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 reperta Crucis meminisset? Non nescimus Bellarminum Constantini verba hæc accommodusse 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 fortasse 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 multa faciunt. Primum de reperta Cruce traditionis dissimilitudo. Dein altissimum Eusebi Constantinique de ea inventione silentium, &c. Denique fraus Reliquiariorum nobis est timenda in rebus ejusmodi. Excogitatam esse Crucis inventionem, partim ut pergratum fieret Constantino, qui Reliquis extra modum delectabatur, partim et Ecclesiæ Hierosolymitanæ honos accumularetur, quid vetat? Nonne Juvenalis, Cyrilli de successoribus unus, per commentitia scripta Palæstina principatum extor, quere voluit, docente Leone, Epist. 62. Hieronymus quidem * Cyrillum ejusmodi coloribus pingit in Chronico, quibus existimari forsan posset animum a piis fraudibus alienum non gestasse, &c. S. Basnage, Ann. ii. 728-9. If Cyril of Jerusalem wrote these words, and vouched for the discovery of the true cross, he must, as to this particular, pass either for a deceiver, or for that tool, Which wise men work with, call'd One would therefore willingly suppose that the ketter ascribed to Cyril is spurious or interpolated. The good woman Helena was near fourscore years old when she took this journey to Jerusalem. It is more probable that she should have been imposed upon, than that she should have had any share in the contrivance. As to Macarius, if what is here related of him be true, his Blessedness must have been let into the secret. Helena was sainted and highly honoured after her. death her body is said to be in an abbey in France, and also at Rome; but there is no great inconvenience to suppose it to be in two places at once. The mul * See Sozom. iv. 25. vii. 7. Socrat. ii. 40. concerning the charac ter of Cyril. tiplication of the cross, attested by Paulinus, leads us to this opinion, See Tillemont H. E. vii. 18. The ecclesiastics of Jerusalem, at what time soever they contrived the discovery of the cross, knew their own interest very well. It must have drawn a swarm of pious vagrants to their city, and have brought in great revenues to the church and to the bishop, if they gave only sixpence a-piece, to see the box in which the cross was locked up*. The finding of the cross hath been also ascribed to one Judas, a Jew, (and a bad name) by Gregory of Tours. See the remarks of J. Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, vi. 14. § 10. p. 1243. I know not why Basnage should affirm that this Gregory is the first of those who have spoken of the finding of the cross, p. 1244. There is a passage of Eusebius on the Psalms, which hath been thought to refer to these miracles. "Montfaucon conjectures that Eusebius composed "this work after the year 327, in which those mira cles were wrought that later authors have recorded "concerning the discovery of the cross, and to which "Eusebius seems to allude on Psalm lxxxvii. p. 549. "where he speaks of miracles wrought in his time "near the sepulchre of Jesus Christ, as also of the "church which was built there by Helena, the mo"ther of Constantine. It was not dedicated till the year 335, so that Eusebius must have composed his Commentary after that year. Yet in the life of Constantine, where Eusebius speaks of this church, “and describes very particularly and with much 66 pomp 66 66 * Macrina, the sister of Gregory Nyssen, carried about her a little cross, and a ring, in which a small bit of the true cross was enclosed, Vit. Macr. pomp, the synod which was held there when the "church was consecrated, he says nothing at all of "it, though this was the most proper place to men❝tion it. Montfaucon however persuades himself "that Eusebius refers to these miracles in his Com❝mentary on the Psalms. But one might as probably conclude, that this passage in the Commen"tary was the interpolation of some copist, at a time "when no scruple was made to add to the writings If 66 of the ancients, or to take away from them. "Eusebius had heard any thing of these miracles, is "it to be supposed that he would have passed them "over in a work made on purpose to celebrate Con"stantine and Helena? Was it an indifferent thing, " and of no consequence in the fourth century, whe"ther mention should be made of the manner in "which Helena found the true cross, and distinguish"ed it from those of the thieves? No one will say it, "or entertain so poor an opinion of the rhetoric of "Eusebius, as to imagine that he could omit such "an affair if he knew it. His silence therefore will "always be a stronger motive to reject what later au"thors have said upon this subject, than any argu"ment that can be offered to the contrary, from an "allusion which might so easily have been inserted by a forger into the Commentary of Eusebius on "the Psalms, to support by his authority a fable invented afterwards." Le Clerc, Bibl. A. et M. iv, p. 5. Amongst the fathers who assisted at the Nicene council was Paphnutius, a venerable confessor and prelate. He was reported, says Socrates, to have wrought miracles, and indeed one would sooner believe it of him than of most of his contemporaries, ness. since he was eminent both in prudence and in goodThis historian hath transmitted to us a remarkable account of his antifanatical wisdom, by which he put a stop to a very absurd decree, which else might have passed in that general council. Paphnutius cujusdam urbis in superiori Thebaide fuit Episcopus; vir adeo pius Deoque carus, ut admiranda ab eo signa ederentur. Huic persecutionis tempore oculus fuerat effossus. Imperator vero hominem magnopere observabat, et frequenter in palatium accersebat, effossumque ejus oculum deosculabatur,—Visum erat Episcopis novam legem inducere, ut quicumque in sacrum ordinem allecti essent, id est, Episcopi, Presbyteri, et Diaconi, ab uxorum quas, cum laici essent, matrimonii jure sibi sociaverant, concubitu abstinerent. Cumque hac re in medium proposita, singulorum sententice rogarentur, surgens in medio Episcoporum concessu Paphnutius, vehementer vociferatus est, non esse imponendum clericis et sacerdotibus grave hoc jugum : honorabiles nuptias et torum immaculatum esse dicens; ne ex nimia severitate damnum potius inferrent Ecclesiæ. Neque enim omnes ferre posse tam districtæ continentiæ disciplinam; ac forsitan inde eventurum esse, ut cujusque uxoris castitas minime custodiretur. Castitatem autem vocabat congressum viri cum uxore legitima. Satis esse ut qui in Clerum fuissent adscripti, juxta veterem Ecclesiae traditionem jam non amplius uxores ducerent: non tamen quemquam sejungendum esse ab ea quam antehac, tunc cum esset laicus, legitime duxisset. Atque hæc dixit, ipse non modo conjugi, sed muliebris congressus penitus expers ; quippe qui a puero in monasterio educatus fuisset, et ob singularem castimoniam ab omnibus celebratus. Cæterum universus sacordotum cœtus Paphnuti sermonibus assensus est. Proinde omissa ejus rei disceptatione, singulo rum |