OBJECTIONS AGAINST APPARITIONS, AND REPLIES TO THOSE OBJECTIONS.
The greatest objection that can be raised against the apparitions of
angels, demons, and disembodied souls, takes its rise in the nature of
these substances, which being purely spiritual, cannot appear with
evident, solid, and palpable bodies, nor perform those functions which
belong only to matter, and living or animated bodies.
For, either spiritual substances are united to the bodies which appear
or not. If they are not united to them, how can they move them, and
cause them to act, walk, speak, reason, and eat? If they are united to
them, then they form but one individual; and how can they separate
themselves from them, after being united to them? Do they take them
and leave them at will, as we lay aside a habit or a mask? That would
be to suppose that they are at liberty to appear or disappear, which
is not the case, since all apparitions are solely by the order or
permission of God. Are those bodies which appear only instruments
which the angels, demons, or souls make use of to affright, warn,
chastise, or instruct the person or persons to whom they appear? This
is, in fact, the most rational thing that can be said concerning these
apparitions; the exorcisms of the church fall directly on the agent
and cause of these apparitions, and not on the phantom which appears,
nor on the first author, which is God, who orders and permits it.
Another objection, both very common and very striking, is that which
is drawn from the multitude of false stories and ridiculous reports
which are spread amongst the people, of the apparitions of spirits,
demons, and elves, of possessions and obsessions.
It must be owned that, out of a hundred of these pretended
appearances, hardly two will be found to be true. The ancients are not
more to be credited on that point than the moderns, since they were,
at least, equally as credulous as people are in our own age, or rather
they were more credulous than we are at this day.
I grant that the foolish credulity of the people, and the love of
everything that seems marvelous and extraordinary, have produced an
infinite number of false histories on the subject we are now treating
of. There are here two dangers to avoid: a too great credulity, and an
excessive difficulty in believing what is above the ordinary course of
nature; as likewise, we must not conclude what is general from what is
particular, or make a general case of a particular one, nor say that
all is false because some stories are so; also, we must not assert
that such a particular history is a mere invention, because there are
many stories of this latter kind. It is allowable to examine, prove,
and select; we must never form our judgment but with knowledge of the
case; a story may be false in many of its circumstances (as related),
but true in its foundation.
The history of the deluge, and that of the passage across the Red Sea,
are certain in themselves, and in the simple and natural recital given
of them by Moses. The profane historians, and some Hebrew writers, and
even Christians, have added some embellishment which must militate
against the story in itself. Josephus the historian has much
embellished the history of Moses; Christian authors have added much to
that of Josephus; the Mahometans have altered several points of the
sacred history of the Old and New Testament. Must we, on this account,
consider these histories as problematical? The life of St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus is full of miracles, as are also those of St. Martin and
St. Bernard. St. Augustine relates several miraculous cures worked by
the relics of St. Stephen. Many extraordinary things are related in
the life of St. Ambrose. Why not give faith to them after the
testimony of these great men, and that of their disciples, who had
lived with them, and had been witnesses of a good part of what they
relate?
It is not permitted us to dispute the truth of the apparitions noted
in the Old and New Testament; but we may be permitted to explain them.
For instance, it is said that the Lord appeared to Abraham in the
valley of Mamre;[417] that he entered Abraham's tent, and that he
promised him the birth of a son; also, it is allowed that he received
three angels, who went from thence to Sodom. St. Paul[418] notices it
expressly in his Epistle to the Hebrews; _angelis hospitio receptis_.
It is also said that the Lord appeared unto Moses, and gave him the
law; and St. Stephen, in the Acts,[419] informs us that it was an
angel who spoke to him from the burning bush, and on Mount Horeb; and
St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, says, that the law was given by
angels.[420]
Sometimes, the name of angel of the Lord is taken for a prophet, a man
filled with his Spirit, and deputed by him. It is certain that the
Hebrew _malae_ and the Greek _angelos_ bear the same signification as
our _envoy_. For instance, at the beginning of the Book of
Judges,[421] it is said that there came an angel of the Lord from
Gilgal to the place of tears (or Bochim), and that he there reproved
the Israelites for their infidelity and ingratitude. The ablest
commentators[422] think that this _angel of the Lord_ is no other than
Phineas, or the then high priest, or rather a prophet, sent expressly
to the people assembled at Gilgal.
In the Scripture, the prophets are sometimes styled angels of the
Lord.[423] "Here is what saith the envoy of the Lord, amongst the
envoys of the Lord," says Haggai, speaking of himself.
The prophet Malachi, the last of the lesser prophets, says that "the
Lord will send his angel, who will prepare the way before his
face."[424] This angel is St. John the Baptist, who prepares the way
for Jesus Christ, who is himself styled the Angel of the Lord--"And
soon the Lord whom ye demand, and the so much desired Angel of the
Lord, will come into his temple." This same Saviour is designated by
Moses under the name of a prophet:[425] "The Lord will raise up in the
midst of your nation, a prophet like myself." The name of angel is
given to the prophet Nathan, who reproved David for his sin. I do not
pretend, by these testimonies, to deny that the angels have often
appeared to men; but I infer from them that sometimes these angels
were only prophets or other persons, raised up and sent by God to his
people.
As to apparitions of the demon, it is well to observe that in
Scripture the greater part of public calamities and maladies are
attributed to evil spirits; for example, it is said that Satan
inspired David[426] with the idea of numbering his people; but in
another place it is simply said that the anger of the Lord was
inflamed[427] against Israel, and led David to cause his subjects to
be numbered. There are several other passages in the Holy Books, where
they relate what the demon said and what he did, in a popular manner,
by the figure termed prosopopoeia; for instance, the conversation
between Satan and the first woman,[428] and the discourse which the
demon holds in company with the good angels before the Lord, when he
talks to him of Job,[429] and obtains permission to tempt and afflict
him. In the New Testament, it appears that the Jews attributed to the
malice of the demon and to his possession almost all the maladies with
which they were afflicted. In St. Luke,[430] the woman who was bent
and could not raise herself up, and had suffered this for eighteen
years, "had," says the evangelist, "a spirit of infirmity;" and Jesus
Christ, after having healed her, says "that Satan held her bound for
eighteen years;" and in another place, it is said that a lunatic or
epileptic person was possessed by the demon. It is clear, from what is
said by St. Matthew and St. Luke,[431] that he was attacked by
epilepsy. The Saviour cured him of this evil malady, and by that means
took from the demon the opportunity of tormenting him still more; as
David, by dissipating with the sound of his harp the sombre melancholy
of Saul, delivered him from the evil spirit, who abused the power of
those inclinations which he found in him, to awaken his jealousy
against David. All this means, that we often ascribed to the demon
things of which he is not guilty, and that we must not lightly adopt
all the prejudices of the people, nor take literally all that is
related of the works of Satan.
Footnotes:
[417] Gen. xviii. 10.
[418] Heb. xiii. 2.
[419] Acts vii. 30, 33.
[420] Gal. iii.
[421] Judges ii. 1.
[422] Vide commentar. in Judic. ii.
[423] Hagg. i. 13.
[424] Malac. iii. 1.
[425] Deut. xviii. 18.
[426] Chron. xxi. 1.
[427] 2 Sam. xxiv. 1.
[428] Gen. iii. 2, 3.
[429] Job i. 7-9.
[430] Luke xiii. 16.
[431] Matt. xvii. 14. Luke ix. 37.