{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54243/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54243","id":"gutenberg_54243","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54243","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Doctrines","Demonology -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Transcriber's Notes\n\nThe original was printed with the Latin on verso and English on recto\npages with sections aligned. To preserve as much as possible of this\neffect, Latin sections are followed immediately by the corresponding\ntranslation.\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations\nin hyphenation spelling and punctuation remain unchanged.\n\nItalics are represented thus _italic_, except in the main Latin text\nwhich is almost entirely printed in italic script. Here the italics are\nunmarked and plain text is indicted thus =plain=.\n\nS. Augustinus (or Augustini) in the Latin text is translated as S.\nAustin in the English.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n                              DEMONIALITY\n                                  OR\n                          INCUBI AND SUCCUBI\n                              A TREATISE\n\n _wherein is shown that there are in existence on earth rational\n creatures besides man, endowed like him with a body and a soul, that\n are born and die like him, redeemed by our Lord Jesus-Christ, and\n capable of receiving salvation or damnation_,\n\n                          BY THE REV. FATHER\n                          SINISTRARI OF AMENO\n\n                           (17^{th} century)\n\n             _Published from the original Latin manuscript\n                discovered in London in the year 1872,\n             and translated into French by_ ISIDORE LISEUX\n                   Now first translated into English\n                         With the Latin Text.\n\n                       [Illustration: Colophon]\n\n\n                                 PARIS\n                  _Isidore LISEUX, 2, Rue Bonaparte._\n                                 1879\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nTO THE FIRST EDITION (_Paris, 1875, in-8\u00ba_)\n\n\nI was in London in the year 1872, and I hunted after old books:\n\n _Car que faire l\u00e0 bas, \u00e0 moins qu\u2019on ne bouquine?_[1]\n\nThey caused me to live in past ages, happy to escape from the present,\nand to exchange the petty passions of the day for the peaceable\nintimacy of Aldus, Dolet or Estienne.\n\n [1] What can one do over there, unless he hunts up old books?\n\nOne of my favourite booksellers was Mr Allen, a venerable old\ngentleman, whose place of business was in the Euston road, close to the\ngate of Regent\u2019s park. Not that his shop was particularly rich in dusty\nold books; quite the reverse: it was small, and yet never filled.\nScarcely four or five hundred volumes at a time, carefully dusted,\nbright, arrayed with symmetry on shelves within reach of one\u2019s hand;\nthe upper shelves remained unoccupied. On the right, Theology; on the\nleft, the Greek and Latin Classics in a majority, with some French and\nItalian books; for such were Mr Allen\u2019s specialties; it seemed as if\nhe absolutely ignored Shakespeare and Byron, and as if, in his mind,\nthe literature of his country did not go beyond the sermons of Blair or\nMacculloch.\n\nWhat, at first sight, struck one most in those books, was the\nmoderateness of their price, compared with their excellent state of\npreservation. They had evidently not been bought in a lot, at so much a\ncubic yard, like the rubbish of an auction, and yet the handsomest, the\nmost ancient, the most venerable from their size, folios or quartos,\nwere not marked higher than 2 or 3 shillings; an octavo was sold 1\nshilling, the duodecimo six pence: each according to its size. Thus\nruled Mr Allen, a methodical man, if ever there was one; and he was all\nthe better for it, since, faithfully patronized by clergymen, scholars\nand collectors, he renewed his stock at a rate which more assuming\nspeculators might have envied.\n\nBut how did he get those well bound and well preserved volumes,\nfor which, everywhere else, five or six times more would have been\ncharged? Here also Mr Allen had his method, sure and regular. No one\nattended more assiduously the auctions which take place every day in\nLondon: his stand was marked at the foot of the auctioneer\u2019s desk.\nThe rarest, choicest books passed before his eyes, contended for at\noften fabulous prices by Quaritch, Sotheran, Pickering, Toovey, and\nother bibliopolists of the British metropolis; Mr Allen smiled at such\nextravagance; when once a bid had been made by another, he would not\nadd a penny, had an unknown _Gutenberg_ or _Valdarfer\u2019s Boccaccio_\nbeen at stake. But if occasionally, through inattention or weariness,\ncompetition slackened (_habent sua fata libelli_), Mr Allen came\nforward: _six pence!_, he whispered, and sometimes the article was left\nhim; sometimes even, two consecutive numbers, joined together for want\nof having separately met with a buyer, were knocked down to him, still\nfor the minimum of six pence which was his maximum.\n\nMany of those slighted ones doubtless deserved their fate; but among\nthem might slip some that were not unworthy of the honours of the\ncatalogue, and which, at any other time, buyers more attentive, or less\nwhimsical might perhaps have covered with gold. This, however, did not\nat all enter into Mr Allen\u2019s calculation: the size was the only rule of\nhis estimate.\n\nNow, one day when, after a considerable auction, he had exhibited in\nhis shop purchases more numerous than usual, I especially noticed\nsome manuscripts in the Latin language, the paper, the writing and\nthe binding of which denoted an Italian origin, and which might\nwell be two hundred years old. The title of one was, I believe: _De\nVenenis_; of another: _De Viperis_; of a third (the present work):\n_De D\u00e6monialitate, et Incubis, et Succubis_. All three, moreover, by\ndifferent authors, and independent of each other. Poisons, adders,\ndemons, what a collection of horrors! yet, were it but for civility\u2019s\nsake, I was bound to buy something; after some hesitation, I chose\nthe last one: Demons, true, but Incubi, Succubi: the subject is not\nvulgar, and still less so the way in which it seemed to me to have been\nhandled. In short, I had the volume for six-pence, a boon price for a\nquarto: Mr Allen doubtless deemed such a scrawl beneath the rate of\ntype.\n\nThat manuscript, on strong paper of the 17^{th} century, bound in\nItalian parchment, and beautifully preserved, has 86 pages of text. The\ntitle and first page are in the author\u2019s hand, that of an old man;\nthe remainder is very distinctly written by another, but under his\ndirection, as is testified by autographic side notes and rectifications\ndistributed all through the work. It is therefore the genuine original\nmanuscript, to all appearances unique and inedited.\n\nOur dealer in old books had purchased it a few days before at Sotheby\u2019s\nHouse, where had taken place (from the 6^{th} to the 16^{th} of\nDecember 1871) the sale of the books of baron Seymour Kirkup, an\nEnglish collector, deceased in Florence. The manuscript was inscribed\nas follows on the sale catalogue:\n\n N\u00ba 145. AMENO (_R. P. Ludovicus Maria_ [Cotta] de). De D\u00e6monialitate,\n et Incubis, et Succubis, _Manuscript._\n  _S\u00e6c. XVII-XVIII._\n\nWho is that writer? Has he left printed works? That is a question I\nleave to bibliographers; for, notwithstanding numerous investigations\nin special dictionaries, I have been unable to ascertain any thing on\nthat score. Brunet (_Manuel du libraire_, art. COTTA d\u2019Ameno) vaguely\nsurmises his existence, but confuses him with his namesake, most\nlikely also his fellow-townsman, Lazaro Agostino Cotta of Ameno, a\nbarrister and literary man of Novara. \u201cThe author,\u201d says he, \u201cwhose\nreal Christian names would seem to be _Ludovico-Maria_, has written\nmany serious works....\u201d The mistake is obvious. One thing is sure: our\nauthor was living in the last years of the 17^{th} century, as appears\nfrom his own testimony, and had been a professor of Theology in Pavia.\n\nBe that as it may, his book has seemed to me most interesting in divers\nrespects, and I confidently submit it to that select public for whom\nthe invisible world is not a chimera. I should be much surprised if,\nafter opening it at random, the reader was not tempted to retrace his\nsteps and go on to the end. The philosopher, the confessor, the medical\nman will find therein, in conjunction with the robust faith of the\nmiddle ages, novel and ingenious views; the literary man, the curioso,\nwill appreciate the solidity of reasoning, the clearness of style, the\nliveliness of recitals (for there are stories, and delicately told).\nAll theologians have devoted more or less pages to the question of\nmaterial intercourse between man and the demon; thick volumes have\nbeen written about witchcraft, and the merits of this work were but\nslender if it merely developed the ordinary thesis; but such is not\nits characteristic. The ground-matter, from which it derives a truly\noriginal and philosophical stamp, is an entirely novel demonstration\nof the existence of Incubi and Succubi, as rational animals, both\ncorporeal and spiritual like ourselves, living in our midst, being\nborn and dying like us, and lastly redeemed, as we are, through\nthe merits of Jesus-Christ, and capable of receiving salvation or\ndamnation. In the Father of Ameno\u2019s opinion, those beings endowed with\nsenses and reason, thoroughly distinct from Angels and Demons, pure\nspirits, are none other but the Fauns, Sylvans and Satyrs of paganism,\ncontinued by our Sylphs, Elfs and Goblins; and thus is connected anew\nthe link of belief. On this score alone, not to mention the interest of\ndetails, this book has a claim to the attention of earnest readers: I\nfeel convinced that attention will not be found wanting.\n\n  I. L.\n\n _May 1875._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe foregoing advertisement was _composed_ at the printer\u2019s, and ready\nfor the press, when, strolling on the quays[2], I met by chance with a\ncopy of the _Index librorum prohibitorum_. I mechanically opened it,\nand the first thing that struck my eyes was the following article:\n\n  De Ameno Ludovicus Maria. _Vide_ Sinistrari.\n\n [2] Paris Embankment.\n\nMy heart throbbed fast, I must confess. Was I at last on the trace of\nmy author? Was it _Demoniality_ that I was about to see nailed to the\npillory of the _Index_? I flew to the last pages of the formidable\nvolume, and read:\n\n SINISTRARI (Ludovicus Maria) de Ameno, De Delictis et P\u0153nis Tractatus\n absolutissimus. _Donec corrigatur. Decret. 4 Martii 1709._\n\n _Correctus autem juxta editionem Romanam anni 1753 permittitur._\n\nIt was indeed he. The real name of the Father of Ameno was\n_Sinistrari_, and I was in possession of the title of one at least of\nthose \u201cserious works\u201d which Brunet the bibliographer alluded to. The\nvery title, _De Delictis et P\u0153nis_, was not unconnected with that of my\nmanuscript, and I had reason to presume that _Demoniality_ was one of\nthe offenses inquired into, and decided upon, by Father Sinistrari; in\nother words, that manuscript, to all appearances inedited, was perhaps\npublished in the extensive work revealed to me; perhaps even was it to\nthat monography of _Demoniality_ that the _Tractatus de Delictis et\nP\u0153nis_ owed its condemnation by the Congregation of the _Index_. All\nthose points required looking into.