anoint Clovis? How well known and how ancient the story concerning the condemnation of Charles Martel to hell? Yet the more judicious of the Romanists are now ashamed of all those stories. So also these particulars about the invention of the cross were very possibly first fabricated by some person several years after the death of Helena, and found a ready reception, because they seemed greatly to favour that veneration for relics which began to prevail towards the conclusion of the fourth century. The Chronicle of Cologne, we know, which was written in the year 1499, before the light of the Reformation arose, considers this story of the finding of the cross as equally uncertain and doubtful with the story of the eleven thousand virgins.

XI. We have no accounts of this affair, it must also be observed, but from persons who flourished a little after Constantine and Helena. This proves indeed that it was reported and believed at an early period-not many years after Helena's demise, but doth not establish its truth. The first who mentions it is Cyril of Jerusalem, if Cyril was, in reality, the writer of the letter on this subject ascribed to him. Baronius affirms, that "he might have been present" at the finding of the cross; he was ashamed to say that he was actually present. But it is justly questioned by eminent men, whether the epistle to Constantius be a genuine epistle of the true Cyril. Jerome, though a zealous defender of relics, says nothing of that epistle in a passage where, including Cyril amongst the celebrated writers of that age, he gives an account of his transactions and writings. The epistle itself, too, contains passages unworthy of the true Cyril; for after

Lib. de Script. Eccles. in Cyrillo.

premising that he writes no letters replete with the language of flattery, he proceeds immediately to style Constantius "the most pious of all Emperors, who sur"passed his parents by his superior piety towards God;" -and afterwards says, "I announce this important "intelligence to thee, who art most noble, and most "pious, and a fellow-worshipper with us of Jesus Christ, "the Only-begotten Son of God, and our Saviour.” It is not probable, that an orthodox Bishop wrote in those terms to an Emperor, who was at once an Arian, and stained by numerous crimes. See Baronius, who inserts the letter; and who, displeased with such extravagant encomiums on Constantius, has himself made this annotation in the margin, " Excessive commendation." *

XII. The testimony of Ambrose is about eighty years posterior to the transaction, if such a transaction ever took place: For Theodosius, in whose funeral oration Ambrose speaks of it, died in the year of Christ 394; but the finding of the cross is referred to the year 326. Add to this, that Ambrose, though otherwise grave and respectable, was a great abettor of relics; and that, therefore, it is not surprising he should have readily given credit to the prevailing rumour about the discovery of the cross. It is natural for all men, without due investigation, to give instant and easy credit to reports which they ardently wish to be true; and promptly to make use of them, to serve a hypothesis.

XIII. Besides, if the invention of the cross was of so great importance that, according to Ambrose, Helena should have said, "How can I consider myself redeem"ed, if the redemption itself is not to be seen?" what

* " Profusa laudatio," ad Ann. ccCLIII. Num. 26. et seq.

.

apology can be devised for the primitive Christians, for their not having exerted themselves with more activity to get possession of the cross? Neither the Jews, nor Pilate, who granted the dead body of Christ to Joseph of Arimathea, would have refused, I think, to indulge the disciples with the cross on which their Master expired. Suppose that they had refused, why did not at least the disciples of the Apostles, when the Jewish polity was destroyed and the city demolished by fire and sword, speedily return from the adjacent town to which they had fled,* in order to search among the ruins for the cross, so essential a part of their religion, the inexhaustible treasury of blessings and miracles, the wealth, the hope, and the bulwark of the Church ;-particularly since the derision of persecutors was no longer to be dreaded, but all was solitude and silence? Certainly they believed, what is really the truth, that the Church could now receive no further advantage from the material cross. In their estimation, the faith, the love, and the service of Him who was crucified, were sufficient; together with the devout study of the Gospels, in which we have ample information respecting the sufferings of our Lord.

XIV. The other Authors give such contradictory accounts, that they rather destroy than support the credit of the story. See, as is customary in fabulous narrations, from what small beginnings this story has gradually increased. Cyril, it is said, in the first instance, affirmed in the simplest terms, that the saving wood of the cross was found in the days of Constantine. Here

"At this juncture all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem, " and removed to Pella and other places beyond the river Jordan, "so that they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of "their country." See Bishop Newton on the Prophecies, dissert. xviii. part 2. T.

he stopped. Ambrose embellished this plain story, or received it embellished from others; brought forward HELENA as the principal person concerned in the seeking and finding of the cross; represented our Lord's cross as ascertained from the title which it bore, and made a considerable addition respecting the nails. It appeared proper to others to enliven this dull narration of Ambrose by the glory of a miracle. Rufinus, therefore, a writer somewhat later than Ambrose, produced a sick woman instantaneously cured by the touch of the Lord's cross. But as even this was not equal to the majesty of so important an affair, it occurred to Paulinus, a poet and an orator of no small repute, that the miracle would be more illustrious, if life were restored to the dead, than merely health to the afflicted. Hence the corpse of a dead man was brought into contact with the cross, who immediately revived, and rose to his feet. A difference so material between the account of Rufinus, and that of Paulinus, was calculated to excite perplexity in scrupulous minds. But, behold, Nicephorus, with much ingenuity and a truly Grecian artifice, solves every difficulty by the admission of both miracles. Thus a story was gradually made up, which one most industriously delivered down to another, each always adding fresh improvements, till Pope Gelasius thought proper, by an express prohibition, to restrain this unbridled inclination to embellish.

xv. But no argument is more satisfactory than that which is derived from the silence of Eusebius. Since he was Bishop of Cæsarea, a city situated in the vicinity of Jerusalem, flourished at that very time, and was admitted to great familiarity with Constantine and Helena, he could not have remained ignorant of so nota

VOL. II.

L

23.

ble a matter, had it really taken place. If it had come to his knowledge, if even the gentlest whisper respecting it had reached his ear, he ought not to have passed it over in silence. Nay, he could not have done so, since he has detailed so minutely whatever was done by Constantine and Helena in the holy land, in the places of the nativity, the passion, and the burial of Christ, at no time sparing in his commendations of the Empress. This affair was without doubt particularly deserving of notice, and by no means to be omitted by so accurate a writer as Eusebius. This single argument, taken from the silence of Eusebius on a subject so notorious and so extraordinary, where there was so convenient an opportunity and so urgent a necessity for relating it, is abundantly sufficient to discredit the whole story of the discovery of the cross.

XVI. To this argument Bellarmine found nothing to oppose, but one objection, which has no weight. This affair, he says, is mentioned in the Chronicle, though not in the Histories of Eusebius; and he quotes the following words from that work, on the sixteenth year of Constantine: "Helena, the mother of Constantine, "warned by divine visions, found the blessed wood of "the cross, on which the salvation of the world depend

66

ed, at Jerusalem." But this is either a direct fraud, or an instance of supine negligence, on the part of Bellarmine; for none of these words is to be found either in the Greek text of the Chronicle of Eusebius, or, according to the testimony of Scaliger and the admission f Spondanus, in any of the Latin Manuscripts. Baronius himself, too, confesses that the Chronicle of Eusebius has been greatly corrupted by transcribers. Besides, the matter in question speaks aloud for itself. The discovery of the cross, if it was discovered, must