237 
such occurrence happened in Switzerland. It is one of the 
enfants trouves of historical literature, which can lay no claim 
to legitimate paternity. 
Why do we reject the story of the blind Belisarius begging 
his bread in the streets of Constantinople ? Because Procopius, 
who was a contemporary historian, and accompanied Belisarius 
in his Eastern wars, in Africa, and in Italy, says nothing 
in his account of the life and misfortunes of Justinian's 
famous general, of his blindness or beggary j because no other 
contemporary writer mentions them, and because the first hint 
of them occurs in some Greek verses written by John Tzetzes, a 
grammarian, about 600 years after the death of Belisarius. 
Why do we not believe the fable of Pope J oan, whose accouche- 
ment is said to have taken place in the midst of a procession 
at Rome ? Because no contemporary author makes mention of 
such an astounding occurrence, and we find the first allusion to 
it in the Chronicon of Marianus Scotus, who lived two hundred 
years afterwards. Even that passage is supposed to be an 
interpolation, and the first author who really tells the story is 
Stephen de Bourbon in the thirteenth century. A not im- 
probable explanation of it is that one of the Popes, who led 
an immoral life, had a mistress named Joan, who had such 
influence over him that she was called Papesse , and from this 
the story had its origin. 
Why do intelligent and well-educated men accept as true 
the miracles of the New Testament, and reject as untrue the 
legends of the Saints? This is not the place, nor would it be 
possible within the limits to which I must confine myself, to go 
into the proofs of the miracles related in the Gospels and the 
Acts. But briefly and summarily it may be said that we believe 
them, — 1. Because they are recorded by eye-witnesses, who must 
either have been the dupes of an imposture or the fabricators 
of a falsehood. 2. They were done openly in the face of 
enemies who, so far as we know, never denied them. 3. They 
were done with an adequate motive and cause. 4. They serve 
to explain the origin of a religion which has lasted for eighteen 
centuries and won its way in spite of the fiercest opposition. 
Now, applying these tests to the legends of the Saints, we find 
that they fail in almost every particular ! Hardly any of them 
rest on the testimony of eye-witnesses. They are almost 
always isolated acts done in a corner, and not coram populo. 
And the most famous of them, which is an exception to the 
rule, I mean the cutting out of the roots of the tongues of a 
number of Christians at Tipasa, who afterwards spoke articu- 
lately and distinctly, has been shown by Mr. Twistleton in his 
able work, The Tongue not Essential to Speech, to be no miracle 
