Sermons & Letters 192 part 3/3

But if it were now permitted me to dwell longer in weighing the superstitions of the ancient Babylonian and Persian philosophers, who contended that at each hour, day, and month of the years, various conjunctions of the Aeons were fixed, upon which they lyingly said the fates of men depend, and whom they then besought to aid and be propitious to them, I could now more easily demonstrate that these have no likeness or affinity at all with our rites. For who persuades himself that Belial agrees with God, and that an idol has any affinity or likeness with the truth? For an idol is a pure and mere fiction, invented indeed out of falsehood to deceive rational substances.

Therefore if, on the authority of Leo, that most wise interpreter of the divine Scriptures, it was brought about by the divine omnipotence that, for our benefit, the stars and the other signs of the heavenly host — lacking sense and life — should, with the order of days, months, and years preserved (which order the sacred writings of the Old Testament above all expressed), distinguish the successions of the times; then one ought to praise the divine power and providence alone, which willed to establish such signs for our knowledge, instruction, and benefit.

For the rest, since the aspirations of the heavens, the changes of the air, the ascents, descents, courses, degrees, retrogradations, risings, and settings of the stars or the Aeons are brought about altogether by necessity, and are derived from a dead nature — what praise, what honor, or what worship can reasonably be paid to them? Nothing therefore is more superstitious, nothing more contrary to the truth, than the vain and deceitful philosophy both of the heathen and of the ancient heretics, by which, when they beheld the marvelous things happening in the world, they assigned them to the affections of the Aeons. And therefore, having devised various names to invoke them, they foolishly judged that even in sacred mysteries these could be rendered propitious to themselves.

Just as, concerning Montanus and the Cataphrygians, the authors of heresies, Augustine among others wrote; who, in place of the sacred expiation and regeneration of baptism, washed their followers with an unclean laver, reciting the names of as many Aeons as they dreamed to be contained in the entire circle of the year. That this man, Montanus namely, devised eight hundred and seventy Aeons, each of which he called by its own proper name, we understand from the Synodical booklet. But the institution of Catholic rites and feasts — what affinity and likeness can it have with these fabulous fictions?

Does not the Catholic Church, in distributing the order of feasts, in reciting the offices and liturgies — with regard had to the diversity of times and the dignity of the mysteries which ought to be celebrated with solemn worship on account of their divine institution — pay praises to God, the best and greatest? Indeed, Catholics render the worship of servitude to God alone in offices, liturgies, and the rest, in supplications both public and private, and to Him they direct their prayers, voices, and hearts. Whence, then, does Beausobre gather that the daily rites of the Catholics' religion can in certain respects be compared with the superstitious ceremonies of the Babylonians, Persians, and Magi?

But perhaps he will judge that the likeness, or affinity, consists in this, that the Roman Church has consecrated certain anniversary feasts to certain days of the times, which she then commanded to be observed with holier rites and ceremonies? Or because, on each day of the year, at the recurrence of the birthday of some man most renowned for sanctity, doctrine, martyrdom, or virginity, she has been accustomed to recall to the minds of the faithful the more distinguished and approved deeds of their virtues, both to render praise to God, and to stir up in them the zeal of imitation?

In these things, therefore, it is most certain that nothing at all can be found which corresponds to the superstitious solemnities and fabulous rites of the Persians, Babylonians, and Magi employed in the worship of the Aeons and the stars. Wherefore, if I now had to deal with some man other than Beausobre — a Gentile by profession, namely, an atheist, or an Epicurean, who rested neither upon the sacred Scriptures nor upon the divine commands — I would certainly appeal only to reasons borrowed from the light of nature, in order to explain the sanctity, dignity, and excellence of the rites of the Roman Church.

But since this business pertains to a Christian man, though a non-Catholic — who, besides the authority of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in which clear mention is made of these and those appointed solemnities and institutions of the year, must also admit the evangelical commands of the New Testament; and at the same time must profess all those mysteries which pertain to the conception, nativity, circumcision, miracles, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and others of the like kind:

therefore I understand that Beausobre wished to play a most foolish part in recounting these things, who, luxuriating in the fables of the Persians and Babylonians, strove with the whole thrust of his effort to delude and to throw dust in the eyes of unskilled and overly credulous readers who do not think piously and wisely concerning the Roman Church. 12. And (that I may return to the rest) does not the same Beausobre remember that in the sacred evangelical sayings the demons are also called angels? For those spirits who, falling with the devil through pride from the divine grace, were condemned to the tortures of eternal fire, Christ, in Matthew, calls angels; and the Scriptures themselves, in other places, indicate the evil angels by the name of demons.

