interventions of
Providence; and, as it is often very difficult to distinguish between a
providence and a miracle, and there will be more providences than
miracles, hence it will happen that many occurrences will be called
miraculous, which, strictly speaking, are not such, that is, not more
than providential mercies, or what are sometimes called "_grazie_" or
"favours."

Persons, who believe all this, in accordance with Catholic teaching, as
I did and do, they, on the report of a miracle, will of necessity, the
necessity of good logic, be led to say, first, "It _may_ be," and
secondly, "But I must have _good evidence_ in order to believe it."

1. It _may_ be, because miracles take place in all ages; it must be
clearly _proved_, because perhaps after all it may be only a
providential mercy, or an exaggeration, or a mistake, or an imposture.
Well, this is precisely what I had said, which the writer, who has given
occasion to this Volume, considered so irrational. I had said, as he
quotes me, "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 I am logical in saying, "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. Accordingly, in the
passage which he 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?

2. But, though a miracle be conceivable, 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 am led to say: It _may_
be, but what is your _proof_?

In my Essay on Miracles of the year 1826, I proposed three questions
about a professed miraculous occurrence: 1. is it antecedently
_pr