Under these, circumstances, it was to be expected, though it is none the less interesting to note the fact, that the arguments of the latest school of “spiritualists” present a wonderful family likeness to those which adorn the subtle disquisitions of the advocate of ecclesiastical miracles of forty years ago.  It is unfortunate for the “spiritualists” that, over and over again, celebrated and trusted media, who really, in some respects, call to mind the Montanist[65] and gnostic seers of the second century, are either proved in courts of law to be fraudulent impostors; or, in sheer weariness, as it would seem, of the honest dupes who swear by them, spontaneously confess their long-continued iniquities, as the Fox women did the other day in New York.[66] But, whenever a catastrophe of this kind takes place, the believers are no wise dismayed by it.  They freely admit that not only the media, but the spirits whom they summon, are sadly apt to lose sight of the elementary principles of right and wrong; and they triumphantly ask:  How does the occurrence of occasional impostures disprove the genuine manifestations (that is to say, all those which have not yet been proved to be impostures or delusions)?  And, in this, they unconsciously plagiarise from the churchman, who just as freely admits that many ecclesiastical miracles may have been forged; and asks, with calm contempt, not only of legal proofs, but of common-sense probability, Why does it follow that none are to be supposed genuine?  I must say, however, that the spiritualists, so far as I know, do not venture to outrage right reason so boldly as the ecclesiastics.  They do not sneer at “evidence”; nor repudiate the requirement of legal proofs.  In fact, there can be no doubt that the spiritualists produce better evidence for their manifestations than can be shown either for the miraculous death of Arius, or for the Invention of the Cross.[67]

From the “levitation” of the axe at one end of a period of near three thousand years to the “levitation” of Sludge & Co. at the other end, there is a complete continuity of the miraculous, with every gradation, from the childish to the stupendous, from the gratification of a caprice to the illustration of sublime truth.  There is no drawing a line in the series that might be set out of plausibly attested cases of spiritual intervention.  If one is true, all may be true; if one is false, all may be false.

This is, to my mind, the inevitable result of that method of reasoning which is applied to the confutation of Protestantism, with so much success, by one of the acutest and subtlest disputants who have ever championed Ecclesiasticism—­and one cannot put his claims to acuteness and subtlety higher.

     ... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism.  If ever
     there were a safe truth it is this ...  “To be deep in history
     is to cease to be a Protestant.” [68]