\n\nBut it is necessary to have attempted investigations of that kind\nin order to appreciate the difficulties thereof. I consulted the\ncatalogues of ancient books that came in my way; I searched the\nback-shops of the dealers in old books, the _antiquaries_, as they\nsay in Germany, addressing especially to the two or three firms who\nin Paris apply themselves to old Theology; I wrote to the principal\nbooksellers in London, Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples: all to no\npurpose; the very name of Father Sinistrari of Ameno seemed to be\nunknown. I should perhaps have begun by enquiring at our National\nLibrary; I was obliged to resort to it, and there at least I obtained\nan incipient gratification. I was shown two works by my author:\na quarto of 1704, _De incorrigibilium expulsione ab Ordinibus\nRegularibus_, and the first tome of a set of his complete works: _R.\nP. Ludovici Mari\u00e6 Sinistrari de Ameno Opera omnia_ (_Rom\u00e6, in domo\nCaroli Giannini, 1753-1754_, 3 vol. in-folio). Unfortunately that first\ntome contained but the _Practica Criminalis Minorum illustrata_; _De\nDelictis et P\u0153nis_ was the subject matter of the third tome, which, as\nwell as the second, was missing at the Library.\n\nYet, I had a positive indication, and I pursued my investigations. I\nmight be more fortunate at the Library of St Sulpice Seminary. True,\nit is not open to the public; but then, the Sulpician Fathers are\nhospitable: did they not of yore afford a refuge to repentant Des\nGrieux, and did not Manon Lescaut herself tread the flags of their\nparlour? I therefore ventured into the holy House; it was half past\ntwelve, dinner was nearly over; I asked for the librarian, and after a\nfew minutes, I saw coming to me a short old man, unexceptionably civil,\nwho, leading me through the common parlour, introduced me into another\nmuch narrower, a mere cell, looking into a gallery and glazed full\nbreadth, being thus exposed to every eye. An ingenious provision of\nwhich Des Grieux\u2019s escape had fully shown the urgency. I had no small\ntrouble in explaining the object of my visit to the good Father, who\nwas deaf and near sighted. He left me to go to the library, and soon\nreturned, but empty handed: there also, in that sanctuary of Catholic\nTheology, Father Sinistrari of Ameno was entirely unknown. But one more\nexpedient could I try: namely, to go to his brothers in St Francis,\nthe Capuchin Fathers, in their convent of rue de la Sant\u00e9! A cruel\nextremity, it will be granted, for I had but little chance of meeting\nthere, as here, the lovely shadow of Manon.\n\nAt last a letter from Milan put an end to my perplexity. The unfindable\nbook was found; I received at the same time the first edition of _De\nDelictis et P\u0153nis_ (_Venetiis, apud Hieronymum Albricium, 1700_), and\nthe edition of _Rome, 1754_.\n\nIt was a complete treatise, _tractatus absolutissimus_, upon all\nimaginable crimes, offenses and sins; but, let us hasten to say, in\nboth those voluminous folios, _Demoniality_ occupies scarcely five\npages, without any difference in the text between the two editions. And\nthose five pages are not even a summary of the manuscript work which\nI now give forth; they only contain the proposition and conclusion\n(N^{rs} 1 to 27 and 112 to 115). As for that wherein lies the\noriginality of the book, to wit the theory of rational animals, Incubi\nand Succubi, endowed like ourselves with a body and soul, and capable\nof receiving salvation and damnation, it were vain to look for it.\n\nThus, after so many endeavours, I had settled all the points which I\nhad intended to elucidate: I had discovered the identity of the Father\nof Ameno[3]; from the comparison of the two editions of _De Delictis et\nP\u0153nis_, the first condemned, the second allowed by the Congregation of\nthe _Index_, I had gathered that the printed fragments of _Demoniality_\nhad nothing to do with the condemnation of the book, since they had\nnot been submitted to any correction; lastly, I had become convinced\nthat, save a few pages, my manuscript was absolutely inedited. A\nhappy event of a bibliographical Odyssey which I shall be excused for\nrelating at length, for the \u201cjollification\u201d of bibliophiles \u201cand none\nother\u201d.\n\n [3] _Vide_ biographical notice at the end of this volume.\n\n  ISIDORE LISEUX.\n\n  _August 1875._\n\n\n\n\n                              DEMONIALITY\n\n                                  OR\n\n                          INCUBI AND SUCCUBI\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\nD\u00c6MONIALITAS\n\n\n=Vocabulum D\u00e6monialitatis= primo inventum reperio a Jo. Caramuele in\nsua Theologia fundamentali, nec ante illum inveni Auctorem, qui de hoc\ncrimine tanquam distincto a =Bestialitate= locutus sit. Omnes enim\nTheologi Morales, secuti D. Thomam, 2.2., q. 154. in corp., sub specie\nBestialitatis recensent omnem concubitum cum re non ejusdem speciei,\nut ibi loquitur D. Thomas; et proinde Cajetanus, in Commentario illius\nqu\u00e6stionis et articuli, 2.2., q. 154., ad 3. dub., coitum cum D\u00e6mone\nponit in specie Bestialitatis; et Cajetanum sequitur Silvester, v\u00ba\n=Luxuria=, Bonacina, =de Matrim.=, q. 4., et alii.\n\n\nThe first author who, to my knowledge, invented the word _Demoniality_\nis John Caramuel, in his _Fundamental Theology_, and before him I\nfind no one who distinguished that crime from _Bestiality_. Indeed,\nall Theological Moralists, following in the train of S. Thomas (2,\n2, question 154), include, under the specific title of _Bestiality_,\n\u201c_every kind of carnal intercourse with any thing whatever of a\ndifferent species_\u201d: such are the very words used by S. Thomas.\nCajetanus, for instance, in his commentary on that question, classes\nintercourse with the Demon under the description of Bestiality; so does\nSylvester, _de Luxuria_, Bonacina, _de Matrimonio_, question 4, and\nothers.\n\n\n2. Sed revera D. Thomas in illo loco considerationem non habuit ad\ncoitum cum D\u00e6mone: ut enim infra probabimus, hic coitus non potest\nin specie specialissima =Bestialitatis= comprehendi; et ut veritati\ncoh\u00e6reat sententia S. Doctoris, dicendum est, quod in citato loco,\nquando ait, quod peccatum contra naturam, =alio modo si fiat per\nconcubitum ad rem non ejusdem speciei=, =vocatur Bestialitas=: sub\nnomine =rei non ejusdem speciei= intellexerit animal vivens, non\nejusdem speciei cum homine: non enim usurpare potuit ibi nomen =rei=\npro =re=, puta, ente communi ad animatum et inanimatum: si enim quis\ncoiret cum cadavere humano, concubitum haberet ad rem non ejusdem\nspeciei cum homine (maxime apud Thomistas, qui formam corporeitatis\nhuman\u00e6 negant in cadavere), quod etiam esset si cadaveri bestiali\ncopularetur; et tamen talis coitus non esset bestialitas, sed\nmollities. Voluit igitur ibi D. Thomas pr\u00e6cise intelligere concubitum\ncum re vivente non ejusdem speciei cum homine, hoc est cum bruto, nullo\nautem modo comprehendere voluit coitum cum D\u00e6mone.\n\n\n2. However it is clear that in the above passage S. Thomas did not at\nall allude to intercourse with the Demon. As shall be demonstrated\nfurther on, that intercourse cannot be included in the very particular\nspecies of _Bestiality_; and, in order to make that sentence of the\nholy Doctor tally with truth, it must be admitted that when saying of\nthe unnatural sin, \u201c_that committed through intercourse with a thing\nof different species, it takes the name of Bestiality_\u201d, S. Thomas,\nby _a thing of different species_, means a living animal, of another\nspecies than man: for he could not here use the word _thing_ in its\nmost general sense, to mean indiscriminately an animate or inanimate\nbeing. In fact, if a man should fornicate _cum cadavere humano_, he\nwould have to do with a thing of a species quite different from his\nown (especially according to the Thomists, who deny the form of human\ncorporeity in a corpse); similarly _si cadaveri bestiali copularetur_:\nand yet, _talis coitus_ would not be bestiality, but pollution. What\ntherefore S. Thomas intended here to specify with preciseness, is\ncarnal intercourse with a living thing of a species different from\nman, that is to say, with a beast, and he never in the least thought of\nintercourse with the Demon.\n\n\n3. Coitus igitur cum D\u00e6mone, sive Incubo, sive Succubo (qui proprie\nest =D\u00e6monialitas=), specie differt a Bestialitate, nec cum ea facit\nunam speciem specialissimam, ut opinatus est Cajetanus: peccata enim\ncontra naturam specie inter se distingui contra opinionem nonnullorum\nAntiquorum, et Caramuelis, =Summ.=, Armill., v. =Luxur.=, n. 5.,\nJabien., eo. v. n. 6., Asten. lib. 2. tit. 46. art. 7., Caram. =Theol.\nfundam.= post Filliucium, et Crespinum a Borgia, est opinio communis;\net contraria est damnata in proposit. 24. ex damnatis ab Alexandro\nVII.; tum quia singula continent peculiarem, et distinctam turpitudinem\nrepugnantem castitati, et human\u00e6 generationi; tum quia quodlibet ex iis\nprivat bono aliquo secundum naturam, et institutionem actus venerei,\nordinati ad finem generationis human\u00e6; tum quia quodlibet ipsorum\nhabet diversum motivum, per se sufficiens ad privandum eodem bono\ndiversimode, ut optime philosophatur Filliuc., tom. 2. c. 8. tract. 30.\nq. 3. n\u00ba 142; Cresp., q. mor. sel. contro.; Caramuel., q. 5. =per tot.=\n\n\n3. Therefore, intercourse with the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus\n(which is, properly speaking, _Demoniality_), differs in kind from\nBestiality, and does not in connexion with it form one very particular\nspecies, as Cajetanus wrongly gives it; for, whatever may have said\nto the contrary some Ancients, and later Caramuel in his _Fundamental\nTheology_, unnatural sins differ from each other most distinctly. Such\nat least is the general doctrine, and the contrary opinion has been\ncondemned by Alexander VII: first, because each of those sins carries\nwith itself its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity\nand to human generation; secondly, because the commission thereof\nentails each time the sacrifice of some good by its nature attached to\nthe institution of the venereal act, the normal end of which is human\ngeneration; lastly, because they each have a different motive which in\nitself is sufficient to bring about, in divers ways, the deprivation of\nthe same good, as has been clearly shown by Fillucius, Crespinus and\nCaramuel.\n\n\n4. Ex his autem infertur, quod etiam D\u00e6monialitas specie differt\na Bestialitate: singula enim ipsarum peculiarem et distinctam\nturpitudinem, castitati ac human\u00e6 generationi repugnantem, involvit;\nsiquidem Bestialitas est copula cum bruto vivente, ac sensibus et\nmotu proprio pr\u00e6dito: D\u00e6monialitas autem est commixtio cum cadavere\n(stando in sententia communi, quam infra examinabimus), nec sensum, nec\nmotum vitalem habente; et per accidens est, quod a D\u00e6mone moveatur.