adds an important circumstance in the case of the blind man, that he was
"notus tabe occulorum," notorious for the disease in his eyes. He also
winds up the narrative with the following statement: "They who were
present, relate both these cures, even at this time, when there is
nothing to be gained by lying." Both the historians lived within a few
years of the occurrence, but their works were not published until
advanced periods of their lives. The closing remark of Tacitus seems to
indicate that, at least, he did not entirely discredit the account; and
as for Suetonius, his pages are as full of prodigies of all descriptions,
related apparently in all good faith, as a monkish chronicle of the
Middle Ages.

The story has the more interest, as it is one of the examples of
successful imposture, selected by Hume in his Essay on Miracles; with the
reply to which by Paley, in his Evidences of Christianity, most readers
are familiar. The commentators on Suetonius agree with Paley in
considering the whole affair as a juggle between the priests, the
patients, and, probably, the emperor. But what will, perhaps, strike the
reader as most remarkable, is the singular coincidence of the story with
the accounts given of several of the miracles of Christ; whence it has
been supposed, that the scene was planned in imitation of them. It did
not fall within the scope of Dr. Paley's argument to advert to this; and
our own brief illustration must be strictly confined within the limits of
historical disquisition. Adhering to this principle, we may point out
that if the idea of plagiarism be accepted, it receives some confirmation
from the incident related by our author in a preceding paragraph,
forming, it may be considered, another scene of the same drama, where we
find Basilides appearing to Vespasian in the temple of Serapis, under
circumstances which cannot fail to remind us of Christ's suddenly
standing in the midst of his disciples, "when the doors were shut." This