Two Letters Concerning a Monk Possessed by a Demon

A certain religious man, established then in the monastic habit, was struck in our own time by an unheard-of temptation of the ancient enemy, in such a way that the same malignant spirit repeatedly defiled particles of his garments, even those lying apart from him, with an unclean filth. This was so horrible, foul and noxious that any part of the clothing it had touched was thereafter fit for no use, even though it had been washed. When I was asked about this matter—why almighty God had given such power to the cunning serpent over him, that he should outwardly display the uncleanness of his heart, which he would never have shown in his outward habit unless he had utterly corrupted his inner self, either through unbelief and blasphemy, or certainly through empty and vain glory—I answered: Indeed the matter oozed forth from within, from the heart, through the garments. Since he was situated far away, I did not see him myself, but nevertheless, as I judge, I have truly foreseen these things in him.

But if it is not so, is it not still to be thought that this happened not without cause, and was permitted for this purpose: that through that foulness the cleanness of his heart might be preserved, and the crafty enemy might not defile it with empty glory—just as Paul, lest he should be puffed up by the greatness of the revelation, received a thorn in the flesh? Whichever of these it may be, or even if neither, will not what I am about to say at the end still be true? It is altogether true. It is true, what I say, that that outward filth is not harmful to the soul, if the soul itself takes care to preserve inward cleanness of heart. Meanwhile, as you yourself have taken care to judge, I hear that certain persons among you say that no one can be perfect in the land of his own birth, taking as their proof what the Lord said: No prophet is accepted in his own country.

These persons must first be refuted by the reason of truth, and then it must be shown how the saying is to be understood. Let those who say this listen patiently, for while they do not prudently consider the sense of sacred Scripture, they well-nigh condemn almost all the saints. For if it is as they assert, then as many as have been converted from among the Romans and live among the Romans, as many from the Greeks among the Greeks, as many from the Italians among the Italians, as many from the Spaniards among the Spaniards, as many from the Germans among the Germans, as many from the Aquitanians among the Aquitanians, as many from the English among the English who live religiously, will be imperfect. Behold, Paul and Anthony, from among the Thebans, were made perfect among the Thebans. Behold, Hilarion, from among the Palestinians, was made perfect among the Palestinians. Behold, Macarius, from among the Egyptians, was made perfect among the Egyptians. Behold, the city of Oxyrhynchus was made wholly perfect from its own citizens.

Behold—to come to those nearer and neighboring to us—Protasius and Gervasius, remaining in this very city of Milan, their own city, and in their own house, and practicing the monastic life for ten years, were so perfect that they became martyrs. Or will perhaps our province alone be excepted from this rule, so that it may have monks not from its own people, but only from the farthest lands? One must rather strive that, wherever a man may be, he live according to the rule of the perfect, and that he not turn aside from the way of perfection through the enticements of parents, relatives, or kindred. Thus indeed, according to the Saviour’s saying, he will be able to renounce father, mother, brothers, sisters, wives, children, houses, fields, and all that he possesses.

But I say this not because I do not hold in the highest praise those who withdraw from kingdom to kingdom, from the world to the desert; but in order to show that those also are blessed and perfect who flee their homeland more by their effects than by their steps. I beseech, therefore, those who deny that this can be done among you, to consider with watchful care why the Lord did not say: No prophet is perfect in his own country, but: No one is accepted in his own country. But what else is to be understood there except that he said “not accepted,” by no means “not received”? This he wished to be understood as said of the ancient prophets and of himself, who were not accepted among the unbelieving Jews, but rather despised, as Stephen said to them: Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted?