Ambrose of Milan finds the bodies of the martyrs Gervasius and Protasius

In the spring of 386, the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, was preparing to consecrate the new basilica he had built and which today bears his name. This was an important event, as it marked the victory of the city's Catholics over the claims of the Arians, who denied the divinity of Christ. But to perform the ceremony, relics of saints had to be placed under the high altar of the new sanctuary. And Milan had no relics, because it had not given enough martyrs to the Church. Ambrose asked Rome for some, but it would take time to receive them... The ceremony was therefore likely to be postponed, to the dismay of Milan's Catholics. It was thanks to a divine revelation that the bishop obtained his relics.

Les raisons d'y croire :

• We have very good documentation on the circumstances surrounding the discovery - or "invention" - of the relics of the martyred saints Gervais and Protais.

• Firstly, two letters, numbered 75 and 77 in editions of Ambrose's correspondence, which he wrote at the very moment of the event, in June 386, to his elder sister, Saint Marcellina, abbess of the first religious community of women in Rome.

• Then there is the detailed account given by St Augustine, then in Milan and in the episcopal entourage, in Book IX, Chapter VII of his Confessions, and in The City of God.

• The affair is also recounted by Paulinus, Ambrose's secretary and first biographer, in his Vita Ambrosii.

• Auxentius II, the Arian bishop of Milan and a bitter enemy of Ambrose, violently accused Ambrose of having set up a swindle to discover the relics, but paradoxically acknowledged the reality of the event, the harm done to the heretical sect and its impact on public opinion.

• Ambrose's probity had been renowned since his youth. That's why, at the very start of his career in the upper echelons of the civil service, he was noticed and placed in important positions to combat the scandalous corruption of the imperial administration. Regarded as a "clean hands man", Ambroise is incapable of claiming to have found the tombs of unknown martyrs simply for the pleasure of crushing political and religious opponents.

• Such a lie would be a sacrilege of which the holy bishop would never be guilty, at the risk of damning himself.

• From the earliest days of Christianity, being buried ad sanctos ("near the saints") - who were originally only martyrs - was an honour, a privilege and a guarantee that, on the Day of Judgement, you would rise with them and be under their protection. When Ambrose died in 397, he was buried, at his own request, between the two martyrs. If he had lied, or had the slightest doubt about their status as witnesses to Christ, he would not have done so.

• The Church is very cautious and demanding when it comes to relics, for fear of venerating who knows who. Any discovery of supposed martyrs is surrounded by precautions, including a test of their sanctity by immediately demanding miracles. As soon as the tomb was opened and the bodies exhumed, many more miracles were performed.

• Here again, Auxentius II and the Arians claimed that Ambrose had faked miracles by paying false invalids who claimed to have been cured of imaginary ailments. Apart from the fact that this imposture was out of character, at least one of these miracles, recounted at length by St Augustine and other sources, is indisputable, since all the people of Milan can attest that its beneficiary, a former butcher named Severus, who had become blind and unable to work since then, was indeed a cripple, reduced to poverty and begging because of his blindness. In fact, the grateful miracle-worker spent the rest of his life looking after the graves of the saints who had cured him.

• It would be ridiculous for Ambrose, an intelligent and brilliant man, known for his wisdom, to fabricate false martyrs when he knew that Rome, where he had grown up and where, both in the aristocracy and with the Pope, he maintained powerful relationships, would give him relics. All he had to do was postpone the dedication of the basilica without complicating his life.

• The sobriety of the accounts left by the witnesses and by Ambrose argues in favour of the reality of the facts, as they stick to what has been proven, without adding anything or bothering with unattested details. For example, they do not mention the names of the deceased, who are ignored. It was in the Middle Ages, in France, where their cult grew in scope and popularity, that the Milanese martyrs were baptised Protais and Gervais and that an edifying biography was invented for them. If Ambrose had lied, it would have been easy for him to do the same and create false lives for the two martyrs.

• Nor does the account of the discovery of the tomb, its opening and the recognition of the relics dwell on unnecessary details. For example, it is not clear whether the two bodies were found intact, which would be the first mention of the incorruptibility of the bodies of certain saints. Witnesses confine themselves to saying that the two men were much taller than average and bearded. This last detail corresponds to the customs of the Late Empire, when beards were fashionable. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the flasks and cloths used to collect the blood of the martyrs were found in the burial site, bearing witness to the faith.

• The fact that the extraordinary is not emphasised is a guarantee of the authenticity of the story. Thus, Ambrose and Augustine - even though the latter uses the word apparition once to describe the event - do not surround the inspiration that led the bishop to undertake the excavations with a marvellous scene. The most likely hypothesis is that Ambrose had a revelation while praying or dreaming, and that he believed in the divine origin of the phenomenon.