[27] “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.“
[28] The fact that so many of the Israelites, assisted and of course countenanced by Aaron, the brother of Moses, afterward made high-priest, were thus induced to worship an idol, shows that they were pious but ignorant. It has elsewhere been urged that any one that worships, means to worship right as much as a person who pays a debt means to pay the right creditor. It argues against the sufficiency of the facts and reasoning by which Moses supported his pretensions to inspiration, that he had to resort to his sword in order to prevent his people from worshipping idols. That they were sincere, must be evident from their relinquishing their golden trinkets for the purpose of furnishing materials for the calf.
[29] It must be admitted that Moses does not seem to have cared whether his soul perished or not, provided he could get enough territory on this side of the grave, by pleading God’s sanction, and the skilful use of the sword. He seems to have valued the favour of Jehovah only for worldly objects. Had it been otherwise, in lieu of so much stress being laid upon the “promised land,” it had been more wisely rested on the hope of heaven. Had Moses obtained a knowledge of the spirit world, the Sadducees had not been materialists, nor the Pharisees worldly-minded, corrupt hypocrites, as alleged by Christ.
[30] “Two or three years since Professor Bronn described twenty-six thousand six hundred and seventy-eight species; and, upon an average, one thousand species are discovered every year. M. Alcide D’Orbigny, in 1850, stated the number of mollusks and radiated animals alone at seventeen thousand nine hundred and forty-seven species.”
[31] [The use of the word “demons” in the text would seem to make it very uncertain that the Catholic school entertains the doctrine of an individual, personal devil. When used in the plural, as it often is, it cannot mean the devil, yet both singular and plural, the word “demon” seems to convey the same idea. Scripture commentators make the word demon to signify a spirit, whether good or bad. But our author does not seem to have yet become very thoroughly grounded in the doctrine of the communion of angels with man; which will certainly be found to be the only tangible doctrine.—Translator.]
[32] [Having reached this stage of our author’s remarks, his translator begs leave to submit them to a transient review. It is evident that his investigations in the physical demonstrations, relating to spiritual philosophy, fall very short of the intelligence of the present time. He seems to be a total stranger to that flood of truth and love that has for years been pouring its blessings on the hearts and minds of tens of thousands of delighted and grateful recipients in the Western hemisphere, and by the very means that appear to have been fully in his power of reaching that heavenly boon, but which were all exhausted to convince the world that the devil has nothing to do with it.
This is certainly a point gained on Catholic ground, and had our friend supplied some argument equally conclusive for theologians of the opposing school, he would probably save them the sin of making out of the devil, by imputation, a veritable saint.
The question will naturally arise with his readers, If the power and intelligence do not emanate from the devil, from whom or what do they emanate? But on this subject, from some reason that can only be guessed at, our author, the abbot, is so far silent. The confirmed theory of spirit intercourse, when the vehicle is mechanical or automatic, makes the character and intelligence of the communication depend on the communicating spirit, subject to apparent irregularities. But our author, in his hurry perhaps to prove his favourite postulate of excluding the devil, makes them depend on the one, as he says, who “consults the table.” If he speaks Greek, then the table talks Greek, and ditto for all other languages, &c. But certainly the marquis would corner him here. He says, also, that the motive power is intercepted by a non-conductor, as silk round the hands. Although this may be true to some extent with feeble mediums, still the fact that tables often move without contact with any one, must nullify the abbot’s theory, whatever it may be.]
[33] [This is probably correct, when the medium writes impressionally; but exactly the reverse is true when the writing is automatic, or mechanically controlled by the spirit.—Translator.]
[34] Our author seems to confound his dramatis personæ: he first says it is the language of the communicant, and afterward the language of the medium which the spirit understands. But the simple theory is, according to the experience of the Western hemisphere, that what is communicated depends on the intelligence of the communicating agent, which is the spirit. That spirits, it is true, possess the clairvoyant faculty, and can read our thoughts, but those thoughts must be clothed in a language they understand.—Translator.