Evocation of an incarnate deaf-mute.

Mr. Rul, member of the Paris Society, transmits to us the following fact. He said:

“In 1862 I met a young deaf-mute of twelve or thirteen years. Desirous of making an observation, I asked my protecting guides whether it would be possible for me to evoke him. As the answer was affirmative, I had the boy come to my room and settled him in an armchair, with a plate of grapes, which he set about sucking with ardor. For my part, I sat down at a table. I prayed and made the evocation, as usual. After a few moments my hand trembled and I wrote: Here I am.

“I looked at the child: he was motionless, his eyes closed, calm, asleep, with the plate on his knees; he had ceased to eat. I addressed to him the following questions:

Q. – Where are you now?

Answer. – In your room, in your armchair.

Q. – Will you tell me why you are deaf-mute from birth?

Answer. – It is an expiation of my past crimes.

Q. – What crimes did you commit?

Answer. – I was a parricide.

Q. – Can you tell me whether your mother, whom you love so tenderly, may not have been, like your father or your mother, in the existence of which you speak, the object of the crime that you committed?

“In vain I awaited the answer; my hand remained motionless. I raised my eyes again toward the child; he had just awakened and was eating the grapes with appetite. Having then asked the guides to explain to me what had just taken place, I was answered:

“He gave the information you desired and God did not permit him to give you others.”

“I do not know how the partisans of the exclusive communication of demons would explain the fact to us. For myself, I concluded that, since God sometimes permits us to evoke an incarnate Spirit, He permits us likewise with regard to the disincarnate, when we do so in the spirit of charity.”

Observation. – For our part, we shall make another observation in this regard. Here, the proof of identity results from the sleep provoked by the evocation, and from the cessation of the writing at the moment of awakening. As for the silence kept concerning the last question, it proves the usefulness of the veil cast over the past. Indeed, let us suppose that the present mother of this child was his victim in another existence, and that he wished to repair his wrongs by the affection he shows her; would the mother not be painfully affected to learn that her son was her murderer? Would her tenderness for him not be altered? He was permitted to reveal the cause of his infirmity as a subject of instruction, in order to give us one more proof that the afflictions here below have a prior cause, when such a cause is not in the present life, and that thus everything is in conformity with justice; but the rest was useless and could have reached the mother’s ears. This is why the Spirits awakened him, at the moment when, perhaps, he was about to answer. Later we shall explain the difference that exists between the position of this child and that of Valentine, in the preceding account. Moreover, the fact proves a capital point: it is not only after death that the Spirit recovers the remembrance of its past. It may be said that it never loses it, even in incarnation, for, during the sleep of the body, when it enjoys a certain liberty, the Spirit is conscious of its prior acts; it knows why it suffers, and that it suffers justly; the remembrance is effaced only during the outer life of relation. But, lacking a precise remembrance, which could be painful to it and harm its social relations, it draws new strength in the moments of emancipation of the soul, if it has known how to profit from them.

Must one conclude from the fact that all deaf-mutes have been parricides? It would be an absurd consequence, because the justice of God is not circumscribed within absolute limits, like human justice. Other examples prove that this infirmity results, at times, from the bad use that the individual has made of the faculty of speech. What! they will exclaim, can the same expiation be just for two faults so different in their gravity? But do those who reason thus not know that the same fault offers infinite degrees of culpability, and that God measures responsibility by the circumstances? Besides, who knows whether this child, supposing his crime to be without excuse, did not suffer harsh punishment in the world of the Spirits, and whether his repentance and desire to repair did not reduce the earthly expiation to a simple infirmity? Admitting, by way of hypothesis, since we are ignorant of it, that his present mother was his victim, were he not to maintain toward her the resolution taken to repair his fault by tenderness, a more terrible punishment would certainly await him, whether in the world of the Spirits or in a new existence. The justice of God never fails and, being sometimes late, loses nothing by waiting; but God, in His goodness, never condemns in an irremissible manner, and always leaves the door of repentance open. If the guilty one delays in profiting from it, he will suffer for a longer time. Thus, it always depends on him to shorten his sufferings. The duration of the punishment is proportional to the duration of the hardening. It is thus that the justice of God is reconciled with His goodness and His love for His creatures.