a panegyrist, the natural thirst for marvels, and the convention of mediæval art have combined to set the scene of Constantine's vision on the road to Rome side by side with St. Paul's vision during his journey to Damascus. When viewed in the sober light of history, neither this event, whatever it may have been, nor its consequences, is in any way comparable to that stupendous crisis and turning-point in the career of the great apostle. Newman argued strenuously for the belief that here was a real miracle, a direct supernatural intervention by God, at a fitting time. But when we consider the fact that it was a war banner that the Prince of Peace was said to have inspired, and when we go on to look at the subsequent character of the man who is said to have been thus favoured and the whole effect of the patronage of Christianity by the empire, it is not easy to believe that all this indicates nothing less than the finger of God. When, however, we come down to the lower plane of simple history, it must be admitted that something strange did happen, and that this occurrence, whatever it was, became the occasion of stupendous consequences. The accounts vary; but that is no more than must be said of all independent reports of the same event. What is plain is that, in October 312, while Constantine was marching to Rome against the usurper Maxentius, the champion of paganism, something occurred to lead him to claim the Christian symbol for his standard in the approaching battle. Whether we accept the narrative which Eusebius says the emperor gave him on oath[1]—perhaps not to us the more reliable for that fact—that the emperor "saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer by this,"[2] and received an explanation from Christ in a dream; or stretch our credulity to the
- ↑ Vit. Const. i. 27. On this point Prof. E. C. Richardson acutely remarks: "Note here the care Eusebius takes to throw off the responsibility for the marvellous" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. i. p. 490). In his History Eusebius' statement is both vague and cautious (Hist. Eccl. ix. 9).
- ↑ τούτῳ νίκα.
