d, which this
writer considers so irrational. I have said, as he quotes me, p. 24,
"In this day, and under our present circumstances, we can only reply,
that there is no reason why they should not be." Surely this is good
logic, _provided_ that miracles _do_ occur in all ages; and so again
is it logical to say, "There is nothing, _prima facie_, in the
miraculous accounts in question, to repel a _properly taught_ or
religiously disposed mind." What is the matter with this statement?
My assailant does not pretend to say _what_ the matter is, and he
cannot; but he expresses a rude, unmeaning astonishment. Next, I
stated _what_ evidence there is for the miracles of which I was
speaking; what is the harm of that? He observes, "What evidence Dr.
Newman requires, he makes evident at once. He at least will fear for
himself, and swallow the whole as it comes."--p. 24. What random
abuse is this, or, to use _his own words_ of me just before, what
"stuff and nonsense!" What is it I am "swallowing"? "the whole" what?
the evidence? or the miracles? I have swallowed neither, nor implied
any such thing. Blot _twenty-six_.

But to return: I have just said that a Catholic's state of mind, of
logical necessity, will be, "It _may_ be a miracle, but it has to be
_proved_." _What_ has to be proved? 1. That the event occurred as
stated, and is not a false report or an exaggeration. 2. That it is
clearly miraculous, and not a mere providence or answer to prayer
within the order of nature. What is the fault of saying this? The
inquiry is parallel to that which is made about some extraordinary
fact in secular history. Supposing I hear that King Charles II. died
a Catholic, I should say, 1. It _may_ be. 2. What is your _proof_?
Accordingly, in the passage which this writer quotes, I observe,
"Miracles are the kind of facts proper to ecclesiastical history,
just as instances of sagacity or daring, personal prowess, or crime,
are the facts proper to secular history." What is the harm of this?
But this writer says, "Verily his [Dr. Newman's] idea of secular
history is almost as degraded as his idea of ecclesiastical," p. 24,
and he ends with this muddle of an _Ipse dixit_! Blot _twenty-seven_.

In like manner, about the Holy Coat at Treves, he says of me, "Dr.
Newman ... seems _hardly sure_ of the authenticity of the Holy Coat."
Why _need_ I be, more than I am sure that Richard III. murdered the
little princes? If I have not _means_ of making