emperor, he passes in silence over a prodigy to which all the army were witnesses. Further, Eusebius of Cæsarea himself, who has given the example to all other christian historians on the subject, speaks not of this wonder, in the whole course of his Ecclesiastical History, though he enlarges much on the exploits of Constantine against Maxentius. It is only in his life of this emperor that he expresses himself in these terms:*-" Constantine resolved to adore the god of Constantius; his father implored the protection of this god against Maxentius. Whilst he was praying, he had a wonderful vision, which would appear incredible, if related by another; but since the victorious emperor has himself related it to us, who wrote this history; and that, after having been long known to this prince, and enjoying a share in his good graces, the emperor confirming what he said by oath, who could doubt it? particularly since the event has confirmed the truth of it. "He affirmed, that in the afternoon, when the sun set, he saw a luminous cross above it, with this inscription in Greek,- By this sign, conquer:' that this appearance astonished him extremely, as well as all the soldiers who followed him, who were witnesses of the miracle; that whilst his mind was fully occupied with this vision, and he sought to penetrate the sense of it, the night being come, Jesus Christ appeared to him during his sleep, with the same sign which he had shown to him in the air in the day-time, and commanded him to make a standard of the same form, and to bear it in his battles, to secure him from danger. Constantine, rising at break of day, related to his friends the vision which had beheld and, sending for goldsmiths and lapidaries, he sat in the in the midst of them, explained to them the figure of the sign which he had seen, and commanded them to make a similar one of gold and jewels; and we remember having sometimes seen it." * Book i. chap. xxviii. xxxi. and xxxii. Eusebius afterwards adds, that Constantine, astonished at so admirable a vision, sent for christian priests; and that, instructed by them, he applied himself to reading our sacred books, and concluded that he ought to adore with a profound respect the God who appeared to him. How can we conceive, that so admirable a vision, seen by so many millions of people, and so calculated to justify the truth of the christian religion, could be unknown to Eusebius, an historian so careful in seekiug all that could contribute to do honour to christianity, as even to quote profane monuments falsely, as we have seen in the article ECLIPSE? And how can we persuade ourselves, that he was not informed of it, until several years after, by the sole evidence of Constantine? Were there no christians in the army, who publicly made a glory of having seen such a prodigy? Had they so little interest in their cause, as to keep silence on so great a miracle? Ought we to be astonished, after that, that Gelasius, one of the successors of Eusebius, in the siege of Cæsarea in the fifth century, has said that many people suspected that it was only a fable, invented in favour of the christian religion?* This suspicion will become much stronger, if we take notice how little the witnesses agree on the circumstances of this marvellous appearance. Almost all affirm, that the cross was seen by Constantine and all his army; and Gelasius speaks of Constantine alone. They differ on the time of the vision. Philostorgius, in his Ecclesiastical History, of which Photius has preserved us the extract, says, † that it was when Constantine gained the victory over Maxentius; others pretend that it was before, when Constantine was making preparations for attacking the tyrant, and was on his march with his army. Arthemius, quoted by Metaphrastus and Surius, mentions the 20th of October, Hist. of the Acts of the Council of Nice, chap. iv. and says that it was at noon; others speak of the after noon at sun-set. Authors do not agree better even on the vision: the greatest number acknowledged but one, and that in a dream. There is only Eusebius, followed by Philostorgius and Socrates,* who speak of two; the one that Constantine saw in the day time, and the other which he saw in a dream, tending to confirm the first. Nicephorus Callistus reckons three.