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 Cæsaræa, 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." -Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 223.

In the presence of such proofs as these, it is painful indeed to read a work, published at Rome this very year (1833) by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Charlestown, in the United States, containing an article expressly on the three great relics exhibited in the presence of the Pope himself every Passion Week.

"On this evening (that of Good Friday,) the Pope and Cardinals, laying aside cope and cappa, come in procession from the Sistine Chapel to St. Peter's, and several canons, exhibit from the balcony over the image of St. Veronica three remarkable

relics, which are, in like manner, exposed several times during these days.

"They are believed to be a portion of the cross on which the Saviour died, the blade of the lance with which his side was opened, and the figure of his face, impressed upon a cloth applied to it for the purpose of pious attention, by one of the daughters of Sion, when he laboured on his painful way to Calvary."-Explanation of the Ceremonies of the Holy Week, by Dr. England, p. 163. Rome, 1833.

It is impossible to give an idea of the evasive and insidious manner in which this portion of the abovementioned work is written. It is, however, evident, that the author was under a sense of shame the whole time he was writing upon this slippery subject. He tells us that to believe the reality of these relics is not an article of the Roman Catholic faith. For the sake of those who carry on these exhibitions, one might wish that such belief had been declared a point of faith. In that case, the actors and supporters of these farces might have some excuse; for they would not be at liberty to examine the subject. But it is melancholy to see a Christian bishop huddling up the whole historical evidence of the fraud in the present case, in order that the great flaw may be hidden. He gives a list of writers who speak of the supposed discovery of the cross; but conceals the silence of Eusebius.

VOL. II.

R

Is he ignorant of this fact? Impossible! And yet he ventures to say that, respecting the authenticity of the cross and the lance, "scarcely the shadow of a doubt can exist." By assuring his readers that the portion of the cross now exhibited is identical with that which was kept at Rome many centuries ago, he wishes them to believe that it must also be identical with the true cross. Does the bishop suppose that falsehoods ripen into truth by age?

APPENDIX.

An Account of the Images of the Cross found in the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria: translated from the Greek of Socrates Scholasticus.

THE fact that the image of a cross was revered as a sacred symbol many centuries before Christianity, has been stated in the first volume of these Travels. The proofs of that fact are numerous. But, in tracing the growth of the superstition which has made the material image of the cross on which Christ died, and much more the pretended true cross, an object of religious veneration, the original records of ecclesiastical history have a peculiar and important interest. The passage of which we are about to give a translation is very curious. It should be read in connection with Gibbon's eloquent description of the destruction of the temple of Serapis, Decl. and Fall. vol. v. c. xxviii. p. 110.

"In the sanctuary (Tw vaw) of the Serapeion which was pulled down and laid open, that kind of

As

writing called hieroglyphics was found cut out in the stones. The characters had the form of crosses. Christians and Pagans saw them, each applied them to their own worship. The Christians, declaring that it was the sign of Christ's redeeming sufferings, made the emblem peculiar to themselves. The Pagans said that there must be something common to Christ and to Serapis, since the cross-like character was a symbol meaning one thing to the Christians and another to the Pagans. While this dispute was going on, some Pagans who had joined the Christians, and were acquainted with hieroglyphics, interpreted the cross-like character, saying that it signified the coming life.* Many Christians eagerly seizing upon this, as favourable to their religion, began to triumph. As it appeared by other sacred symbols, that the temple of Serapis was to have an end as soon as the cross-like sign should come to light (for this was the coming life) many more people

*

· ζωην ἐπερχομενην. A deliberate equivocation was employed by the clergy who assisted Constantine in the fraud of introducing the figure of the cross as one miraculously recommended for his military standard. The oriental symbol expressed the perpetual succession of animal life. According to Eusebius (Vit. Const. 1. 1. c. 33.) the Christian expounders of mysteries (μvora) said to the emperor that the cross was the symbol of immortality, (¿bavaσias.) Thus life to come, and immortality were represented as the same, in regard to the symbol, and the popular acquaintance with the first meaning, was made to assist in the substitution of the second.