfect; our thoughts pass so
slightly over them, that they scarce retain any print or traces of them.
Otherwise it is impossible that things {110} so great and terrible
should excite in us no fear, or that things in their own nature
infinitely amiable, should enkindle in us no desire. Slight and faint
images of things move our minds very weakly, and affect them very
coldly, especially in such matters as are not subject to our senses. We
therefore grossly deceive ourselves in not allotting more time to the
study of divine truths. It is not enough barely to believe them, and let
our thoughts now and then glance upon them: that knowledge which shows
us heaven, will not bring us to the possession of it, and will deserve
punishments, not rewards, if it remain slight, weak, and superficial. By
serious and frequent meditation it must be concocted, digested, and
turned into the nourishment of our affections, before it can be powerful
and operative enough to change them, and produce the necessary fruit in
our lives. For this all the saints affected solitude and retreats from
the noise and hurry of the world, as much as their circumstances allowed
them.
Footnotes:
1. {}
2. Ep. 83, ad Magn.
3. B. 71.
4. Hist. B. 5, c. 5.
5. Apol. c. 5. L. ad Scap. c. 4.
6. Chron.
7. Or. 2, de 40 mart.
8. _Christianorum_ FORTE _militum precationibus impetrato imbri_.
Tertull. Apolog. c. 5. Euseb. l. 5, c. 5. Some take the word _forte_
here to signify, _casually, accidentally, as hap was_. Several
learned Protestants have written in defence of this miracle: see Mr.
Weston's dissertation in 1748. The exceptions of Le Clerc, Hist.
Eccl. p. 744, and of Moyle, in his essay on the Thundering Legion,
deserve no notice. The deliverance of the emperor is represented on
the _Columna Antoniniana_, in Rome, by the figure of a Jupiter
Pluvius, being that of an old man flying in the air, with his arms
expanded, and a long beard which seems to waste away in rain. The
soldiers are there represented as relieved by this sudden tempest,
and in a posture, partly drinking of the rain-water, and partly
fighting against the enemy; who, on the contrary are represented as
stretched out on the ground with their horses, and upon them only
the dreadful part of the storm descending. The original letter of
Marcus Aurelius concerning this matter, was extant when Tertullian
and St. Jerom wrote. See Hier. in Chron. Euseb. ad annum 176. Tert.
Apol. c. 5, et lib. ad Scapul. The letter of Marcus Aurelius to the
senate now extant, is rejected as supposititious by Scaliger,
(Animadv. In Eus. ad an. 189.).It is published in the new edition of
the works of Marcus Aurelius, printed by Robert Fowlis in 1748, t.
1, p. 127, in Greek, t. 2, p. 126, in Latin, with notes, ib. p. 212.
Mamachi, t. 1, p 366.