34 THIRD PERIOD. A.D, 311-590.
The propriety of a miracle, parallel to tlie signs in heaven which preceded the destrnctiun of Jerusalem, might be justified by the significance of the victory as marking a great epoch in history, namely, the downfall of paganism and the establishment of Christianity in the empire. But even if we waive the purely critical objections to the Eusebian narrative, the assumed connection, in this case, of the gentle Prince of peace with the god of battle, and the subserviency of the sacred symbol of redemption to military ambition, is repugnant to the genius of the gospel and to sound Christian feeling, unless we stretch the theory of divine acconmiodation to the spirit of the age and the passions and interests of individuals beyond the ordinary limits. We should suppose, moreover, that Christ, if he had really appeared to Constantino either in person (according to Eusebius) or through angels (as Rufinus and Sozomen modify it), would have exhorted him to repent and be baptized rather than to construct a military ensign for a bloody battle.' In no case can we ascribe to this occurrence, with Eusebius, Theodoret, and older writers, the character of a sudden and genuine conversion, as to Paul's vision of Christ r»n the way to Damascus ; ' for, on the one hand, Constantine was never hostile to Christianity, but most probably friendly to it from his early youth, according to the example of his fathei- ; and, on the other, he put o& his baptism quite five and twenty years, almost to the hour of his death.
The opposite hypothesis of a mere military stratagem or intentional fraud is still more objectionable, and would compel UB either to impute to the first Chiistian emperor at a venerable ao-e the double crime of falsehood and perjury, or, if Eusebius invented the story, to deny to the " father of church history "
' Dr. Murdock (notes to his translation of Moshcim) raises the additional objection, which has some force from his Puritan standpoint: " If tlie miracle of the luminous cross was a reality, has not God himself sanctioned the use of the cross as the appointed symbol of our religion ? so that there is no superstition in the use of it, but the Catholics arc correct and the Trotestants in an error on this sulyect?"
' Theodoret says that Constantine was called not of men or by men (oi'k onr av^fxiirov. ovSe Si' avdpiiiirov, comp. Gal. i. 1), but from hc.avcn, as the divine apoetU Paul was {fivpav60(v koto, rhf bf7ov anSaroXov). Hist. Eccl. 1. i. C. 2.
§ 2. CONSTANTDsE THE GEEAT. 25
all claim to credibility and common respectability. Besides it should be remembered that the older testimony of Lactantius, or whoever was the author of the work on the Deaths of Persecutors, is quite independent of that of Eusebius, and derives additional force from the vague heathen rumors of the time. Finally the Hoc vince which has passed into proverbial significance as a most appropriate motto of the invincible religion of the cross, is too good to be traced to sheer falsehood. Some actual fact, therefore, must be supposed to underHe the tradition, and the question only is this, whether it was an external visible phenomenon or an internal experience.
The hypothesis of a natural formation of the clouds, whicli Constantine by an optical illusion mistook for a supernatural sign of the cross, besides smacking of the exploded rationalistic explanation of the ISTew Testament miracles, and deriving an important event from a mere accident, leaves the figure of Christ and the Greek or Latin inscription: By this sign thou shalt conquer ! altogether unexplained.
We are shut up therefore to the theory of a dream or vision, and an experience within the mind of Constantine. This is supported by the oldest testimony of Lactantius, as well as by the report of Rufinus and Sozomen, and we do not hesitate to regard the Eusebian cross in the skies as originally a part of the dream,' which only subsequently assumed the character of an outward objective apparition either in the imagination of Constantine, or by a mistake of the memory of the historian, but in either case without intentional fraud. That the vision was traced to supernatural origin, especially after the happy success, is quite natural and in perfect keeping with the prevailing ideas of the age.^ Tertullian and other
' So Sozomeuus, H. E. lib. i. cap. 3, expressly represents it : ovap e'iSe rb toO aravpov (Ti]ixiiov (Ti\ayi^ov, etc. Afterwards he gives, it is true, the fuller report of Eusebius in his own words. Comp. Rutin, ix. 9 ; Euseb. Vit. Const, i. 29 ; Laet. De mort. persec. 44, and the allusions of the heathen panegyrists.
' Licinius before the battle with Maximin had a vision of an angel who taught him a prayer for victory (Lactant. De mort. persec. c. 46). Julian the Apostate •was even more superstitious in this respect than his Christian uncle, and fully addicted to the whole train of omens, presages, prodigies, spectres, dreams, visions, auguries, and oracles (comp. below, § 4). On his expedition against the Persians hu