It is no wonder, therefore, if Cyril affirms that Terebinthus, or Buddas, summoned aerial demons for his protection. Whose testimony nevertheless coheres also with the confession of Turbo, who, about to execrate the rites of the Manichaeans, said that these, after taking food and drink, were accustomed to anoint their heads with exorcised oil. For by the name 'exorcised' one ought to understand oil magically bewitched; which, namely, the necromancers are wont to use in summoning evil spirits to their aid, from whom they obtain help when, through sleights-of-hand, they attempt to do something against the order of nature. Not therefore could it be turned into a charge against Tillemont, a learned man, that he wished to interpret 'exorcised' as 'bewitched.'

For the writer of the Ecclesiastical History knows well that the ancient Magi were accustomed to employ wax tapers, lamps, water, oil, and other bewitched things, not to expel, but to summon spirits, so that from these they might obtain protection and help, and gain foreknowledge of things to come. Concerning a similar art of the Magi, on the authority of Pliny, Ostanes spoke, who, describing its various kinds, said that from water, from spheres, from air, from stars, lamps, and basins, and axes, and in many other ways, they promised divine revelations. Wherefore it is probable enough that the Manichaeans, most skilled in this art, wished to use oil profaned by incantations to summon malignant spirits.

Finally, we judge that that word which we meet in the confession of Turbo — 'exorcised,' namely — in no way contradicts Tillemont's interpretation. For Turbo had to use the form of speech which Manes, whose deeds he recounts, employed — who perhaps called sacred and natural things profaned by nefarious rites 'exorcisms,' as we shall see more clearly in its place. In these matters, then, thus laid open and explained, everyone will judge it superfluous to labor further, since there remain to be snatched away those things of greater weight, by which he either affirms that exorcisms are worthy to be made sport of with mockeries, or that it can never be persuaded to him that malignant spirits, or demons, have the power of vexing the elements and bodies. Why so?

That Beausobre, a Christian by profession, though a non-Catholic, versed in the evangelical Scriptures, most excellently instructed concerning the things done by Christ the Lord and described by the apostles, should dare to deny both the virtue and efficacy of exorcisms in expelling demons, and the power and fury of the demons themselves in exercising violence upon living creatures and things lacking sense? What else is this but to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke fabled, either when they said that Jesus cast the demons out of bodies by a word, or when they described the two Gerasene men meeting Christ, who, coming out of the tombs, had demons, and who were so fierce that no one could pass by that way.

Can men, then, not be vexed by unclean spirits, if the Evangelists narrate, without any ambiguity of words, that there was offered to Christ a man blind and mute: And when the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke? But if, finally, with these and other similar deeds of Christ recalled to Beausobre's mind, he himself should still remain in suspense and give no credence, I would bring forward that which Saint Luke recounted about that father of a household who brought to Christ his son having a mute spirit, which, wherever it seized him, dashed him down, and he foamed, and gnashed his teeth, and withered away. Did not, at the presence and command of Christ the Lord, that malignant spirit, being dashed down, roll upon the ground foaming?

By which dire and violent convulsions, since the son was agitated from the very first days of infancy, was he not frequently, being vexed, cast into the fire and into the waters, that it might destroy him? If, therefore, by these and other sure arguments which we can bring against Beausobre he does not acquiesce, nor is willing to persuade himself that Terebinthus, or Buddas, cast down to the earth and agitated by a demon, perished, what business have we with a raving man, devoid of reason, who reasons about the things of religion merely according to the impulse of his own spirit? But if, finally, he should judge that these and similar effects, which we now also sometimes behold, are caused by the diseases of frenzy or mania, what could be more inept? Utterly trifling would be the discourse of the Evangelists, by which Christ, with the command of His voice, said:

Deaf and mute spirit, I command you, go out from him, and enter into him no more. Not unlike would be that other exclamation of the unclean spirits torturing the men of the Synagogue: What have we to do with you, Son of God? Have you come here before the time to torment us? Or this other supplication made to Christ by the same spirits: If you cast us out from here, send us into the herd of swine. Who then, having at once heard that voice of the Lord — Go — going out, departed into the swine, and behold, the whole herd rushed with violence down a steep place into the sea, and they perished in the waters. Such forms of speech, indeed, experience teaches us can have no reference at all to frenzy, mania, or any other diseases whatsoever.

