Christian theory?

It is this. Our Blessed Lord appears to have worked miracles of such a
nature that their significance was not, historically speaking,
absolutely evident to those who, for other reasons, did not "believe in
Him." It is known how some asked for a "sign from heaven" and were
refused it; how He Himself said that even if one rose from the dead,
they would not believe; yet, further, how He begged them to believe Him
even for His work's sake, if for nothing else. We know, finally, how,
when confronted with one particular miracle, His enemies cried out that
it must have been done by diabolical agency.

Very good, then. It would seem that the miracles of Our Lord were of a
nature that strongly disposed to belief those that witnessed them, and
helped vastly in the confirmation of the faith of those who already
believed; but that miracles, as such, cannot absolutely compel the
belief of those who for moral reasons refuse it. If they could, faith
would cease to be faith.

Now, this seems precisely the state of affairs at Lourdes. Even
unbelieving scientists are bound to admit that science at present cannot
account for the facts, which is surely the modern equivalent for the
Beelzebub theory. We have seen, too, how severely scientific persons
such as Dr. Boissarie and Dr. Cox--if they will permit me to quote their
names--knowing as well as anyone what medicine and surgery and hypnotism
and suggestion can and cannot do, corroborate this evidence, and see in
the facts a simple illustration of the truth of that Catholic Faith
which they both hold and practise.

Is not the parallel a fair one? What more, then, do the adversaries