a solemn oath. But on the other hand the two heathen witnesses (see below^ extend the vision likewise to the soldiers. - lovTtf \tQ (TTjMeiV] v'\.Ka.\ Hac, or Hoc [sc. signo] vince, or vinoes. Eusebius leaves the impression that the inscription was in Greek. But Nicephorus and Zonaras say that it was in Latin. " Hist. Eccl. ix. 9. Comp. the similar account of Sozomenus, H. E. i. 3. d § 2. CONSTAimNE THE GREAT. 23 reciirriiig to old prodigies, such as tlie appearance of Castor and Polkix,' This famous tradition may be explained either as a real miracle implying a personal appearance of Christ,^ or as a pious li-aud/ or as a natural phenomenon in the clouds and an optical illusion/ or finally as a prophetic dream. ' Xazar. Paneg. in Const, c. 14: "In ore denique est omnium Galliarum [this would seem to indicate a pretty general rumor of some supernatural assistance], exercitu3 visos, qui se divinitus missos prae se ferebant," etc. Comp. Baronius, Annal. ad ann. 312, n. 11. This historian adduces also (n. 14) another and still older pagan testimony from an anonymous panegyrical orator, who, in 313, speaks of a certain undefined omen which filled the soldiers of Constantine with misgivings and fears, while it emboldened him to the combat. Baronius and J. H. Newman (in his "Essay on Miracles") plausibly suppose this omen to have been the cross. - This is the view of the older historians, Protestant as well as Catholic. Among more modern writers on the subject it has hardly any advocates of note, except Bollinger (R. C), J. H. Newman (in his "Essay on Miracles," published in 1842, before his transition to Romanism, and prefixed to the first volvune of his trans- lation of Fleury), and Guericke (Lutheran). Comp. also DeBroglie, 5. 219 and 442. So more or less distinctly Hoornebeck (of Leyden), Thomasius, Arnold, Lard- ner. Gibbon, and Waddington. The la.st writer (Eist. of the Church, vol. i. 171) disposes of it too summarily by the remark that " this flattering fable may very safely be consigned to contempt and oblivion." Burckhardt, the most recent biographer of Constantine, is of the same opinion. He considers the story as a joint fabrication of Eusebius and the emperor, and of no historical value whatever (Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. 1853, pp. 394 and 395). Lardner saddles the lie exclu- sively upon the emperor (although he admits him otherwise to have been a sincere Christian), and tries to prove that Eusebius himself hardly believed it. * This is substantially the theory of J. A. Fabricius (in a special dissertation), Schroeckh (vol. v. 83), Manso, Heinichen (in the first Excursus to his ed. of Euseb.), Gieseler, Xeander, Milman, Robertson, and Stanley. Gieseler (vol. i. § 56, note 29) mentions similar cross-like clouds which appeared in Germany, Dec. 1517 and 1552, and were mistaken by contemporary Lutherans for supernatural signs. Stanley (Lectures on the Eastern Church, p. 288) refers to the natural phenomenon known by