+ The inscription offers new differences: Eusebius says, that it was in Greek characters, while others speak not of it. According to Philostorgius and Nicephorus, it was in Latin characters; others say nothing about it, and seem by their relation to suppose that the characters were Greek. Philostorgius affirms, that the inscription was formed by an assemblage of stars; Arthemius says, that the letters were golden. The author quoted by Photius, represents them as composed of the same luminous matter as the cross; and according to Sosomenes,§ it had no inscription, and they were angels who said to Constantine," By this sign gain the victory." Finally, the relation of historians is opposed on the consequences of this vision. If we take that of Eusebius, Constantine, aided by God, easily gained the victory over Maxentius; but according to Lactantius, the victory was much disputed. He even says that the troops of Maxentius had some advantage, before Constantine made his army approach the gates of Rome. If we may believe Eusebius and Sosomenes, from this epoch Constantine was always victorious, and opposed the salutary sign of the cross to his enemies, as an impenetrable rampart. However, a christian author, of whom M. de Valois has collected some fragments, at the end of Ammianus Marcellinus,||-relates, that in the two battles given to Licinius by Constantine, the victory was doubtful, and that Constantine was even slightly wounded in the thigh; and Nice * Eccles. Hist. b. i. chap. ii. + Idem, b. viii. ch. iii. Bibl. folio 56. Eccles. Hist. b. i. chap. iii. phorus says, that after the first apparition, he twice combatted the Byzantines, without opposing the cross to them, and would not even have remembered it, if he had not lost nine thousand men, and had the same vision twice more. In the first, the stars were so arranged that they formed these words of a psalm,† "Call upon me in the day of trouble. I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me ;" and the last, much clearer and more brilliant still, bore," By this sign thou shalt vanquish all thy enemies." " Philostorgius affirms, that the vision of the cross, and the victory gained over Maxentius, determined Constantine to embrace the christian faith; but Rufinus, who has translated the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius into Latin, says that he already favoured christianity, and honoured the true God. It is however known, that he did not receive baptism until a few days before his death, as is expressly said by Philostorgius, St. Athanasius,§ St. Ambrose,|| St. Jerome, Socrates,** Theodoret,++ and the author of the Chronicle of Alexandria.‡‡ This custom, then common, was founded on the belief that, baptism effacing all the sins of him who received it, he died certain of his salvation. We might confine ourselves to these general reflections, but by superabundance of right we will discuss the authority of Eusebius, as an historian, and that of Constantine and Arthemius, as ocular witnesses. As to Arthemius, we think that he ought not to be placed in the rank of ocular witnesses; his discourse being founded only on his Acts, related by Metaphrastus, a fabulous author,-Acts which Baronius * Book vii. chap. xlvii. Page 917 on the Synod. Oration on the Death of Theodosius. I Chron. year 337. ** Book ii. chap. xlvii. ++ Chap. xxxii. ++ Page 684. pretends it was wrong to impeach, at the same time that he confesses that they are interpolated. As to the speech of Constantine, related by Eusebius, it is indisputably an astonishing thing, that this emperor feared that he should not be believed unless he made oath; and that Eusebius has not supported his evidence by that of any of the officers or soldiers of the army. But without here adopting the opinion of some scholars, who doubt whether Eusebius is the author of the life of Constantine,-is he not an author who, in this work, bears throughout the character of a panegyrist rather than that of an historian? Is he not a writer who has carefully suppressed all which could be disadvantageous to his hero? In a word, does he not show his partiality, when he says, in his Ecclesiastical History, speaking of Maxentius, that having usurped the sovereign power at Rome, to flatter the people he feigned at first to profess the christian religion? As if it was impossible for Constantine to make use of such a feint, and to pretend this vision, just as Licinius, some time after, to encourage his soldiers against Maximin, pretended that an angel in a dream had dictated a prayer to him, which he must repeat with his army. How could Eusebius really have the effrontery to call a prince a christian who caused the temple of Concord to be rebuilt at his own expense, as is proved by an inscription, which was read in the time of Lelio Geraldi, in the temple of Latran? A prince who caused his son Crispus, already honoured with the title of Cæsar, to perish on a slight suspicion of having commerce with Fausta, his stepmother; who caused this same Fausta, to whom he was indebted for the preservation of his life, to be suffocated in an overheated bath; who caused the emperor Maximian Hercules, his adopted father, to be strangled; who took away the life of the young Licinius, his nephew, who had already displayed very good qualities; and in short, who dishonoured himself by so many murders, that the consul Ablavius called his times Neronian? We might add, that much dependance should not be |