\nQuod si immunditia commissa cum brutali cadavere, vel humano, differt\nspecie a Sodomia et Bestialitate, ab ista differt pariter specie etiam\n=D\u00e6monialitas=, in qua, juxta communem sententiam, homo cum cadavere\nconcumbit accidentaliter moto.\n\n\n4. It follows that Demoniality differs in kind from Bestiality, for\neach has its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity\nand human generation. Bestiality is connexion with a living beast,\nendowed with its own peculiar senses and impulses; Demoniality, on\nthe contrary, is copulation with a corpse (according at least to the\ngeneral doctrine which shall be considered hereafter), a senseless and\nmotionless corpse which is but accidentally moved through the power of\nthe Demon. Now, if fornication with the corpse of a man, a woman, or\na beast differs in kind from Sodomy and Bestiality, there is the same\ndifference with regard to _Demoniality_, which, according to general\nopinion, is the intercourse of man with a corpse accidentally set in\nmotion.\n\n\n5. Et confirmatur: quia in peccatis contra naturam, seminatio\ninnaturalis (hoc est, ea ad quam regulariter non potest sequi\ngeneratio) habet rationem generis; subjectum vero talis seminationis\nest differentia constituens species sub tali genere: unde si seminatio\nfiat in terram, aut corpus inanime, est mollities; si fiat cum homine\nin vase pr\u00e6postero, est Sodomia; si fiat cum bruto, est bestialitas:\nqu\u00e6 absque controversia inter se specie differunt, eo quod terra, seu\ncadaver, homo, et brutum, qu\u00e6 sunt subjecta talis seminationis, specie\ndifferunt inter se. Sed D\u00e6mon a bruto non solum differt specie, sed\nplusquam specie: differunt enim per corporeum, et incorporeum, qu\u00e6 sunt\ndifferenti\u00e6 generic\u00e6. Sequitur ergo quod seminationes fact\u00e6 cum aliis\ndifferunt inter se specie, quod est intentum.\n\n\n5. Another proof: in sins against nature, the unnatural semination\n(which cannot be regularly followed by generation) is a genus; but the\nobject of such semination is the difference which marks the species\nunder the genus. Thus, whether semination takes place on the ground,\nor on an inanimate body, it is pollution; if _cum homine in vase\npr\u00e6postero_, it is Sodomy; with a beast, bestiality: crimes which\nunquestionably all differ from each other in species, just as the\nground, the corpse, the man and the beast, passive objects _talis\nseminationis_, differ in species from each other. But the difference\nbetween the Demon and the beast is not only specific, it is more than\nspecific: the nature of the one is corporeal, of the other incorporeal,\nwhich makes a generic difference. Whence it follows that _seminationes_\npractised on different objects differ in species from each other: and\nthat is substantiated.\n\n\n6. Pariter, trita est doctrina Moralistarum fundata in Tridentino,\nsess. 14, c. 5. D. Th. in 4. dist. 16. q. 3. art. 2., Vasquez, q. 91.\nart. 1. dub. 2. n. 6., Reginald. Valenz. Medin. Zerola. Pesant. Sajir.\nSott. Pitig. Henriquez apud Bonac. =de Sac.= disp. 5. q. 5. sect, 2.\npunct. 2. \u00a7 3. diffic. 3. n. 5., et tradita per Theologos, quod in\nconfessione manifestand\u00e6 sint tantum circumstanti\u00e6 qu\u00e6 mutant speciem\npeccatorum. Si igitur D\u00e6monialitas et Bestialitas sunt ejusdem speciei\nspecialissim\u00e6, sufficit in confessione dicere: =Bestialitatis peccatum\ncommisi=, quantumvis confitens cum D\u00e6mone concubuerit. Hoc autem falsum\nest: igitur non sunt ejusdem speciei specialissim\u00e6.\n\n\n6. It is also a trite doctrine with Moralists, established by the\nCouncil of Trent, session 14, and admitted by Theologians, that in\nconfession it suffices to state the circumstances which alter the\nspecies of sins. If therefore Demoniality and Bestiality belonged\nto the same very particular species, it would be enough that, each\ntime he has fornicated with the Demon, the penitent should say to his\nconfessor: _I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality_. But that is\nnot so: therefore those two sins do not both belong to the same very\nparticular species.\n\n\n7. Quod si dicatur, aperiendum esse in confessione circumstantiam\nconcubitus cum D\u00e6mone ratione peccati contra Religionem: peccatum\ncontra Religionem committitur, aut ex cultu, aut ex reverentia, aut ex\ndeprecatione, aut ex pacto, aut ex societate cum D\u00e6mone (D. Thomas, 2.\n2. q. 90. art. 2. et q. 95. art. 4. in corp.); sed, ut infra dicemus,\ndantur Succubi, et Incubi, quibus nullum pr\u00e6dictorum exhibetur, et\ntamen copula sequitur: igitur respectu istorum nulla intervenit\nirreligiositas, et commixtio cum istis nullam habebit rationem\nulteriorem, quam puri et simplicis coitus, qui, si est ejusdem speciei\ncum =Bestialitate=, sufficienter exprimetur dicendo: =Bestialitatem\ncommisi=; quod tamen falsum est.\n\n\n7. It may be urged that if the circumstances of a sensual intercourse\nwith the Demon should be revealed to the Confessor, it is on account of\nits offense against Religion, an offense which comes either from the\nworship rendered to the Demon, or from the homage or prayers offered up\nto him, or from the compact of fellowship entered into with him (_S.\nThomas_, quest. 90). But, as will be seen hereafter, there are Incubi\nand Succubi to whom none of the foregoing applies, and yet _copula\nsequitur_. There is consequently, in that special case, no element of\nirreligion, no other character _quam puri et simplicis coitus_; and, if\nof the same species as _Bestiality_, it would be adequately stated by\nsaying: _I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality_; which is not so.\n\n\n8. Ulterius in confesso est apud omnes Theologos Morales, quod longe\ngravior est copula cum D\u00e6mone, quam cum quolibet bruto; in eadem autem\nspecie specialissima peccati, non datur unum peccatum gravius altero,\nsed omnia \u00e6que gravia sunt; perinde enim est coire cum cane, aut\nasina, aut equa; sequitur ergo, quod si =D\u00e6monialitas= est gravior\nBestialitate, non sint ambo ejusdem speciei. Nec dicendum gravitatem\nmajorem in =D\u00e6monialitate= petendam esse ab irreligiositate, seu\nsuperstitione ex societate cum D\u00e6mone, ut scribit Cajetanus ad 2. 2. q.\n154., ar. 11. \u00a7 ad 3. in fine, quia hoc fallit in aliquibus Succubis\net Incubis, ut supra dictum est; tum quia gravitas major statuitur in\n=D\u00e6monialitate= pr\u00e6 Bestialitate, in genere vitii contra naturam:\nmajor autem gravitas in illa supra istam ratione irreligiositatis\nexorbitat ex illo genere, proinde non facit in illo genere, et ex se\ngraviorem.\n\n\n8. Besides, it is acknowledged by all Theological Moralists that\n_copula cum D\u00e6mone_ is much more grievous than the same act committed\nwith any beast soever. Now, in the same very particular species of\nsins, one sin is not more grievous than another; all are equally so:\nit comes to the same whether connection is had with a bitch, an ass,\nor a mare; whence it follows that if _Demoniality_ is more grievous\nthan Bestiality, those two acts are not of the same species. And let\nit not be argued, with Cajetanus, that _Demoniality_ is more grievous\non account of the offense to religion from the worship rendered to\nthe Demon or the compact of fellowship entered into with him: as has\nbeen shown above, that is not always met with in the connection of man\nwith Incubi and Succubi; moreover, if in the genus of unnatural sin\n_Demoniality_ is more grievous than Bestiality, the offense to Religion\nis quite foreign to that aggravation, since it is foreign to that genus\nitself.\n\n\n9. Statuta igitur differentia specifica =D\u00e6monialitatis= a\nBestialitate, ut gravitas illius percipiatur in ordine ad p\u0153nam de\nqua principaliter nobis tractandum est, est necessarium inquirere\nquotupliciter =D\u00e6monialitas= accidat. Non desunt qui sibi nimis scioli\nnegant quod gravissimi Auctores scripsere, et quod quotidiana constat\nexperientia, D\u00e6monem scilicet tum Incubum, tum Succubum, non solum\nhominibus, sed etiam brutis carnaliter conjungi. Aiunt proinde esse\nhominum imaginationem, phantasmatibus a D\u00e6mone perturbatis l\u00e6sam,\nseu d\u00e6moniaca esse pr\u00e6stigia: sicuti etiam Sag\u00e6, seu Striges, sola\nimaginatione perturbata a D\u00e6mone, sibi videntur assistere ludis,\nchoreis, conviviis, et conventibus nocturnis, et carnaliter D\u00e6moni\ncommisceri; nullo vero reali modo deferuntur corpore ad ejusmodi loca\net actiones, prout textualiter dicitur in quodam Capitulo, ac duobus\nConciliis. =Cap. Episcop. 26.= q. 5., =Conch. Ancyr.= c. 24., =Conc.\nRom. 4. sub Damaso=, c. 5. =apud Laur. Epitom.= v\u00ba =Saga=.\n\n\n9. Now, having laid down the specific difference between _Demoniality_\nand Bestiality, so that the gravity thereof may be duly appreciated in\nview of the penalty to be inflicted (and that is our most essential\nobject), we must inquire in how many different ways the sin of\n_Demoniality_ may be committed. There is no lack of people who,\ninfatuated with their small baggage of knowledge, venture to deny what\nhas been written by the gravest authors and is testified by every day\nexperience: namely, that the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus, unites\ncarnally not only with men and women, but also with beasts. They allege\nthat it all comes from the human imagination troubled by the craft\nof the Demon, and that there is nothing in it but phantasmagoria and\ndiabolical spells. The like happens, they say, to Witches or Sagas,\nwho, under the influence of an illusion brought on by the Demon, fancy\nthat they attend the nightly sports, dances, revels and vigils, and\nhave carnal intercourse with the Demon, though in reality they are not\nbodily transferred to those places nor taking part in those deeds, as\nhas been defined verbatim by a Capitule and two Councils.\n\n\n10. Sed non negatur, quin aliquando muliercul\u00e6, illus\u00e6 a D\u00e6monibus,\nvideantur nocturnis Sagarum ludis corporaliter interesse, dum\ntamen sola imaginaria visione ipsis hoc accidit: sicut etiam in\nsomnis videtur nonnullis cum f\u0153mina aliqua concumbere, et semen\nvere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis est, sed tantum\nphantasticus, paratus non raro per illusionem diabolicam; et in hoc\nverissimum est quod habent citatum Capitulum et Concilia. Sed hoc\nnon semper est; sed ut in pluribus, corpore deferuntur Sag\u00e6 ad ludos\nnocturnos, et vere carnaliter corpore conjunguntur D\u00e6moni, et Malefici\nnon minus D\u00e6moni succubo miscentur, et h\u00e6c est sententia Theologorum,\net jure consultorum Catholicorum, quos abunde citat Frater Franciscus\nMaria Guaccius in suo libro intitulato =Compendium Maleficarum=;\nGrilland. Remig. Petr. Damian. Sylvest. Alphon. a Cast. Abul. Cajet.\nSenon. Crespet. Spine. Anan. apud Guaccium, =Comp. Malef.=, c. =15.\n\u00a7 Altera, quam verissimam ...= n. 69. lib. p.; qu\u00e6 sententia\nconfirmatur decem et octo exemplis, ibidem allatis et relatis per\nviros doctos et veridicos de quorum fide ambigendum non est, quibus\nprobatur Maleficos et Sagas corporaliter ad ludos convenire, et cum\nD\u00e6monibus succubis et incubis corporaliter turpissime commisceri. Et\npro omnibus sufficere debet auctoritas Divi Augustini, qui loquens de\nconcubitu hominum cum D\u00e6monibus, sic ait lib. 15. de =Civitate Dei=, c.