.

Another objection which may be more reasonably urged against the
narrative is this: that in the fourth century there were many miraculous
tales which even Fathers of the Church believed, but which no one of any
way of thinking believes now. It will be argued, that because some
miracles are alleged which did not really take place, that therefore
none which are alleged took place either. But I am disposed to reason
just the contrary way. Pretences to revelation make it probable that
there is a true Revelation; pretences to miracles make it probable that
there are real ones; falsehood is the mockery of truth; false Christs
argue a true Christ; a shadow implies a substance. If it be replied that
the Scripture miracles are these true miracles, and that it is they, and
none other but they, none after them, which suggested the counterfeit; I
ask in turn, if so, what becomes of the original objection, that _no_
miracles are true, because some are false? If this be so, the Scripture
miracles are to be believed as little as those after them; and this is
the very plea which infidels have urged. No; it is not reasonable to
limit the scope of an argument according to the exigency of our
particular conclusions; we have no leave to apply the argument _for_
miracles only to the first century, and that _against_ miracles only to
the fourth. If forgery in some miracles proves forgery in all, this
tells against the first as well as against the fourth century; if
forgery in some argues truth in others, this avails for the fourth as
well as for the first.

And I will add, that even credulousness on other occasions does not
necessarily disqualify a person's evidence for a particular alleged
miracle; for the sight of one true miracle could not but dispose a man
to believe others readily, nay, too readily, that is, would make him
what is called credulous.

Now let these remarks be kept in mind while I go on to describe the
alleged occurrence which has led to them. I know of no direct objection
to it in particular, viewed in itself; the main objections are such
antecedent considerations as I have been noticing. on
original] But if Elisha's bones restored a dead man to life, I know of
no antecedent reason why the relics of Gervasius and Protasius should
not, as in the instance to be considered, have given sight to the blind.

2.

The circumstances were these:--St. Ambrose, at the juncture of affairs
which I have described in the foreg