shower; but the army of the enemy was destroyed by a storm of thunder and lightning which accompanied it.

That during the German war the Roman army suffered severely from want of water, and was relieved from a situation of great peril by a seasonable shower of rain, is a fact which does not rest on the single authority of Tertullian. It is recorded by several profane writers, and confirmed by the indisputable testimony of the Antonine Column. Nor was Tertullian singular in regarding the event as preternatural: the heathen historians did the same. But while Tertullian ascribes the deliverance of the Emperor to the prayers of his Christian soldiers, "Dion Cassius gives the credit of it to certain magical rites performed by an Egyptian, named Arnuphis; and on the Antonine column it is attributed to the immediate interposition of Jupiter Pluvius. This latter circumstance completely disproves Tertullian's statement respecting the existence of a letter, in which the Emperor ascribed his deliverance to the prayers of his Christian soldiersa statement indeed neither reconcileable with his general character, nor with the harsh treatment experienced by the Christians during his reign.

25 See the Epitome of Dion by Xiphilinus. Marcus Antoninus, p. 246. C. Ed. H. Steph. 1568.

Referring the reader to 26 Lardner for a fullaccount of all that has been said by learned men on the subject of this story, I shall content myself with remarking that, as told by Tertullian, it contains nothing miraculous. The Roman army was reduced to great extremity— the Christian soldiers who were present put up prayers to God for deliverance and a seasonable shower of rain relieved the army from its perilous situation. Tertullian indeed wishes his reader to infer that the shower was the consequence of the prayers of the Christian soldiers; that, unless they had prayed, the shower would not have fallen. But this is to assume an acquaintance with the designs of Providence, which man can obtain only by immediate Revelation. The pious mind, persuaded that the course of this world is ordered by the Divine governance, naturally has recourse to prayer in the hour of danger: and after the danger is passed, it pours forth its gratitude to God for having so ordered events as to admit of a compliance with its petitions. But it presumes not to ascribe such efficacy to its prayers as would imply that God had been induced by them to alter the course of his government. To represent events, which are in themselves of a character strictly natural, a storm for instance, or an

26 Heathen Testimonies, Marcus Antoninus, Sect. 3.

earthquake, as produced by an especial interposition of divine power, exerted in compliance with the prayers of men, is to speak the language, not of genuine piety, but of superstition. Yet such was the language of Tertul lian's day. We find in his writings numerous instances of the same disposition to ascribe events to the immediate interference of the Almighty. 27 The Christians in Africa had been deprived of their burial grounds; Tertullian represents a total failure of the harvest, which occurred shortly after, as a punishment inflicted upon the Pagan inhabitants for this act of injustice. 28 He accounts in a similar manner for an extraordinary quantity of rain which had fallen in the year preceding that in which his Address to Scapula was written. He speaks of flames which appeared to hang by night over the walls of Carthage, and of an almost total extinction of the sun's light at Utica, and discovers in them infallible presages of the impending wrath of Heaven. To the same wrath he imputes the calamities which had befallen those Roman governors who had been

27 Sicut et sub Hilariano præside, quum de areis sepulturarum nostrarum adclamâssent, "Areæ non sint," Areæ ipsorum non fuerunt; messes enim suas non egerunt, c. 3. Our author plays upon the double meaning of the word Area which signifies a threshing-floor, as well as an enclosure. Ad Scapulam, c. 3.

28 Ad Scapulam, c. 3.

particularly active in their persecution of the Christians.

I shall take this opportunity of offering a few remarks upon another fact, not of a miraculous nature, related by Tertullian. He says, in the Apology, that the Emperor Tiberius, having received from Palestine an account of those supernatural events which proved the Divinity of Christ, proposed to the Senate that he should be received among the deities of Rome that the Senate rejected the proposal-— that Tiberius retained his opinion, and menaced all who brought accusations against the Christians. 30 In a subsequent passage Tertullian states

29 Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in seculum introivit, annuntiata sibi ex Syriâ Palestinâ, quæ illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverant, detulit ad Senatum cum prærogativâ suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Cæsar in sententiâ mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus Christianorum, c. 5. In this passage Pearson would read "quia non in se probaverat," for "quia non ipse probaverat," and interpret the sentence thus: The Senate rejected the proposal, because Tiberius had not approved a similar proposal in his own case-had himself refused to be deified. Lardner contends that this must be the meaning, even if ipse is retained. But a sentence which precedes, "Vetus erat decretum, ne qui Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur, nisi a Senatu probatus," shews that ipse refers to Senatus: the Senate refused, because it had not itself approved the proposal; and so the passage was translated in the Greek Version used by Eusebius.

30 Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse jam pro suâ conscientiâ Christianus, Cæsari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit. Sed et

Cæsares

31

that the account was sent to Tiberius by Pilate, who was in his conscience a Christian; and adds an expression which implies that worldly considerations alone prevented Tiberius from believing in Christ. The story is repeated by Eusebius, who appeals to Tertullian as his authority for it. 52 Lardner, after a detailed examination of the objections which have been made to its truth, pronounces it deserving of regard. 33 Mosheim also seems to be of opinion that it ought not to be entirely rejected. Gibbon treats it as a mere fable; but some of his arguments appear to me far from convincing. One is founded on a misrepresentation of Tertullian's statement: 34 We are required," says Gibbon, "to believe that Tiberius protected the Christians from the severity of the laws many years before such laws were enacted, or before the Church had assumed any distinct name or existence." Now Tertullian says not a word about any protection, from the severity of the laws, afforded by Tiberius to the Christians;

66

Cæsares credidissent super Christo, si aut Cæsares non essent seculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Cæsares,

c. 21.

31 Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c. 2.

32 Heathen Testimonies, c. 2.

33 Ecclesiastical History, Cent. I. c. 4.

34 Chap. xvi.

p.

556. Ed. 4to.