\n=23.: \u201cEt quoniam creberrima fama est, multique se expertos, vel ab\neis qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non est, audivisse\nconfirmant, Sylvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo Incubos vocant, improbos\ns\u00e6pe extitisse mulieribus, et earum appetiisse et peregisse concubitum.\nEt quosdam D\u00e6mones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, hanc assidue\nimmunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque asseverant, ut hoc\nnegare impudentia videatur.\u201d= H\u00e6c Augustinus.\n\n\n10. Of course, it is not contested that sometimes young women, deceived\nby the Demon, fancy taking part, in their flesh and blood, in the\nnightly vigils of Witches, without its being any thing but an imaginary\nvision. Thus, in a dream, one sometimes fancies _cum f\u0153mina aliqua\nconcumbere, et semen vere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis\nest_, but merely fantastic, and often brought about by a diabolical\nillusion: and here the above mentioned Capitule and Councils are\nperfectly right. But this is not always the case; on the contrary, it\nmore often happens that Witches are bodily present at nightly vigils\nand have with the Demon a genuine carnal and corporeal connection, and\nthat likewise Wizards copulate with the Succuba or female Demon. Such\nis the opinion of Theologians as well as of jurists, whose names will\nbe found at length in the _Compendium Maleficarum_, or _Chronicle of\nWitches_, by Brother Francis Marie Guaccius. This doctrine is therein\nconfirmed by eighteen instances adduced from the recitals of learned\nand truthful men whose testimony is beyond suspicion, and which prove\nthat Wizards and Witches are indeed bodily present at vigils and most\nshamefully copulate with Demons, Incubi or Succubi. And, after all,\nto settle the question, we have the authority of S. Augustine, who,\nspeaking of carnal intercourse between men and the Demon, expresses\nhimself as follows, book 15^{th}, chapt. 23^d of the _City of God_:\n\u201c_It is widely credited, and such belief is confirmed by the direct\nor indirect testimony of thoroughly trustworthy people, that Sylvans\nand Fauns, commonly called Incubi, have frequently molested women,\nsought and obtained from them coition. There are even Demons, whom\nthe Gauls call Duses or Elfs, who very regularly indulge in those\nunclean practices: the fact is testified by so many and such weighty\nauthorities, that it were impudent to doubt it._\u201d Such are the very\nwords of S. Augustine.\n\n\n11. Prout autem apud diversos Auctores legitur, et pluribus\nexperimentis comprobatur, duplici modo D\u00e6mon hominibus carnaliter\ncopulatur: uno modo quo Maleficis et Sagis jungitur, alio modo quo\naliis hominibus minime maleficis miscetur.\n\n\n11. Now, several authors profess, and it is confirmed by numerous\nexperiments, that the Demon has two ways of copulating carnally with\nmen or women: the one which it uses with Witches or Wizards, the other\nwith men or women entirely foreign to witchcraft.\n\n\n12. Quantum ad primum modum, non copulatur D\u00e6mon Sagis, seu Maleficis,\nnisi pr\u00e6missa solemni professione, qua iniquissimi homines D\u00e6moni\naddicuntur; qu\u00e6 professio, ut ex variis Auctoribus referentibus\nconfessiones Sagarum judiciales in tormentis factas, quas collegit\nFranciscus Maria Guaccius, =Comp. Malef.=, c. 7., lib. 1.,\nconsistit in undecim ceremoniis.\n\n\n12. In the first case, the Demon does not copulate with Witches or\nWizards until after a solemn profession, in virtue of which such\nwretched human beings yield themselves up to him. According to several\nauthors who have related the judicial admissions of Witches when on the\nrack, and whose recitals have been collected by Francis-Marie Guaccius,\n_Compend. Malef.,_ book 1, chapt. 7, that profession consists of eleven\nceremonials:\n\n\n13. Primo, ineunt pactum expressum cum D\u00e6mone, aut alio Mago seu\nMalefico vicem D\u00e6monis gerente, et testibus pr\u00e6sentibus, de servitio\ndiabolico suscipiendo: D\u00e6mon vero vice versa honores, divitias, et\ncarnales delectationes illis pollicetur. =Guacc.= loc. cit. fol.\n34.\n\n\n13. Firstly, the Novices have to conclude with the Demon, or some other\nWizard or Magician acting in the Demon\u2019s place, an express compact\nby which, in the presence of witnesses, they enlist in the Demon\u2019s\nservice, he giving them in exchange his pledge for honours, riches and\ncarnal pleasures.\n\n\n14. Secundo, abnegant catholicam fidem, subducunt se obedienti\u00e6 Dei,\nrenuntiant Christo, et protectioni Beatissim\u00e6 Virginis Mari\u00e6, ac\nEcclesi\u00e6 omnibus sacramentis. =Guacc.=, loc. cit.\n\n\n14. Secondly, they abjure the catholic faith, withdraw from the\nobedience to God, renounce Christ and the protection of the most\nblessed Virgin Mary, and all the Sacraments of the Church.\n\n\n15. Tertio, projiciunt a se Coronam, seu Rosarium B. V. M., Chordam S.\nP. Francisci, aut Corrigiam S. Augustini, aut Scapulare Carmelitarum,\nsi quod habent, Crucem, Medaleas, Agnos Dei, et quidquid sacri aut\nbenedicti gestabant, et pedibus ea proculcant. =Guacc.= loc. cit.\nfol. 35. Grilland.\n\n\n15. Thirdly, they cast away the Crown, or Rosary of the most blessed\nVirgin Mary, the girdle of S. Francis, or the strap of S. Austin, or\nthe scapular of the Carmelites, should they belong to one of those\nOrders, the Cross, the Medals, the _Agnus Dei_, whatever other holy or\nconsecrated object may have been about their person, and trample them\nall under foot.\n\n\n16. Quarto, vovent in manibus Diaboli obedientiam, et subjectionem,\neique pr\u00e6stant homagium et vassallagium, tangendo quoddam volumen\nnigerrimum. Spondent, quod nunquam redibunt ad fidem Christi, nec Dei\npr\u00e6cepta servabunt, nec ulla bona opera facient, sed ad sola mandata\nD\u00e6monis attendent, et ad conventus nocturnos diligenter accedent.\n=Guacc.= loc. cit. fol. 36.\n\n\n16. Fourthly, in the hands of the Devil they vow obedience and\nsubjection; they pay him homage and vassalage, laying their fingers on\nsome very black book. They bind themselves never to return to the faith\nof Christ, to observe none of the divine precepts, to do no good work,\nbut to obey the Demon alone and, to attend diligently the nightly\nconventicles.\n\n\n17. Quinto, spondent se enixe curaturos, et omni studio ac sedulitate\nprocuraturos adducere alios mares et f\u0153minas ad suam sectam, et cultum\nD\u00e6monis. =Guacc.= loc. cit.\n\n\n17. Fifthly, they promise to strive with all their power, and to give\ntheir utmost zeal and care for the enlistment of other males and\nfemales in the service of the Demon.\n\n\n18. Sexto, baptizantur a Diabolo sacrilego quodam baptismo, et\nabnegatis Patrinis et Matrinis baptismi Christi, et Confirmationis,\net nomine, quod sibi fuit primo impositum, a Diabolo sibi assignantur\nPatrinus et Matrina novi, qui ipsos instruant in arte maleficiorum, et\nimponitur nomen novum, quod plerumque scurrile est. =Guacc.= loc.\ncit.\n\n\n18. Sixthly, the Devil administers to them a kind of sacrilegious\nbaptism, and after abjuring their Godfathers and Godmothers of the\nBaptism of Christ and Confirmation, they have assigned to them a new\nGodfather and a new Godmother, who are to instruct them in the arts of\nwitchcraft; they drop their former name and exchange it for another,\nmore frequently a scurrilous nickname.\n\n\n19. Septimo, abscindunt partem propriorum indumentorum, et illam\nofferunt Diabolo in signum homagii, et Diabolus illam asportat, et\nservat. =Guacc.= loc. cit. fol. 38.\n\n\n19. Seventhly, they cut off a part of their own garments, and tender it\nas a token of homage to the Devil, who takes it away and keeps it.\n\n\n20. Octavo, format Diabolus circulum super terram, et in eo stantes\nNovitii Malefici et Sag\u00e6 firmant juramento omnia, qu\u00e6 ut dictum est\npromiserunt. =Guacc.= loc. cit.\n\n\n20. Eighthly, the Devil draws on the ground a circle wherein stand the\nNovices, Witches and Wizards, and there they confirm by oath all their\naforesaid promises.\n\n\n21. Nono, petunt a Diabolo deleri a libro Christi, et describi in\nlibro suo, et profertur liber nigerrimus, quem tetigerunt pr\u00e6stando\nhomagium, ut dictum est supra, et ungue Diaboli in eo exarantur.\n=Guacc.= loc. cit.\n\n\n21. Ninthly, they request the Devil to strike them out of the book of\nChrist, and to inscribe them in his own. Then comes forth that very\nblack book on which, as has been said before, they laid hands when\ndoing homage, and they are inscribed therein with the Devil\u2019s claw.\n\n\n22. Decimo, promittunt Diabolo statis temporibus sacrificia, et\noblationes; singulis quindecim diebus, vel singulo mense saltem, necem\nalicujus infantis, aut mortale veneficium, et singulis hebdomadis alia\nmala in damnum humani generis, ut grandines, tempestates, incendia,\nmortem animalium, etc. =Guacc.= loc. cit. fol. 40.\n\n\n22. Tenthly, they promise the Devil sacrifices and offerings at stated\ntimes: once a fortnight or at least each month, the murder of some\nchild, or an homicidal act of sorcery, and other weekly misdeeds to\nthe prejudice of mankind, such as hailstorms, tempests, fires, cattle\nplagues, etc.\n\n\n23. Undecimo, sigillantur a D\u00e6mone aliquo charactere, maxime ii, de\nquorum constantia dubitat. Character vero non est semper ejusdem\nform\u00e6, aut figur\u00e6: aliquando enim est simile lepori, aliquando pedi\nbufonis, aliquando arane\u00e6, vel catello, vel gliri; imprimitur autem in\nlocis corporeis magis occultis: viris quidem aliquando sub palpebris,\naliquando sub axillis, aut labiis, aut humeris, aut sede ima, aut\nalibi; mulieribus autem plerumque in mammis, aut locis muliebribus.\nPorro sigillum, quo talia signa imprimuntur, est unguis Diaboli.\nQuibus peractis ad instructionem Magistrorum qui Novitios initiarunt,\nhi promittunt denuo, se nunquam Eucharistiam adoraturos; injuriosos\nSanctis omnibus, et maxime B. V. M. futuros; conculcaturos ac\nconspurcaturos Sacras Imagines, Crucem, ac Sanctorum Reliquias; nunquam\nusuros Sacramentis, aut sacramentalibus, nisi ad maleficia; integram\nconfessionem sacramentalem sacerdoti nunquam facturos, et suum cum\nD\u00e6mone commercium semper celaturos. Et Diabolus vicissim pollicetur, se\nillis semper pr\u00e6sto futurum; se in hoc mundo votis eorum satisfacturum,\net post mortem illos esse beaturum. Sic peracta professione solemni,\nassignatur singulis eorum Diabolus, qui appellatur =Magistellus=, cum\nquo in partes secedunt, et carnaliter commiscentur: ille quidem in\nspecie f\u0153min\u00e6, si initiatus est vir; in forma autem viri, et aliquando\nsatyri, aliquando hirci, si f\u0153mina est saga professa. =Guacc.= loc.\ncit. fol. 42 et 43.