s enemies. [48] The learned bishop of Caesarea appears to be
sensible, that the recent discovery of this marvellous anecdote would
excite some surprise and distrust among the most pious of his readers.
Yet, instead of ascertaining the precise circumstances of time and
place, which always serve to detect falsehood or establish truth; [49]
instead of collecting and recording the evidence of so many living
witnesses who must have been spectators of this stupendous miracle; [50]
Eusebius contents himself with alleging a very singular testimony; that
of the deceased Constantine, who, many years after the event, in the
freedom of conversation, had related to him this extraordinary incident
of his own life, and had attested the truth of it by a solemn oath. The
prudence and gratitude of the learned prelate forbade him to suspect the
veracity of his victorious master; but he plainly intimates, that in a
fact of such a nature, he should have refused his assent to any meaner
authority. This motive of credibility could not survive the power of
the Flavian family; and the celestial sign, which the Infidels might
afterwards deride, [51] was disregarded by the Christians of the age
which immediately followed the conversion of Constantine. [52] But the
Catholic church, both of the East and of the West, has adopted a prodigy
which favors, or seems to favor, the popular worship of the cross. The
vision of Constantine maintained an honorable place in the legend of
superstition, till the bold and sagacious spirit of criticism presumed
to depreciate the triumph, and to arraign the truth, of the first
Christian emperor. [53]

[Footnote 45: M. Freret (Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions, tom.
iv. p. 411-437) explains, by physical causes, many of the prodigies of
antiquity; and Fabricius, who is abused by both parties, vainly tries
to introduce the celestial cross of Constantine among the solar halos.
Bibliothec. Graec. tom. iv. p. 8-29. * Note: The great difficulty in
resolving it into a natural phenomenon, arises from the inscription;
even the most heated or awe-struck imagination would hardly discover
distinct and legible letters in a solar halo. But the inscription may
have been a later embellishment, or an interpretation of the meaning
which the sign was construed to convey. Compare Heirichen, Excur in
locum Eusebii, and the authors quoted.]

[Footnote 46: Nazarius inter Panegyr. Vet. x. 14, 15. It is unnecessary
to name the moderns