For diseases are healed, and are not so cast out that they can migrate from one body into another by a vital passage. Them we have never heard crying out, uttering voices, or making requests; but only the sick themselves, who are seized by diseases, feeling the force and pains of their ailments, break out into voices of sadness and howlings, demanding that we apply to them a remedy and relief. This virtue and power of Christ the Lord in expelling evil spirits from the bodies of men the Jewish people used to marvel at. Although in truth there were not lacking most wicked calumniators who contended that He used sorceries and sleights-of-hand in expelling demons;

Nevertheless they could by no means deny that the elements and bodies are at times harassed by evil spirits. Yet He restrained that calumny, 'He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons,' together with its authors, by adding: 'But if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.' By this manner of speaking it was shown that the power of exorcising those possessed had been granted to certain other sons of the synagogue as well, who could openly testify that they had cast out demons not by sorcery, but by the name of Christ and the power of the almighty God and by His finger. And indeed those things which Mark related concerning John's address to Christ seem to serve our purpose wonderfully well:

'Master, we saw a certain man casting out demons in your name, who does not follow us, and we forbade him.' But lest John and the rest of the apostles and disciples should persuade themselves that the power of exorcising and the force of exorcisms depend upon human strength, He at once commanded that they should not forbid him, and added: 'For there is no one who does a mighty work in my name and can soon speak evil of me.' Let the scoffer Beausobre now come forward, and let him ponder with himself whence the power of exorcisms is derived, and what exorcisms contain within themselves, to whom at length the power of exorcising was given, and then let him mock, if he can, that sacred rite which the Catholic Roman Church has always retained as received from the Son of God.

And indeed that the force and efficacy of exorcisms is derived from the name of Jesus is abundantly clear from the sacred Scriptures. For there is no other name under heaven given, in which we must be saved, than that one. Chiefly since at His invocation every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. It is no wonder, then, if, when that name is invoked in exorcism, the sacred ministers of the Church obtain such protection and authority that, with the spirits of demons driven far off, men who were once grievously tormented are thereafter, like Magdalene from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons, no longer tortured by any trouble at all or by diabolical fury.

When next we truly turn our mind to the nature or rationale of exorcisms, we at once understand what they are and what they contain within themselves. For they cannot be of such a kind that they seem to have anything in common with the incantations of sorcerers. Since rather they were instituted by God Himself for the overthrowing of bewitchments. Wherefore Beausobre reasons far too craftily and maliciously in equating these sacred and divine rites with superstitious incantations. But that prayer joined with fasting is able to cast out even spirits worse than the rest, Christ Himself acknowledged; namely when, being asked by certain persons why His disciples had not freed a demoniac brought to them, He answered them:

'This kind of demons is not cast out except by prayer and fasting.' Let Beausobre therefore see, and at length understand, what ought to be said concerning this power granted to the ministers of the Church. That the priests of Jesus Christ, and the evangelists, and the sacred ministers of law obtained authority and power over demons, the evangelists Luke, Matthew, and Mark most clearly attested. They said in the first place that Christ, when about to send the apostles to preach the Gospel, gave them strength and power over all demons.

Again, concerning the other seventy-two disciples, whom He had sent two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to come, it is read that, having returned from their ministry, without any pretense of mind or ambiguity of words they said: 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name.' But if Beausobre, led solely by his lust for wrangling and reviling, perverting ecclesiastical and divine laws, should perhaps contend that the strength and power of which we speak accompanied only the apostles and the disciples of Christ, for the destruction of the religion of the heathen and the overcoming of the perfidy and unbelief of the Jews, we could by no means acquiesce in his words.

For it has been more amply proved that this power of putting demons to flight is to endure perpetually in the Church, and that it can be exercised equally by good and by evil ministers. Of this matter a striking testimony stands recorded in Luke; namely, when Christ, about to judge the evil ministers of the Church, will by no means requite them with merit and the crown of glory, although they will say: 'Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name, and in your name do many mighty works?' Because they cannot deserve well of Jesus the Savior of men, who, using the power and virtue of ministry, do not seek to conform themselves in good morals to Christ Jesus.