\n\n\n23. Eleventhly, the Demon imprints on them some mark, especially on\nthose whose constancy he suspects. That mark, moreover, is not always\nof the same shape or figure: sometimes it is the image of a hare,\nsometimes a toad\u2019s leg, sometimes a spider, a puppy, a dormouse. It is\nimprinted on the most hidden parts of the body: with men, under the\neye-lids, or the armpits, or the lips, on the shoulder, the fundament,\nor somewhere else; with women, it is usually on the breasts or the\nprivy parts. Now, the stamp which imprints those marks is none other\nbut the Devil\u2019s claw. This having been all performed in accordance\nwith the instructions of the Teachers who have initiated the Novices,\nthese promise lastly never to worship the Eucharist; to insult all\nSaints and especially the most blessed Virgin Mary; to trample under\nfoot and vilify the holy images, the Cross and the relics of Saints;\nnever to use the sacraments or sacramental ceremonials; never to make\na full confession to the priest, but to keep always hidden from him\ntheir intercourse with the Demon. The Demon, in exchange, engages to\ngive them always prompt assistance; to fulfil their desires in this\nworld and to make them happy after their death. The solemn profession\nbeing thus performed, each has assigned to himself a Devil, called\n_Magistellus_ or Assistant Master, with whom he retires in private for\ncarnal satisfaction; the said Devil being, of course, in the shape\nof a woman if the initiated person is a man, in the shape of a man,\nsometimes of a satyr, sometimes of a buck-goat, if it is a woman who\nhas been received a witch.\n\n\n24. Quod si qu\u00e6ratur ab Auctoribus, quomodo possit D\u00e6mon, qui corpus\nnon habet, corporalem commixtionem habere cum homine: respondent\ncommuniter, quod D\u00e6mon aut assumit alterius maris aut f\u0153min\u00e6, juxta\nexigentiam, cadaver, aut ex mixtione aliarum materiarum effingit sibi\ncorpus, quod movet, et mediante quo homini unitur. Et subdunt, quod\nquando f\u0153min\u00e6 gaudent impr\u00e6gnari a D\u00e6mone (quod non fit, nisi in\ngratiam f\u0153minarum hoc optantium), D\u00e6mon se transformat in succubam,\net juncta homini semen ab eo recipit; aut per illusionem nocturnam in\nsomnis procurat ab homine pollutionem, et semen prolectum in suo nativo\ncalore et cum vitali spiritu conservat, et incubando f\u0153min\u00e6 infert\nin ipsius matricem, ex quo sequitur conceptio. Ita multis citatis\ndocet Guaccius, l. i. c. 12., per totum, qui pr\u00e6dicta multis exemplis\ndesumptis a variis Doctoribus confirmat.\n\n\n24. If the authors be asked how it comes to pass that the Demon,\nwho has no body, yet has carnal intercourse with man or woman, they\nunanimously answer that the Demon assumes the corpse of another human\nbeing, male or female as the case may be, or that, from the mixture of\nother materials, he shapes for himself a body endowed with motion, and\nby means of which he is united with the human being; and they add that\nwhen women are desirous of becoming pregnant by the Demon (which only\noccurs by the consent and express wish of the said women), the Demon\nis transformed into a Succuba, _et juncta homini semen ab eo recipit_;\nor else he procures pollution from a man during his sleep, _et semen\nprolectum in suo nativo calore, et cum vitali spiritu conservat,\net incubando f\u0153min\u00e6 infert in ipsius matricem_, whence follows\nimpregnation. Such is the teaching of Guaccius, book 1, chapt. 12, who\nsupports it on a number of quotations and instances taken from various\nDoctors.\n\n\n25. Alio modo jungitur D\u00e6mon tum Incubus, tum Succubus, hominibus,\nf\u0153minis aut maribus, a quibus nec honorem, nec sacrificia, oblationes,\nmaleficia, qu\u00e6 a Sagis et Maleficis, ut supra dictum est, pr\u00e6tendit,\nrecipit; sed ostendens deperdite amorem, nil aliud appetit, quam\ncarnaliter commisceri cum iis quos amat. Multa sunt de hoc exempla,\nqu\u00e6 ab Auctoribus referuntur, ut Menippi Lycii, qui fuit sollicitatus\na quadam f\u0153mina ad sibi nubendum, postquam cum ea multoties coivit;\net detecta f\u0153mina qu\u00e6nam esset a quodam Philosopho, qui convivio\nnuptiali intererat, et Menippo dixit illam esse =Compusam=, puta\nD\u00e6monem succubam, statim ejulans evanuit, ut narrat C\u0153lius Rhodiginus,\n=Antiq.=, lib. 29. c. 5. Pariter adolescens quidam Scotus a D\u00e6mone\nsuccuba omnium gratissima, quas vidisset, forma, qu\u00e6 occlusis cubiculi\nforibus ad se ventitabat, blanditiis, osculis, amplexibus per multos\nmenses fuit sollicitatus, ut secum coiret, ut scribit Hector Boethius,\n=Hist. Scotor.= lib. 8., quod tamen a casto juvene obtinere non\npotuit.=\n\n\n25. At other times also the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus,\ncopulates with men or women from whom he receives none of the\nsacrifices, homage or offerings which he is wont to exact from Wizards\nor Witches, as aforesaid. He is then but a passionate lover, having\nonly one desire: the carnal possession of the loved ones. Of this\nthere are numerous instances to be found in the authors, amongst\nwhich the case of Menippus Lycius, who, after frequent coition with a\nwoman, was by her entreated to marry her; but a certain philosopher,\nwho partook of the wedding entertainment, having guessed what that\nwoman was, told Menippus that he had to deal with a _Compusa_, that\nis a Succuba Demon; whereupon the bride vanished bewailing: such is\nthe narrative given by C\u0153lius Rhodiginus, _Antiq._, book 29, chapt.\n5. Hector Boethius (_Hist. Scot._) also relates the case of a young\nScot, who, during many months, with closed doors and windows, was\nvisited in his bed-room by a Succuba Demon of the most bewitching\nbeauty; caresses, kisses, embraces, entreaties, she resorted to every\nblandishment _ut secum coiret_: but she could not prevail on the chaste\nyoung man.\n\n\n26. Similiter, multas f\u0153minas legimus ab Incubo D\u00e6mone expetitas ad\ncoitum, ipsisque repugnantibus facinus admittere, precibus, fletibus,\nblanditiis, non secus ac perditissimus amasius, procurasse animum\nipsarum demulcere, et ad congressum inclinare; et quamvis aliquoties\nhoc eveniat ob maleficium, ut nempe D\u00e6mon missus a maleficis hoc\nprocuret: tamen non raro D\u00e6mon ex se hoc agit, ut scribit Guaccius,\n=Comp. Mal.= lib. 3. c. 8., et non solum hoc evenit cum mulieribus,\nsed etiam cum equabus, cum quibus commiscetur; qu\u00e6 si libenter coitum\nadmittunt, ab eo curantur optime, ac ipsarum jub\u00e6 varie artificiosis\net inextricabilibus nodis texuntur; si autem illum adversentur, eas\nmale tractat, percutit, macras reddit, et tandem necat, ut quotidiana\nconstat experientia.\n\n\n26. We read likewise of numerous women incited to coition by the\nIncubus Demon, and who, though reluctant at first of yielding to\nhim, are soon moved by his entreaties, tears and endearments; he is\na desperate lover and must not be denied. And although this comes\nsometimes of the craft of some Wizard who avails himself of the agency\nof the Demon, yet the Demon not infrequently acts on his own account;\nand it happens not merely with women, but also with mares; if they\nreadily comply with his desire, he pets them, and plaits their mane in\nelaborate and inextricable tresses; but if they resist, he ill-treats\nand strikes them, smites them with the glanders, and finally puts them\nto death, as is shown by daily experience.\n\n\n27. Et quod mirum est, et pene incapabile, tales Incubi, qui Italice\nvocantur =Folletti=, Hispanice =Duendes=, Gallice =Follets=, nec\nExorcistis obediunt, nec exorcismos pavent, nec res sacras reverentur\nad earum approximationem timorem ostendendo, sicuti faciunt D\u00e6mones,\nqui obsessos vexant; quantumvis enim maligni Spiritus sint obstinati,\nnec parere velint Exorcist\u00e6 pr\u00e6cipienti, ut exeant a corporibus qu\u00e6\nobsident, tamen ad prolationem Sanctissimi Nominis Jesu, aut Mari\u00e6, aut\naliquorum versuum Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6, impositionem Reliquiarum, maxime\nLigni Sanct\u00e6 Crucis, approximationem Sacrarum Imaginum, ad os obsessi\nrugiunt, strident, frendent, concutiuntur, et timorem ac horrorem\nostendunt. Folletti vero nihil horum, ut dictum est, ostendunt, nec\na divexatione, nisi post longum tempus, cessant. Hujus rei testis\nsum oculatus, et historiam recito qu\u00e6 reipsa humanam fidem superat:\nsed testis mihi sit Deus quod puram veritatem multorum testimonio\ncomprobatam describo.\n\n\n27. A most marvellous and well nigh incomprehensible fact: the Incubi\nwhom the Italians call _Folletti_, the Spaniards _Duendes_, the French\n_Follets_, do not obey the Exorcists, have no dread of exorcisms, no\nreverence for holy things, at the approach of which they are not in the\nleast overawed; very different in that respect from the Demons who vex\nthose whom they possess; for, however obstinate those evil Spirits may\nbe, however restive to the injunctions of the Exorcist who bids them\nleave the body they possess, yet, at the mere utterance of the most\nholy name of Jesus or Mary, or of some verses of Holy Writ, at the mere\nimposition of relics, especially of a piece of the wood of the Holy\nCross, or the sight of the holy images, they roar at the mouth of the\npossessed person, they gnash, shake, quiver, and display fright and\nawe. But the Folletti show none of those signs, and leave off their\nvexations but after a long space of time. Of this I was an eye-witness,\nand shall relate a story which verily passes human belief: but I take\nGod to witness that I tell the precise truth, corroborated by the\ntestimony of numerous persons.\n\n\n28. Viginti quinque abhinc annis, plus minusve, dum essem Lector\nSacr\u00e6 Theologi\u00e6 in Conventu Sanct\u00e6 Crucis Papi\u00e6, reperiebatur in illa\ncivitate honesta qu\u00e6dam f\u0153mina maritata optim\u00e6 conscienti\u00e6, et bonum\nhabens ab omnibus eam agnoscentibus, maxime Religiosis, testimonium,\nqu\u00e6 vocabatur Hieronyma; et habitabat in parochia Sancti Michaelis. H\u00e6c\nquadam die domi su\u00e6 panem pinserat, et per furnarium miserat ad illum\ndecoquendum. Reportat panes coctos furnarius, et cum illis grandem\nquamdam placentam curiose elaboratam, conditam butyro, et pastulis\nVenetis, ut in ea civitate solent fieri placent\u00e6 hujusmodi. Renuit illa\nplacentam recipere, dicens se talem nullam fecisse. Replicat furnarius,\nse illa die alium panem coquendum non habuisse, nisi illum quem ab ea\nhabuerat; oportere proinde, etiam placentam a se fuisse factam, licet\nminime de illa recordaretur. Acquievit f\u0153mina, et placentam cum viro\nsuo, filia quam habebat triennem, et famula comedit. Sequenti nocte\ndum cubaret mulier cum viro suo, et ambo dormirent, expergefacta est\na quadam tenuissima voce, velut acutissimi sibili ad ipsius aures\nsusurrante, verbis tamen distinctis: interrogavit autem f\u0153minam, =num\nplacenta illi placuisset?= Pavens f\u0153mina c\u0153pit se munire signo Crucis,\net invocare s\u00e6pius nomina Jesu et Mari\u00e6. Replicabat vox, ne paveret,\nse nolle illi nocere, immo qu\u00e6cumque illi placerent paratum exsequi,\nesse filo captum pulchritudinis su\u00e6, et nil amplius desiderare, quam\nejus amplexu frui. Tum f\u0153mina sensit aliquem suaviantem ipsius genas,\nsed tactus ita levis, ac mollis, ac si esset gossipium subtilissime\ncarminatum id a quo tacta fuit. Respuit illa invitantem, nec ullum\nresponsum illi dedit: sed jugiter nomen Jesu et Mari\u00e6 repetebat, et se\nCrucis signo muniebat; et sic per spatium quasi hor\u00e6 dimidi\u00e6 tentata\nfuit, et postea abscessit tentator.