who had lost his sight by the puncture of an awl, and the discharge of the aqueous humour through the wound.  The sight, which had been gradually returning, was much improved during his visit to the tomb, that is, probably in the same degree in which the discharged humour was replaced by fresh secretions.  And it is observable, that these two are the only cases which, from their nature, should seem unlikely to be affected by convulsions.

In one material respect I allow that the Parisian miracles were different from those related by Tacitus, and from the Spanish miracle of the cardinal de Retz.  They had not, like them, all the power and all the prejudice of the country on their side to begin with.  They were alleged by one party against another, by the Jansenists against the Jesuits.  These were of course opposed and examined by their adversaries.  The consequence of which examination was that many falsehoods were detected, that with something really extraordinary much fraud appeared to be mixed.  And if some of the cases upon which designed misrepresentation could not be charged were not at the time satisfactorily accounted for, it was because the efficacy of strong spasmodic affections was not then sufficiently known.  Finally, the cause of Jansenism did not rise by the miracles, but sunk, although the miracles had the anterior persuasion of all the numerous adherents of that cause to set out with.

These, let us remember, are the strongest examples which the history of ages supplies.  In none of them was the miracle unequivocal; by none of them were established prejudices and persuasions overthrown; of none of them did the credit make its way, in opposition to authority and power; by none of them were many induced to commit themselves, and that in contradiction to prior opinions, to a life of mortification, danger, and sufferings; none were called upon to attest them at the expense of their fortunes and safety.*

_________

* It may be thought that the historian of the Parisian miracles, M. Montgeron, forms an exception to this last assertion.  He presented his book (with a suspicion, as it should seem, of the danger of what he was doing) to the king; and was shortly afterwards committed to prison; from which he never came out.  Had the miracles been unequivocal, and had M. Montgeron been originally convinced by them, I should have allowed this exception.  It would have stood, I think, alone in the argument of our adversaries.  But, beside what has been observed of the dubious nature of the miracles, the account which M. Montgeron has himself left of his conversion shows both the state of his mind and that his persuasion was not built upon external miracles.—­“Scarcely had he entered the churchyard when he was struck,” he tells us, “with awe and reverence, having never before heard prayers pronounced with so much ardour and transport as he observed amongst the supplicants at the tomb.  Upon this, throwing himself on his