chaine of persons, the physical origin of the phenomena, the entire
absence of spirits,--was so unlucky, when he dealt with 'spirits,'
as to drop into the very line of argument which he had been
denouncing. 'Spirits' are 'superstitious,'--well, his adversaries
had found superstition in his own experiments and beliefs. To
believe that spirits are engaged, is 'to reduce our relations with
the invisible world to the grossest definition'. But why not, as we
know nothing about our relations with the invisible world? The
theology of the spirits is 'contrary to Scripture'; very well, your
tales of tables moved without contact are contrary to science. 'No
spiritualistic story has ever been told which is not to be classed
among the phenomena of animal magnetism. . . . ' This, of course,
is a mere example of a statement made without examination, a sin
alleged by M. de Gasparin against his opponents. Vast numbers of
such stories, not explicable by the now rejected theory of 'animal
magnetism,' have certainly been _told_.

In another volume M. de Gasparin demolished the tales, but he was
only at the beginning of his subject. The historical and
anthropological evidence for the movement of objects without
contact, not under his conditions, is very vast in bulk. The modern
experiments are sometimes more scientific than his own, and the
evidence for the most startling events of all kinds is quite as good
as that on which he relies for his prodigies, themselves
sufficiently startling. His hypothesis, at all events, of will
directing a force or fluid, by no means explains phenomena quite as
well provided with evidence as his own. So M. de Gasparin disposes
of the rival miracles as the result of chance, imposture, or
hallucination, the very weapons of his scientific adversaries. His
own prodigies he has seen, and is satisfied. His opponents say:
'You cannot register your force sur l'inclinaison d'une aiguille'.
He could not, but Home could do so to the satisfaction of a
scientific expert, and probably M. de Gasparin would have believed
it, if he had seen it. M. de Gasparin is horrified at the idea of
'trespassing on the territory of acts beyond our power'. But, if it
were possible to do the miracles of Home, it would be possible
because it is _not_ beyond our power. 'The spiritualistic opinion
is opposed to the doctrine of the resurrection: it merely announces
the immortality of the soul.' But that has nothing to do wit