\n\nSequenti mane fuit mulier ad confessarium virum prudentem ac doctum,\na quo fuit in fide confirmata et exhortata, ut viriliter, sicut\nfecerat, resisteret, et sacris Reliquiis se muniret. Sequentibus\nnoctibus par priori fuit tentatio, et verbis, et osculis, et par etiam\nin muliere constantia. H\u00e6c pert\u00e6sa talem ac tantam molestiam, ad\nConfessarii consultationem, et aliorum gravium virorum, per Exorcistas\nperitos fecit se exorcizare ad sciendum num esset obsessa; et cum\ninvenissent a nullo malo spiritu possideri, benedixerunt domui,\ncubiculo, lecto, et pr\u00e6ceptum Incubo fecerunt, ne auderet molestiam\namplius mulieri inferre. Sed omnia incassum: siquidem tentationem\ninceptam prosequebatur, ac si pr\u00e6 amore langueret, ploratus et ejulatus\nemittebat ad mulierem demulcendam, qu\u00e6 tamen gratia Die adjuta semper\nviriliter restitit. Renovavit Incubus tentationem, ipsi apparens\ninterdiu in forma pusionis, seu parvi homunculi pulcherrimi, c\u00e6sariem\nhabens rutilam et crispam, barbamque fulvam ac splendentem velut\naurum, glaucosque oculos, ut flos lini, incedebatque indutus habitu\nHispanico. Apparebat autem illi quamvis cum ea alii morarentur; et\nquestus, prout faciunt amantes, exercens, et jactando basia, solitasque\npreces repetendo tentabat mulierem, ut ad illius amplexus admitteretur.\nVidebatque, et audiebat illa sola pr\u00e6sentem ac loquentem, minime autem\nc\u00e6teri adstantes.\n\nPerseverabat in illa constantia mulier, donec contra eam iratus\nIncubus, post aliquos menses blanditiarum novum persecutionis genus\nadortus est. Primo abstulit ab ea crucem argenteam plenam Reliquiis\nSanctorum, et ceram benedictam, sive Agnum papalem B. Pontificis Pii\nV, qu\u00e6 secum semper portabat; mox etiam annulos et alia jocalia aura\net argentea ipsius, intactis seris sub quibus custodiebantur, in arca\nsuffuratus est. Exinde c\u0153pit illam acriter percutere, et apparebant\npost verbera contusiones, et livores in facie, brachiis, aliisque\ncorporis partibus, qu\u00e6 per diem unum vel alterum perdurabant, mox in\nmomento disparebant contra ordinem contusionis naturalis, qu\u00e6 sensim\npaulatimque decrescit. Aliquoties ipsius infantulam lactentem cunis\neripiebat, et illam, nunc super tecta in limine pr\u00e6cipitii locabat,\nnunc occultabat, nihil tamen mali in illa apparuit. Aliquoties totam\ndomus supellectilem evertebat; aliquoties ollas, paropsides, et alia\nvasa testea minutatim frangebat, subinde fracta restituebat integra.\nSemel dum ipsa cum viro cubaret, apparens Incubus in forma solita\nenixe deprecabatur ab ea concubitum, et dum ipsa de more constans\nresisteret, in furorem actus Incubus abscessit, et infra breve temporis\nspatium reversus est, secum ferens magnam copiam laminarum saxearum,\nquibus Genuenses in civitate sua et universa Liguria domos tegunt,\net ex ipsis fabricavit murum circa lectum tant\u00e6 altitudinis, ut ejus\nconopeum ad\u00e6quaret, unde necesse fuit scalis uti, si debuerunt de\ncubili surgere. Murus autem fuit absque calce, et ipso destructo, saxa\nin angulo seposita, qu\u00e6 ibi per duos dies remanserunt visa a multis,\nqui ad spectaculum convenerant; et post biduum disparuerunt.\n\nInvitaverat maritus ejus in die S. Stephani quosdam amicos viros\nmilitares ad prandium, et pro hospitum dignitate dapes paraverat; dum\nde more lavantur manus ante accubitum, disparet in momento mensa parata\nin triclinio; disparent obsonia cuncta, olla, caldaria, patin\u00e6, ac\nomnia vasa in coquina; disparent amphor\u00e6, canthari, calices parati ad\npotum. Attoniti ad hoc stupent commensales, qui erant octo, inter quos\nDux peditum Hispanus ad alios conversus ait: \u201cNe paveatis, ista est\nillusio, sed pro certo mensa in loco in quo erat, adhuc est, et modo\nmodo eam tactu percipiam.\u201d Hisque dictis circuibat c\u0153naculum manibus\nextentis, tentans mensam deprehendere, sed cum post multos circuitus\nincassum laborasset, et nil pr\u00e6ter aerem tangeret, irrisus fuit a\nc\u00e6teris; cumque jam grandis esset prandii hora, pallium proprium eorum\nunusquisque sumpsit propriam domum petiturus. Jam erant omnes prope\njanuam domus in procinctu eundi, associati a marito vexat\u00e6 mulieris,\nurbanitatis causa, cum grandem quendam strepitum in c\u0153naculo audiunt.\nSubsistunt parumper ad cognoscendum causam strepitus, et accurrens\nfamula nuntiat in coquina vasa nova obsoniis plena apparuisse,\nmensamque in c\u0153naculo jam paratam esse restitutam. Revertuntur in\nc\u0153naculum, et stupent mensam mappis et manutergiis insolitis, salino,\net lancibus insolitis argenteis, salsamentis, ac obsoniis, qu\u00e6 domi\nparata non fuerant, instructam. A latere magna erecta erat credentia,\nsupra quam optimo ordine stabant calices crystallinis, argentini et\naurei, cum variis amphoris, lagenis, cantharis plenis vinis exteris,\nputa Cretensi, Campano, Canariensi, Rhenano, etc. In coquina pariter\nin ollis, et vasis itidem in ea domo nunquam visis, varia obsonia.\nDubitarunt prius nonnulli ex iis eas dapes gustare, sed confirmati\nab aliis accubuerunt, et exquisitissime omnia condita repererunt;\nac immediate a prandio, dum omnes pro usu illius tempores ad ignem\nsedent, omnia ustensilia cum reliquiis ciborum disparuere, et repert\u00e6\nsunt antiqu\u00e6 domus supellectiles simul cum dapibus, qu\u00e6 prius parat\u00e6\nfuerant; et quod mirum est, conviv\u00e6 omnes saturati sunt, ita ut nullus\neorum c\u0153nam sumpserit pr\u00e6 prandii lautitia. Quo convincitur cibos\nappositos reales fuisse, et non ex pr\u00e6stigio repr\u00e6sentatos.\n\nInterea effluxerant multi menses, ex quos c\u0153perat hujusmodi persecutio:\net mulier votum fecit B. Bernardino Feltrensi, cujus sacrum corpus\nveneratur in Ecclesia S. Jacobi prope murum illius urbis, incedendi\nper annum integrum indutam panno griseo, et chordulato, quo utuntur\nFratres Minores, de quorum ordine fuit B. Bernardinus, ut per ipsius\npatrocinium a tanta Incubi vexatione liberaretur. Et de facto die 28\nSeptembris, qui est pervigilium Dedicationis S. Michaelis Archangeli,\net festum B. Bernardini, ipsa veste votiva induta est. Mane sequenti,\nquod est festum S. Michaelis, ibat vexata ad ecclesiam S. Michaelis,\nqu\u00e6 ut diximus erat parochialis ipsius, circa medium mane, dum frequens\npopulus ad illam confluebat; et cum pervenisset ad medium plate\u00e6\necclesi\u00e6, omnia ipsius indumenta et ornamenta ceciderunt in terram et\nrapta vento statim disparuerunt, ipsa relicta nuda. Adfuerunt sorte\ninter alios duo equites viri long\u00e6vi, qui factum videntes, dejectis ab\nhumero propriis palliis mulieris nuditatem, ut potuerunt, velarunt,\net rhed\u00e6 impositam ad propriam domum duxerunt. Vestes et jocalia qu\u00e6\nrapuerat Incubus, non restituit nisi post sex menses.\n\nMulta alia, et quidem stupenda operatus est contra eam Incubus, qu\u00e6\nt\u00e6det exscribere, et per multos annos in ea tentatione permansit;\ntandemque Incubus videns operam in ea perdere, destitit a tam importuna\net insolita vexatione.\n\n\n28. About twenty five years ago, when I was a lecturer on Sacred\nTheology in the convent of the Holy Cross, in Pavia, there was living\nin that city a married woman of unimpeachable morality, and who was\nmost highly spoken of by all such as knew her, especially by the\nFriars; her name was Hieronyma, and she lived in the parish of S.\nMichael. One day, this woman had kneaded bread at home and given it out\nto bake. The oven-man brought her back her loaves when baked, and with\nthem a large cake of a peculiar shape, and made of butter and Venetian\npaste, as is usual in that city. She declined to take it in, saying\nshe had not made any thing of the kind.--\u201cBut\u201d, said the oven-man, \u201cI\nhad no other bread but yours to bake to-day, therefore this cake also\nmust have come from your house; your memory is at fault\u201d. The good\nlady allowed herself to be persuaded, and partook of the cake with\nher husband, her little girl three years old, and the house servant.\nThe next night, whilst in bed with her husband, and both asleep, she\nsuddenly woke up at the sound of a very slender voice, something like\na shrill hissing, whispering in her ears, yet with great distinctness,\nand inquiring whether \u201cthe cake had been to her taste?\u201d The good lady,\nfrightened, set about guarding herself with a sign of the cross and\nrepeatedly calling the names of Jesus and Mary. \u201cBe not afraid,\u201d said\nthe voice, \u201cI mean you no harm; quite, the reverse: I am prepared to\ndo any thing to please you; I am captivated by your beauty, and desire\nnothing more than to enjoy your embraces\u201d. And she felt somebody\nkissing her cheeks, so lightly, so softly, that she might have fancied\nbeing grazed by the finest down. She resisted without giving any\nanswer, merely repeating over and over again the names of Jesus and\nMary, and crossing herself; the tempter kept on thus for nearly half an\nhour, when he withdrew.\n\nThe next morning the dame called on her Confessor, a discreet and\nlearned man, who confirmed her in her faith, exhorted her to maintain\nher energetic resistance and to provide herself with some holy relics.\nOn the ensuing nights, like temptation with the same language and\nkisses, like constancy also on the part of the woman. Weary however\nof such painful and persistent molestation, taking the advice of\nher Confessor and other grave men, she had herself exorcised by\nexperienced Exorcists, in order to ascertain whether perchance she was\nnot possessed. Having found in her no trace of the evil Spirit, they\nblessed the house, the bed-room, the bed, and enjoined on the Incubus\nto discontinue his molestations. All to no purpose: he kept on worse\nthan ever, pretending to be love-sick, weeping and moaning in order to\nmelt the heart of the lady, who however, by the grace of God, remained\nunconquered. The Incubus then went another way to work: he appeared in\nthe shape of a lad or little man of great beauty, with golden locks, a\nflaxen beard that shone like gold, sea-green eyes calling to mind the\nflax-flower, and arrayed in a fancy Spanish dress. Besides he appeared\nto her even when in company, whimpering, after the fashion of lovers,\nkissing his hand to her, and endeavouring by every means to obtain her\nembraces. She alone saw and heard him: for every body else, he was not\nto be seen.\n\nThe good lady kept persevering in her admirable constancy till, at\nlast, after some months of courting, the Incubus, incensed at her\ndisdain, had recourse to a new kind of persecution. First, he took away\nfrom her a silver cross filled with holy relics, and a holy wax or\npapal lamb of the blessed Pontiff Pius V, which she always carried on\nher person; then, leaving the locks untouched, he purloined her rings\nand other gold and silver jewelry from the casket wherein they were\nput away. Next, he began to strike her cruelly, and after each beating\nbruises and marks were to be seen on her face, her arms or other parts\nof her body, which lasted a day or two, then suddenly disappeared,\nthe reverse of natural bruises which decrease slowly and by degrees.\nSometimes, while she was nursing her little girl, he would snatch the\nchild away from on her breast and lay it upon the roof, on the edge\nof the gutter, or hide it, but without ever harming it. Sometimes he\nwould upset all the furniture, or smash to pieces saucepans, plates\nand other earthenware which, in the twinkling of an eye, he restored\nto their former state. One night that she was lying with her husband,\nthe Incubus, appearing in his customary shape, vehemently urged his\ndemand which she resisted as usual. The Incubus withdrew in a rage,\nand shortly came back with a large load of those flag stones which the\nGenoese, and the inhabitants of Liguria in general, use for roofing\ntheir houses. With those stones he built around the bed a wall so high\nthat it reached the tester, and that the couple could not leave their\nbed without using a ladder. This wall however was built up without\nlime; when pulled down, the flags were laid by in a corner where,\nduring two days, they were seen by many who came to look at them; they\nthen disappeared.