1

canting. But first we will transcribe a few lines from another author.

66

"It is said that Constantine found the cross of Jesus Christ, and that many miracles were wrought by it. And yet it is surprizing enough, that Eusebius, eye-witness of these transactions, who exactly "describes all the circumstances in the discovery of the sepulchre of Christ, and who forgets nothing that could turn to the advantage of religion, says "not a single word either of the cross, or of the mi"racles which are pretended to have been performed "by it." Thus Du Pin, fairly and honestly, Bibl.

ii. 15.

*

Now for Tillemont :

"When

This worthy man suffered (as such men commonly do) for hist frankness and candour. “The archbishop of Paris published an Or

66

dinance against his Bibliotheque, and condemned it, as containing “several propositions false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears; tending to weaken the proofs of Tradition for the authority of canonical books, and for many other articles of faith; "injurious to general councils; to the Holy apostolic see, and to "the fathers of the church; erroneous, and leading to heresy, respec

❝tive.

"The archbishop would rather have had this book purged and "corrected, but the evil, as he said, being spread quite through the work, he judged it more convenient to condemn and suppress it, "and forbid the reading of it. The Parliament also suppressed it. But the person of the author was spared, because of his absolute "submission to the ordinance of the prelate, to whom he presented a ❝ declaration upon twelve heads, signed with his own hand, in which " he acknowledges that in some points he was mistaken; he explains "himself upon the rest, and confesses that he had not well expressed "his sentiments, nor sufficiently weighed the terms which he had “used. This declaration of Du Pin was printed, together with the "decrees of the archbishop and of the Parliament.

"I mention not this to hurt the character of his book. On the "contrary, I am persuaded that all men of sense, especially amongst

"When St Helena the mother of Constantine was arrived at Jerusalem, and had begun to visit the sa"cred places, the Holy Ghost enflamed her with a "desire to find the wood of the cross. But there was "no person who had ever seen it, or could tell where "it had been hid. She then enquired for the place "where Christ was crucified, and found it out by the help of the Jews and Christians, or, as Rufinus says, by some revelation; and being moved by the Holy Spirit, she ordered the buildings to be pulled "down, and the rubbish to be removed. The faith "of this female saint was recompensed beyond expectation, and, upon digging very deep, they found the holy sepulchre, and near it three crosses, with "the title which had been affixed to the cross of Christ, and the nails which had pierced his sacred body. But still a difficulty remained, to distinguish which was the cross of Christ.

Saint Macarius, who was bishop of Jerusalem, proposed the "method. He was a prelate illustrious for his wis

the Protestants, will only esteem it so much the more." Bibl. A. et M. iii. p. 194.

dom

Le Clerc,

The pious ears of the archbishop of Paris, and of other good souls, must have been offended at many free things said by Du Pin, and at the account which he gave of Cyril, and of the council of Ephesus. Every intelligent reader will perceive that he had a bad opinion of this father, and that he thought him an insolent man, and a miserable scribbler. He sets forth very fairly the objections which may be made to the conduct and the proceedings of the saint and of the council and then he sets himself to remove and invalidate those objections, and he gives as good answers to them as could be given. If his defence was unsatisfactory (as it really, is) how could he help it? Matters of fact are of a stubborn nature, and it was not in his power to annihilate them. He might indeed have made history, in the manner of Varillas and Maimbourg, and then he would have been in odour of sanctity, and have enjoyed the favour of his superiors.

"dom; and truly worthy of God, and he had just "then overthrown the heresy of Arius at the great "council of Nice. This holy man, knowing that one "of the principal ladies of the city lay extremely ill, “told Helena, that they must carry the three crosses "to the sick person, and beg of God that he would "cure her by the application of the true cross. The empress and all the people being present, he touch"ed the woman with two of the crosses ineffectually,

66

but as soon as he had made use of the third, she a"rose in perfect health, and stronger than she had e"ver been. It is believed, says Sozomen, that they ap"plied the cross to a dead body, which instantly re"vived. Saint Paulinus and Saint Sulpitius Severus " mention only this last miracle.

