[1] “Mem.  Sanct.,” i. sec. 29.

    [2] Viz., “Quod inter ipsos sine molestia fidei degimus.”

    [3] “Ind.  Lum.,” sec. 3.

    [4] “Fatigasse praesides et principes multis
    contumeliis.”—­Ibid.

As to the other part of the accusation, that voluntary martyrs were no martyrs, Eulogius could only declaim against the Scriptures quoted by his opponents,[1] and refer to the morally blind, who make evil their good, and take darkness to be their light;[2] while he brought forward a saying of certain wise men that “those martyrs will hold the first rank in the heavenly companies who have gone to their death unsummoned."[3]

He also sought to defend the practice of reviling Mohammed by the plea that exorcism was allowed against the devil, which is sufficiently ridiculous; but Alvar goes further, and calmly assures us that these insults and revilings of the prophet were merely a form of preaching[4] to the poor benighted Moslems, naively remarking that the Scriptures affirm that the Gospel of Christ must be preached to all nations.  Whereas, then, the Moslems had not been preached to, these martyred saints had taken upon themselves the sacred duty of rendering them “debtors to the faith.”

The second count[5] against the martyrs was that they had worked no miracles—­a serious deficiency in an age when miracles were almost the test of sanctity.  Eulogius[6] could only meet the charge by admitting the fact, but adding that miracles were frequent in the early ages, in order to establish Christianity on a firm basis; and that the constancy of the martyrs was in itself a miracle (which was true, but not to the point).  Had he been content with this, he had done wisely; but he goes on:  “Moreover, miracles are no sign of truth, as even the unbelievers can work them."[7] Now, by trying to show why these martyrs did not perform any miracles, he admits by implication that they were deficient in this particular;[8] and yet in other parts of his work he mentions miracles performed by these very martyrs, as, for instance, by Isaac, and by Flora, and Maria.[9] So that the worthy priest is placed in this dilemma:  If miracles are really no sign of truth, why attribute them to the martyrs, when, as is allowed elsewhere, they were unable to work them? if, on the other hand, they did perform these miracles, why not adduce them in evidence against the detractors?

    [1] Eul., “Mem.  Sanct.,” i. sec. 19.

    [2] Isaiah v. 20.

    [3] Eul., “Mem.  Sanct.,” i. sec. 24.  Taken from some “Acts of
    the Saints,” probably those of SS.  Emetherius and Caledonius—­a
    book obviously of no authority.

[4] “Ind.  Lum.,” sec. 10, “In hac Israelitica gente nullus hactenus exstitit praedicator, per quod debitores fidei tenerentur.  Isti enim (i.e., the martyrs) apostolatus vicem in eosdem et evangelicam praedicationem impleverunt, eosque fidei debitores reddiderunt.”

    [5] Eul., “Mem.  Sanct.,” i. 13.