earnestly praying to the true God for
light and help at this critical time, saw, together with his army, in
clear daylight toward evening, a shining cross in the heavens above the
sun, with the inscription: '_By this conquer;_' and in the following
night Christ himself appeared to him while he slept, and directed him to
have a standard prepared in the form of this sign of the cross, and with
that to proceed against Maxentius and all other enemies. This account of
Eusebius, or rather of Constantine himself, adds to the night dream of
Lactantius the preceding vision of the day, and the direction concerning
the standard, while Lactantius speaks of the inscription of the initial
letters of Christ's name on the shields of the soldiers. According to
Rufinus, a later historian, who elsewhere depends entirely on Eusebius,
and can therefore not be regarded as a proper witness in the case, the
sign of the cross appeared to Constantine in a dream (which agrees with
the account of Lactantius), and upon his awaking in terror, an angel
(not Christ) exclaimed to him: '_Hoc vince._' Lactantius, Eusebius, and
Rufinus are the only Christian writers of the fourth century, who
mention the apparition. But we have besides one or two heathen
testimonies, which, though vague and obscure, still serve to strengthen
the evidence in favor of some actual occurrence. The contemporaneous
orator Nazarius, in a panegyric upon the emperor, pronounced March 1,
321, apparently at Rome, speaks of an army of divine warriors and a
divine assistance which Constantine received in the engagement with
Maxentius; but he converts it to the service of heathenism by recurring
to old prodigies, such as the appearance of Castor and Pollux.

This famous tradition may be explained either as a real miracle implying
a personal appearance of Christ, or as a pious fraud, or as a natural
phenomenon in the clouds and an optical illusion, or finally as a
prophetic dream.

The propriety of a miracle, parallel to the signs in heaven which
preceded the destruction 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