A.B.C.D.
 1794. Sept. 19.80°27´ From hard to perfectly liquid.
20.80 21   ”  ”  ” liquid.
21.80 19   ”  ”  ”  ”
22.78 24   ”  ”  ”  ”
23.77 25   ”  ”  ”  ”
24.78 5   ”  ”  ”  ”
25.80 10   ”  ”  ”  ”
26.77 5   ”  ”  ”  ”
 1795. May. 2.76 12   ”  ”  ” semi-liquid.
3.76 2   ”  ”  ” perfectly liquid.
4.77 41   ”  ”  ” liquid.*
5.80 22   ”  ”  ”  ” *
6.75 12   ”  ”  ”  ” *
7.76 29   ”  ”  ”  ” *
8.77 29   ”  ”  ”  ” *
9.80 33   ”  ”  ”  ” *
10.67 15   ”  ”  ”  ” *
 1795. Sept. 19.74 25   ”  ”  ”  ” with floating lump.
20.78 26   ”  ”  ” perfectly liquid.
21.81 27   ”  ”  ”   ”   ”
22.78 25   ”  ”  ”   ”   ”
23.80 24   ”  ”  ”   ”   ”
24.81 32   ”  ”  ”   ”   ”
25.78 18   ”  ”  ”   ”   ”
26.74 3   ”  ”  ”   ”   ”

On the six days in May, marked *, the reliquary was placed on its stand on the altar about mid-day, for the afternoon intermissions. A silk veil was thrown over it; and it was left undisturbed until after 3 P.M. At that hour, the blood was found hard each day; and subsequently it liquefied again, during the afternoon service.

The foregoing very important table speaks for itself. Once the temperature stood at 67°, and the liquefaction took place in 15 minutes, although the day before, with the thermometer standing at 80°, it had been delayed more than twice that time. Twice the thermometer marked 74°; the liquefaction was delayed in one instance only 3 minutes; in the other, full 25 minutes. Once the temperature was 75°. In that case 12 minutes of delay were counted. Thrice it was 76°; and the times were 2 minutes, 12 minutes, and 29 minutes. Four times it was 77°; the liquefaction occurred after a lapse of 5, 25, 29, and 41 minutes, respectively. Five times the thermometer stood at 78°; and the times of delay in the several cases were 5, 18, 24, 25, and 26 minutes. Seven times it stood at 80°; and the delays were respectively 10, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 33 minutes. The highest point observed at the time of the liquefaction was 81°. It was reached twice. Here again the times differed. On one occasion the liquefaction was delayed 27 minutes; on the other, 32 minutes.

In view of these varied results from so many careful tests, the commission of professors could only report, as

they did, and as Dr. Fergola maintains in his essay, that the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius evidently does not depend on the degree of heat to which it is subjected during the expositions.

VI. The same conclusion may also be reached by a single consideration. When a solid substance is liquefied or melted by heat, it will continue liquid if the heat is kept at the same temperature or rises. It will resume its solid condition only when the temperature falls below that degree which is the melting point of the substance.

Now, in those summer days which we have spoken of—such as the six days of May, 1795, marked in the table of Fergola—days on which the Neapolitans seek the repose of a siesta—the hottest hours are from 12 M. to 3 P.M. During these hours, the temperature is naturally higher than it was at 9.30 or 10 A.M., or is afterward at 4 P.M., or later. Yet the blood, which liquefied at 9.30 or 10 A.M., almost invariably becomes solid again during these hottest hours, if the reliquary be placed on the altar and a silk veil thrown over it, and it liquefies again during the afternoon exposition, although the heat of the day is then sensibly diminishing.

The more accurately and carefully the facts of the liquefaction are studied, the more clearly do we see that it does not depend on temperature, general or local. It is not produced by the action of heat.

This exclusion of the agency of heat has “considerably exercised” some of the opponents of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius. Confident that all miracles are, now at least, inadmissible, and that this and every other alleged miracle is susceptible of a natural explanation, if we only knew it, they eagerly

catch at any, even the most far-fetched and improbable theories, and put them forward with equal inconsiderateness and confidence.