\n\nOn S. Stephen\u2019s day, the husband had asked some military friends to\ndinner, and, to do honour to his guests, had provided a substantial\nrepast. Whilst they were, as customary, washing their hands before\ntaking their seats, suddenly vanished the table dressed in the\ndining-room; all the dishes, saucepans, kettles, plates and crockery\nin the kitchen vanished likewise, as well as the jugs, bottles and\nglasses. You may imagine the surprise, the stupor of the guests, eight\nin number; amongst them was a Spanish Captain of infantry, who,\naddressing the company, said to them: \u201cDo not be frightened, it is but\na trick: the table is certainly still where it stood, and I shall soon\nfind it by feeling for it\u201d. Having thus spoken, he paced round the room\nwith outstretched arms, endeavouring to lay hold of the table; but\nwhen, after many circuitous perambulations, it was apparent that he\nlaboured in vain and grasped at nought but thin air, he was laughed at\nby his friends; and it being already high time for having dinner, each\nguest took up his cloak and set about to return home. They had already\nreached the street-door with the husband, who, out of politeness, was\nattending them, when they heard a great noise in the dining-room: they\nstood to ascertain the cause thereof, and presently the servant came up\nto announce that the kitchen was stocked with new vessels filled with\nfood, and that the table was standing again in its former place. Having\ngone back to the dining-room, they were stupefied to see the table\nwas laid, with cloths, napkins, salt-cellars, and trays that did not\nbelong to the house, and with food which had not been cooked there. On\na large sideboard all were arrayed in perfect order crystal, silver and\ngold chalices, with all kind of amphoras, decanters and cups filled\nwith foreign wines, from the Isle of Crete, Campania, the Canaries,\nthe Rhine, etc. In the kitchen there was also an abundant variety of\nmeats in saucepans and dishes that had never been seen there before. At\nfirst, some of the guests hesitated whether they should taste of that\nfood; however, encouraged by others, they sat down, and soon partook of\nthe meal, which was found exquisite. Immediately afterwards, as they\nwere sitting before a seasonable fire, every thing vanished at once,\nthe dishes and the leavings, and in their stead reappeared the cloth of\nthe house and the victual which had been previously cooked; but, for a\nwonder, all the guests were satisfied, so that no one thought of supper\nafter such a magnificent dinner. A clear proof that the substituted\nviands were real and nowise fictitious.\n\nThis kind of persecution had been going on some months, when the\nlady betook herself to the blessed Bernardine of Feltri, whose body\nis worshipped in the church of St James, a short distance from the\nwalls of the city. She made a vow to him that she would wear, during a\nwhole twelve-month, a grey frock, tied round her waist with a piece of\ncord, and such as is worn by the Minor Brethren, the order to which\nhad belonged the blessed Bernardine; this she vowed, in the hope of\nbeing, through his intercession, at last rid of the persecution of the\nIncubus. And accordingly, on the 28^{th} of September, the vigil of the\nDedication of the Archangel S. Michael, and the festival of the blessed\nBernardine, she assumed the votive robe. The next morning, which was S.\nMichael\u2019s festival, the afflicted woman proceeded to the church of St\nMichael, her own parish, already mentioned; it was about ten o\u2019clock, a\ntime when a crowd of people were going to mass. She had no sooner set\nfoot on the threshold of the church, than her clothes and ornaments\nfell off to the ground, and disappeared in a gust of wind, leaving\nher stark naked. There happened fortunately to be among the crowd two\ncavaliers of mature age, who, seeing what had taken place, hastened to\ndivest themselves of their cloaks with which they concealed, as well\nas they could, the woman\u2019s nudity, and having put her into a vehicle,\naccompanied her home. The clothes and trinkets taken by the Incubus\nwere not restored by him before six months had elapsed.\n\nI might relate many other most surprising tricks which that Incubus\nplayed on her, were it not wearisome. Suffice it to say that, for\na number of years he persevered in his temptation of her, but that\nfinding at last that he was losing his pains, he desisted from his\nvexatious importunities.\n\n\n29. In hoc casu, et similibus qui passim audiuntur et leguntur,\nIncubus ad nullum actum contra Religionem tentat, sed solum contra\ncastitatem. Hinc fit quod ipsi consentiens non peccat irreligiositate,\nsed incontinentia.\n\n\n29. In the above case, as well as in others that may be heard or read\nof occasionally, the Incubus attempts no act against Religion; he\nmerely assails chastity. In consequence, consent is not a sin through\nungodliness, but through incontinence.\n\n\n30. In confesso autem est apud Theologos et Philosophos, quod ex\ncommixtione hominis cum D\u00e6mone aliquoties nascuntur homines, et\ntali modo nasciturum esse Antichristum opinantur nonnulli Doctores:\nBellarm. lib. 1, de Rom. Pont., cap. 12; Suarez, tom. 2, disp. 54,\nsec. 1.; Maluend., de =Antichr.=, l. 2., c. 8. Immo observant, quod,\nqui gignuntur ab hujusmodi Incubis, naturali causa etiam evenit,\nut nascantur grandes, robustissimi, ferocissimi, superbissimi, ac\nnequissimi, ut scripsit Maluenda, =loc. cit.=, =\u00a7 Ad illud=; et hujus\nrationem recitat ex Vallesio Archia. Reggio. =Sac. Philosoph.=,\nc. 8., dicente quod Incubi =summittant in uteros non qualecumque,\nneque quantumcumque semen, sed plurimum, crassissimum, calidissimum,\nspiritibus affluens et seri expers. Id vero est eis facile conquirere,\ndeligendo homines calidos, robustos, et abondantes multo semine, quibus\nsuccumbant, deinde et mulieres tales, quibus incumbant, atque utrisque\nvoluptatem solito majorem afferendo, tanto enim abundantius emittitur\nsemen, quanto cum majori voluptate excernitur.= H\u00e6c Vallesius.\nConfirmat vero Maluenda supradicta, probando, ex variis et classicis\nAuctoribus, ex hujusmodi concubitu natos: Romulum ac Remum, Liv. decad.\n1; Plutarch., =in Vit. Romul. et Parallel.=; Servium Tullium, sextum\nregem Romanorum, Dionys. Halicar., lib. 4, Plin., lib. 36., c. 27;\nPlatonem Philosophum, Laer. l. 9. =de Vit. Philos.=; D. Hyeron., =l. 1.\nControvers. Jovinian.=; Alexandrum Magnum, Plutarch., =in Vit. Alex.\nM.=; Quint. Curt., l. 4, =de Gest. Alex. M.=; Seleucum, regem Syri\u00e6,\nJust., =Hist.=, l. 15; Appian., =in Syriac.=; Scipionem Africanum\nMajorem, Liv., decad. 3, lib. 6; C\u00e6sarem Augustum Imperatorem, Sueton.,\n=in Octa.=, c. 94; Aristomenem Messenium, strenuissimum ducem Gr\u00e6corum,\nStrabo, =de Sit. Orb.=, lib. 8; Pausan., =de Rebus Gr\u00e6cor.=, lib. 3;\net Merlinum, seu Melchinum Anglicum ex Incubo et Filia Caroli Magni\nMoniali, Hauller, volum. 2, Generat. 7, quod etiam de Martino Luthero,\nperditissimo Heresiarcha scribit Cochl\u00e6us apud Maluendam, =de Antich.=,\nlib. 2, c. 6, =\u00a7 C\u00e6terum=.\n\n\n30. Now, it is undoubted by Theologians and philosophers that carnal\nintercourse between mankind and the Demon sometimes gives birth to\nhuman beings; that is how is to be born the Antichrist, according to\nsome Doctors, such as Bellarmin, Suarez, Maluenda, etc. They further\nobserve that, from a natural cause, the children thus begotten by\nIncubi are tall, very hardy and bold, very proud and wicked. Thus\nwrites Maluenda; as for the cause, he gives it from Vallesius,\nArchphysician in Reggio: \u201cWhat Incubi introduce _in uteros_, is not\n_qualecumque neque quantumcumque semen_, but abundant, very thick,\nvery warm, rich in spirits and free from serosity. This moreover is\nan easy thing for them, since they have but to choose ardent, robust\nmen, _et abundantes multo semine, quibus succumbant_, and then women of\na like constitution, _quibus incumbant_, taking care that both shall\nenjoy _voluptatem solito majorem, tanto enim abundantius emittitur\nsemen, quanto cum majori voluptate excernitur_.\u201d Those are the words\nof Vallesius, confirmed by Maluenda who shows, from the testimony\nof various Authors, mostly classical, that such associations gave\nbirth to: Romulus and Remus, according to _Livy_ and _Plutarch_;\nServius-Tullius, the sixth king of Rome, according to _Dyonisius of\nHalicarnassus_ and _Pliny the Elder_; Plato the Philosopher, according\nto _Diogenes Laertius_ and _Saint Hieronymus_; Alexander the Great,\naccording to _Plutarch_ and _Quintus-Curtius_; Seleucus, king of\nSyria, according to _Justinus_ and _Appianus_; Scipio Africanus the\nElder, according to _Livy_; the emperor C\u00e6sar Augustus, according\nto _Suetonius_; Aristomenes the Messenian, an illustrious Greek\ncommander, according to _Strabo_ and _Pausanias_; as also Merlin or\nMelchin the Englishman, born from an Incubus and a nun, the daughter of\nCharlemagne; and, lastly, as shown by the writings of _Cochl\u00e6us_ quoted\nby _Maluenda_, that damned Heresiarch ycleped Martin Luther.\n\n\n31. Salva tamen tot, et tantorum Doctorum, qui in ea opinione\nconveniunt, reverentia, non video, quomodo ipsorum sententia possit\nsubsistere; tum quia, ut optime opinatur Pererius, tom. 2, in =Genes.=,\ncap. 6, disp. 5, tota vis et efficacia humani seminis consistit\nin spiritibus, qui difflantur, et evanescunt statim ac sunt extra\ngenitalia vasa, a quibus foventur et conservantur, ut scribunt Medici.\nNequit proinde D\u00e6mon semen acceptum conservare, ita ut aptum sit\ngenerationi, quia vas, quodcumque sit illud, in quo semen conservare\ntentaret, oporteret quod caleret calore assimetro a nativo organorum\nhuman\u00e6 generationis; similarem enim a nullo alio pr\u00e6terquam ab organis\nipsis habere potest generatio. Tum quia generatio actus vitalis est,\nper quem homo generans de propria substantia semen defert per organa\nnaturalia ad locum generationi congruentem. In casu autem delatio\nseminis non potest esse actus vitalis hominis generantis, quia ab eo\nnon infertur in matricem; proinde nec dici potest, quod homo eujus\nest semen, generet f\u0153tum, qui ex eo nascitur. Neque Incubus ipsius\npater dici potest; quia de ipsius substantia semen non est. Hinc\nfiet, quod nascetur homo, cujus nemo pater sit, quod est incongruum.\nTum quia in patre naturaliter generante duplex causalitas concurrit,\nnempe materialis, quia semen, quod materia generationis, ministrat,\net efficiens, quia agens principale est in generatione, ut communiter\nstatuunt Philosophi. In casu autem nostro homo ministrando solum semen,\npuram materiam exhiberet absque ulla actione in ordine ad generationem;\nproinde non posset dici pater filii qui nasceretur: et hoc est contra\nid, quod homo genitus ab Incubo non est illius filius, sed est filius\nejus viri, a quo Incubus semen sumpsit.\n\n\n31. However, with due deference to so many and such learned Doctors,\nI hardly see how their opinion can bear examination. For, as Pererius\ntruly observes in his _Commentary on the Genesis_, chapt. 