re

"Helena, full of joy, adored, not the wood itself, says St Ambrose, which would have been a Pagan folly, but the King of heaven who suffered upon it. "She took part of this treasure to carry to her son, "and enclosing the rest in a silver box, she commit"ted it to the bishop of Jerusalem. It was carefully kept in the church which was built there, and the bishop alone had the power to give little bits of it, which were considered as a singular favour and blessing. Saint Paulinus relates a very singular thing concerning that part of the cross which was "at Jerusalem. This cross, says he, having a vital

66

66

virtue in an insensible and inanimate substance, hath yielded, and continues to yield almost daily "its precious wood to the desires of an infinite num"ber of persons, without suffering any diminution *, continuing

6.6.

A man capable of affirming a fact so absurd and ridiculous, ought not to be cited and recommended to us as a good witness for miracles,

continuing all the while as if it had been untouch"ed. It permits itself every day to be divided into "several parts, and yet remains exposed entire to the "veneration of the people.

"Saint Cyril of Jerusalem says only, that the pieแ ces of the cross were brought away from Jerusalem, "and were spread all over the earth twenty-five years "after" H. E. vii. 5.

See more in Tillemont concerning the nails, the title which was upon the cross, the spear, the reed, the sponge, and the crown of thorns, part of which wrought miracles even so lately as in his time.

Here arises some difficulty, not whether the miracles were true or false, for as to that all is clear enough; but whether the discovery of the cross was a fiction made up some years after the death of Helena and of Constantine, or whether Helena really found a cross. This must remain a dubious point, though upon the whole it seems most probable, that the story was invented by the Christians of Jerusalem after the empe

ror and his mother were dead.

The discovery in the time of Constantine rests principally upon the authority of Cyril of Jerusalem, the only witness who lived at that time, and who speaks of no miracles attending the discovery; and the question is, whether the epistle of Cyril which mentions it be genuine, or spurious, or interpolated; and also, whether Cyril, supposing it genuine, made up that part of the story himself, and dated the discovery too early.

but should be rejected with disdain, at least by Protestant divines. Whatpi ty is it that an ingenious, religious, charitable, and good tem pered prelate as Paulinus was, gave into these godly fictions?

If Helena found a cross, it is impossible now to know how the fraud was conducted, and who were the actors in this godly knavery, the hiders and the finders. Eusebius, who lived then, and was bishop of Cæsarea in the neighbourhood, says not a word of the cross, though he relates the discovery of the sepulchre of Christ, and mentions the magnificent church which was erected there, and names Macarius as the person to whom the care of the building was committed. Vit. Const. iii. 25, &c. It is therefore to be concluded, that either he knew nothing, or believed nothing of it. If the thing was really transacted as Socrates and others relate, one might conjecture that Eusebius chose to be silent, lest he should offend the family of Constantine, and say what the times would not bear.

Neque Crucis inventionem solus præterit Eusebius. Quod magis miramur, de ea nihil memorat Constantinus ipse, in sua ad Macarium Epistola, ubi Dei in laudes erumpit, ob repertum, quod tamdiu delituerat, sepulcrum Domini, sacratissimum passionis ejus monumentum. Quanto magis repertæ Crucis meminisset? Non nescimus Bellarminum Constantini verba hæc accommodasse Cruci. Sed intoleranda hæc est Bellarmini sive inscitia, sive audacia, quocunque nomine vocetur, dum ex sepulchro Crucem fabricat. Inventa Crucis primus mentionem fecit Cyrillus, qui ea de re ad Constantium scripsit Augustum: Ac tempore quidem Deo dilectissimi ac beatæ memoriæ Constantini patris tui salutare Crucis lignum Hierosolymis repertum est. Cum autem illo tempore vixerit Cyrillus, quo Hierosolymam lustravit Helena, durum fortusse videbitur, aut factum negare, aut Epistolam Cyrillo detrahere. Non dissimulabimus tamen in ea questione nos pendere animi. Urget Cyrilli ad Imperatorem Epistola qui commentis ludi non debuit. Dubium tamen animum

multa