But since anyone may understand that enough has been said concerning the power of exorcisms in expelling demons, it will not be at all difficult to persuade the well-disposed Catholic reader that Buddas, or Terebinthus, that most wicked juggler, driven and struck down by demons, met a cruel death, and was suddenly taken away from the enjoyment of the present light. Such an evil death Beausobre openly denies, and employing the words of a mountebank, he has dared with all the effort of his mind to confound this Buddas with a certain other man of this name, the pseudo-apostle and disciple of Manes.

On this account, becoming more liberal with him, he bestows on him a longer life, extending his days up to that time when Manes, more notorious in impieties, had sent the twelve heralds of his false doctrines running hither and thither, to overthrow the evangelical doctrine of Christ the Lord. If we were to judge that this studied fabrication had even the mere appearance of truth, the present work of this our labor would at once be useless; nor would it merely totter, but would utterly collapse;

and Beausobre's flatterers, who up to now have applauded the Manichaean history written by a non-Catholic man, would now rather have cause to laugh than to lament, seeing that we had wished in vain to overthrow and root out so many and so great heretical and trifling fables, with which that vaunted history is stuffed. Meanwhile let no one be angry with me if, for the purpose of rooting out the foregoing Beausobrian follies, I have not employed the testimonies of the ancient holy Fathers,

in order that it might thereby become more evident to the readers that the text of the sacred Scriptures admits of no other interpretation, nor can it be violently distorted, so as to signify certain kinds of diseases consisting in a struggle and conflict of humors, spirits, and nerves, which the ancient experts in medicine called demoniacal only by way of similitude. For if we wished to weigh this kind of argument for the present, we should have to expend much labor, and should seem to wander, as it were, outside our order of debate. For it was not for the sake of his own studies and parties that Beausobre cast at us, or was able to object, one single ancient writer of the Catholic Church.

Understanding excellently that the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church had alike agreed in explaining the aforementioned texts of the Scriptures, who likewise both asserted and adorned with the highest praises the order of exorcists and their power over expelling demons. Therefore there was no need to appeal to tradition, the interpreter of the sacred Scriptures. But lest we should seem to neglect the authority of the holy Fathers, for the present it has not irked me to subjoin one or another testimony of Saint Leo the Great, chiefly since we intend to direct our zeal to illustrating the writings of this holy pontiff, doctor of the Catholic and Apostolic See. He, therefore, about to explain the foregoing words

of Matthew, Luke, and Mark, interprets them concerning the spirits of demons with no ambiguity of speech or veiling of words at all, weighing that savagery by which the bodies of the possessed are wont to be tormented, and at the same time signifying that authority by which they are wont to be put to flight, chiefly when the prayers of the exorcists are joined with fasting. Wherefore, in appointing the fast of the seventh month, he urges that it be more zealously observed by the faithful. For (he says) in every contest of the Christian struggle the usefulness of continence avails very much; so that certain of the most savage spirits of demons, which are put to flight from possessed bodies by no commands of those exorcising, are driven out by the sole power of fastings and prayers, the Lord saying:

'This kind of demons is not cast out except by fasting and prayer.' The prayer of one who fasts is pleasing to God and terrible to the devil. But besides this power granted to the ministers of the Church for casting the spirits of demons out of the bodies of the possessed, he also makes mention of another kind of exorcisms, which priests and other sacred ministers are wont to employ for the sanctification of catechumens, before they are cleansed by the purification of baptism; namely, that the souls of these may be snatched from the diabolical power. In his epistle, therefore, to the bishops of Sicily he writes thus:

'Therefore, most beloved brethren, since there exist so many and so great documents, by which, with all ambiguity removed, you evidently recognize that in the baptizing of the elect, who, according to the apostolic rule, are both to be examined by exorcisms, and to be sanctified by fastings, and to be steeped in frequent preachings, only two seasons, of Easter and of Pentecost, are to be observed.' Let Beausobre take note, I pray, that the rite of exorcisms is derived from no other source than from the Scriptures and the rule of the apostles, as our most holy pontiff wished here to intimate, and before him Saint

Pope Siricius affirmed it, in his epistle to Himerius of Tarragona; and then let him carp and bite, if he can, at the custom of the Roman Church, and the authority of the sacred ministers in performing exorcisms, and in freeing the bodies and souls of men from diabolical power. But let us now enter upon a new engagement with Beausobre in the following chapter, leaving aside meanwhile very many other trifles, or the futile conjectures of the same man, which can in no way pertain to the ecclesiastical history which we intend to compose.