NOTE ON CONSTANTINE’S VISION OF THE CROSS

It will be observed that in this account of Constantine nothing has been said about his “vision of the cross,” of which so much has been said by almost every other writer who has gone over this ground. For this there are two main reasons. First, There is no point in the narrative where it could have been introduced, even though it were true. Second, The whole story is so manifestly a lie that it is unworthy of serious notice in any narrative that makes any pretensions to truth or soberness.TTR 277.4

There is no point at which such an account could be inserted, because nobody ever heard of it until “long after” it was said to have occurred; and then it was made known by Constantine himself to Eusebius only, and was never made a matter of record until after Constantine’s death.TTR 277.5

These things of themselves would go far to discredit the story; but when it is borne in mind that the only record that was even then made of it was in Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine,” the character of which is quite clearly seen in the extracts which we have made from it in the chapter, the story may be entirely discredited. Eusebius’s words are as follows:—TTR 278.1

“While he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth?” ^{27[Page 278] “Life of Constantine.” book i, chap. xxvii.}TTR 278.2

It will be seen at once that this account is of the same nature as that of Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine” throughout. It is of the same piece with that by which” no mortal was allowed to contribute to the elevation of Constantine.” If it should be pleaded that Constantine confirmed his statement by an oath, the answer is that this is no evidence of the truth of the statement. “That the emperor attested it on oath, as the historian tells us, is indeed no additional guarantee for the emperor’s veracity.”—Stanley. ^{28[Page 278] “History of the Eastern Church,” Lecture vi, par. 10.}TTR 278.3

He gave his oath to his sister as a pledge for the life of her husband, and shortly had him killed. In short, when Constantine confirmed a statement by an oath, this was about the best evidence that he could give that the statement was a lie. This is the impression clearly conveyed by Stanley’s narrative as may be seen by a comparison of Lecture ill, par. iii; Lecture iv, par. 9; Lecture vi, par. 10, and is sustained by the evidence of Constantine’s whole imperial course.TTR 278.4

In addition to this, there is the fact that Eusebius himself only credited the story because it came from Constantine, and because it was established “by the testimony of after-time,” in which testimony he was ever ready to see the most wonderful evidence of God’s special regard for Constantine; and the further fact that it was one of the principles of Eusebius that “it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, for the advantage of those who require such a method,” ^{29[Page 278] Quoted by Waddington in “Note on Eusebius,” at the end of chapter vi, of his “History of the Church.”} which principle is fully illustrated in his dealings with Constantine.TTR 278.5

When all these things, and many others which might be mentioned, are fairly considered, they combine to make the story of Constantine’s vision of the cross, utterly unworthy of the slightest credit, or any place, in any sober or exact history. Therefore I do, and all others ought to, fully concur in the opinion that this “flattering fable” “can claim no place among the authentic records of history; and by writers whose only object is truth, it may very safely be consigned to contempt and oblivion.”—Waddington. ^{30[Page 278] “History of the Church,” chap. vi, par. 2.}TTR 278.6