6, the whole\nstrength and efficiency of the human sperm reside in the spirits which\nevaporate and vanish as soon as issued from the genital vessels wherein\nthey were warmly stored: all medical men agree on that point. It is\nconsequently not possible that the Demon should preserve in a fit state\nfor generation the sperm he has received; for it were necessary that\nwhatever vessel he endeavoured to keep it in should be equally warm\nwith the human genital organs, the warmth of which is nowhere to be\nmet with but in those organs themselves. Now, in a vessel where that\nwarmth is not intrinsical but extraneous, the spirits get altered,\nand no generation can take place. There is this other objection,\nthat generation is a vital act by which man, begetting from his own\nsubstance, carries the sperm through natural organs to the spot which\nis appropriate to generation. On the contrary, in this particular case,\nthe introduction of sperm cannot be a vital act of the man who begets,\nsince it is not carried into the womb by his agency; and, for the same\ncause, it cannot be said that the man, whose sperm it was, has begotten\nthe fetus which proceeds from it. Nor can the Incubus be deemed\nits father, since the sperm does not issue from his own substance.\nConsequentially, a child would be born without a father, which is\nabsurd. Third objection: when the father begets in the course of\nnature, there is a concurrence of two causalities: the one, material,\nfor he provides the sperm which is the matter of generation; the other,\nefficient, for he is the principal agent of generation, as Philosophers\nagree in declaring. But, in this case, the man who only provided the\nsperm would contribute but a mere material, without any action tending\nto generation; he could therefore not be regarded as the father of the\nchild begotten under those circumstances; and this is opposed to the\nnotion that the child begotten by an Incubus is not his son, but the\nson of the man whose sperm the Incubus has taken.\n\n\n32. Pr\u00e6terea omni probabilitate caret quod scribit Vallesius, et ex\neo recitavimus supra n\u00ba 30; mirorque a doctissimi viri calamo talia\nexcidisse. Notissimum enim est apud Physicos, quod magnitudo f\u0153tus\nnon est a quantitate molis, sed est a quantitate virtutis, hoc est\nspirituum in semine: ab ea enim tota generationis ratio dependet, ut\noptime testatur Michael Ettmullerus, =Instit. Medic. Physiolog.=, car.\n22, thes. 1, fol. m., 39, scribens: =Tota generationis ratio dependet\na spiritu genitali sub crassioris materi\u00e6 involucro excreto; ista\nmateria seminis crassa nullo modo, vel in utero subsistente, vel seu\nmateria f\u0153tum constituente: sed solus spiritus genitalis maris unitus\ncum spiritu genitali mulieris in poros uteri, seu, quod rarius fit, in\ntubos uteri se insinuat, indeque uterum fecundum reddit=. Quid ergo\nfacere potest magna quantitas seminis ad f\u0153tus magnitudinem? Pr\u00e6terea\nnec semper verum est, quod tales geniti ab Incubis magnitudine molis\ncorpore\u00e6 insignes sint: Alexander enim Magnus, qui, ut diximus, natus\ntaliter scribitur, statura pusillus erat; unde carmen,\n\n =Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat.=\n\nItem quamvis taliter concepti supra c\u00e6teros homines excellant, non\ntamen hoc semper est in vitiis, sed aliquando in virtutibus etiam in\nmoralibus, ut patet in Scipione Africano, C\u00e6sare Augusto, et Platone\nPhilosopho, de quibus Livius, Suetonius et Laertius respective\nscribunt, quod optimi in moribus fuere; ut proinde arguere possimus,\nquod si alii eodem modo geniti pessimi fuere, hoc non fuerit ex hoc,\nquod fuerint ab Incubo geniti, sed quia tales ex proprio arbitrio\nexstitere.\n\nPariter ex textu Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6, =Gen.=, c. 6, v. 4, habemus quod\ngigantes nati sunt ex concubitu filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum, et\nhoc ad litteram sacri textus. Gigantes autem homines erant =statura\nmagna=, ut eos vocat Baruch, c. 3, v. 26, et excedente communem hominum\nproceritatem. Monstruosa statura, robore, latrociniis, et tyrannide\ninsignes: unde Gigantes per sua scelera fuerunt maxima, et potissima\ncausa Diluvii, ait Cornelius a Lapid. =in Gen.=, c. 6, v. 4, =\u00a7\nBurgensis=. Non quadrat autem quorumdam expositio, quod nomine filiorum\nDei veniant filii Seth, et vocabulo filiarum hominum fili\u00e6 Cain, eo\nquod illi erant pietati, Religioni, et c\u00e6teris virtutibus addicti,\ndescendentes autem a Cain vice versa: nam salva opinantium, Chrysost.,\nCyrill., Theodor. Rupert. Ab. et Hilar. in Psalm. 132, apud Cornel.,\na Lap., c. 6; G., v. 2, =\u00a7 Verum dies=, reverentia, talis expositio\nnon coh\u00e6ret sensui patenti litter\u00e6; ait enim Scriptura, quod ex\nconjunctione talium nati sunt homines monstruos\u00e6 proceritatis corpore\u00e6:\nante illam ergo tales gigantes non extiterunt: quod si ex ea orti sunt,\nhoc non potuit esse ex eo, quod filii Seth coivissent cum filiabus\nCain, quia illi erant statur\u00e6 ordinari\u00e6, prout etiam fili\u00e6 Cain, unde\noriri ex his naturaliter non potuerunt nisi filii statur\u00e6 ordinari\u00e6: si\nergo monstruosa statura filii nati sunt ex tali conjunctione, hoc fuit,\nquia non fuerunt prognati ex ordinaria conjunctione viri cum muliere,\nsed ex Incubis d\u00e6monibus qui ratione natur\u00e6 ipsorum optime possunt\nvocari filii Dei, et in hac sententia sunt Philosophi Platonici, et\nFranciscus Georgius Venetus, tom. 1, problem. 74: nec dissentiunt\nab eadem Joseph. Hebr\u00e6us, Philo Jud\u00e6us, S. Justinus Martyr, Clemens\nAlexandrinus, et Tertullianus, Joseph. Hebr\u00e6us, =Antiq.=, l. 1.; Philo,\nl. =de Gigant.=; S. Justinus M., Apolog. 1.; Clemens Alex., lib. 3;\nTertull., lib. =de Habit. Mul.=, apud Cornel., loc. cit.; Hugo de S.\nVictor., =Annot. in Gen.=, c. 6, qui opinantur illos fuisse Angelos\nquosnam corporeos qui in luxuriam cum mulieribus delapsi sunt: ut enim\ninfra ostendemus, ist\u00e6 du\u00e6 sententi\u00e6 in unam et eamdem conveniunt.\n\n\n32. Besides, there is not a shadow of probability in what written by\nVallesius and quoted from him by us (_Vide supra n\u00ba 30_); and I wonder\nthat any thing so extravagant should have fallen from the pen of such\na learned man. Medical men are well aware that the size of the fetus\ndepends, not indeed on the quantity of matter, but on the quantity of\nvirtue, that is to say of spirits held by the sperm; there lies the\nwhole secret of generation, as is well observed by Michael Ettmuller,\n_Institut. Medic. Physiolog._: \u201cGeneration\u201d, says he, \u201centirely depends\nupon the genital spirit contained within an envelope of thicker matter;\nthat spermatic matter does not remain in the uterus, and has no share\nin the formation of the fetus; it is but the genital spirit of the\nmale, combined with the genital spirit of the female, that permeates\nthe pores, or, less frequently, the tubes of the uterus, which it\nfecundates by that means.\u201d Of what moment can therefore the quantity\nof sperm be for the size of the fetus? Besides, it is not always a\nfact that men thus begotten by Incubi are remarkable for the huge\nproportions of their body: Alexander the Great, for instance, who is\nsaid to have been thus born, as we have mentioned, was very short; as\nthe poet said of him:\n\n  _Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat._\n\nBesides, although it is generally a fact that those who are thus\nbegotten excel other men, yet such superiority is not always shown\nby their vices, but sometimes by their virtues and even their\nmorals; Scipio Africanus, for instance, C\u00e6sar Augustus and Plato the\nPhilosopher, as is recorded of each of them respectively by Livy,\nSuetonius and Diogenes Laertius, had excellent morals. Whence may be\ninferred that, if other individuals begotten in the same way have been\ndownright villains, it was not owing to their being born of an Incubus,\nbut to their having, of their own free will, chosen to be such.\n\nWe also read in the Testament, _Genesis_, chap. 6, verse 4, that giants\nwere born when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men: that\nis the very letter of the sacred text. Now, those giants were men of\n_great stature_, says _Baruch_, chap. 3, verse 26, and far superior\nto other men. Not only were they distinguished by their huge size,\nbut also by their physical power, their plundering habits and their\ntyranny. Through their criminal excesses the Giants were the primary\nand principal cause of the Flood, according to Cornelius a Lapide,\nin his _Commentary on Genesis_. Some contend that by Sons of God are\nmeant the sons of Seth, and by Daughters of men the daughters of\nCain, because the former practiced piety, religion and every other\nvirtue, whilst the descendants of Cain were quite the reverse; but,\nwith all due deference to Chrysostom, Cyrillus, Hilarius and others\nwho are of that opinion, it must be conceded that it clashes with the\nobvious meaning of the text. Scripture says, in fact, that of the\nconjunction of the above mentioned were born men of huge bodily size:\nconsequently, those giants were not previously in existence, and if\ntheir birth was the result of that conjunction, it cannot be ascribed\nto the intercourse of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain, who\nbeing themselves of ordinary stature, could but procreate children of\nordinary stature. Therefore, if the intercourse in question gave birth\nto beings of huge stature, the reason is that it was not the common\nconnection between man and woman, but the performance of Incubi Demons\nwho, from their nature, may very well be styled sons of God. Such is\nthe opinion of the Platonist Philosophers and of Francis Georges the\nVenetian; nor is it discrepant from that of Josephus the Historian,\nPhilo the Jew, S. Justinus the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and\nTertullian, who look upon Incubi as corporeal Angels who have allowed\nthemselves to fall into the sin of lewdness with women. Indeed, as\nshall be shown hereafter, though seemingly distinct, those two opinions\nare but one and the same.\n\n\n33. Si ergo Incubi tales, ut fert communis sententia, Gigantes\ngenuerunt, accepto semine ab homine, juxta id, quod supra dictum est,\nnon potuerunt ex illo semine nasci nisi homines ejusdem statur\u00e6 plus\nminusve, cum eo a quo semen acceptum est: nec enim facit ad altiorem\ncorporis staturam major seminis quantitas, ita ut attracta insolite a\nD\u00e6mone, dum Succubus fit homini, augeat ultra illius staturam enormiter\ncorpus ab eo geniti; quia, ut supra diximus, hoc residet in spiritu, et\nnon in mole seminis: ut proinde necesse sit concludere, quod ab alio\nsemine, quam humano, hujusmodi gigantes nati sint, et proinde D\u00e6mon\nIncubus non humano, sed alio semine utatur ad generationem. Quid igitur\ndicendum?\n\n\n33. If therefore these Incubi, in conformity with general belief, have\nbegotten Giants by means of sperm taken from man, it is impossible,\nas aforesaid, that of that sperm should have been born any but men of\napproximately the same size as he from whom it came; for it would be\nin vain for the Demon, when acting the part of a Succubus, to draw\nfrom man an unwonted quantity of prolific liquor in order to procreate\ntherefrom children of higher stature; quantity has nothing to do here,\nsince all depends, as we have said, upon the vitality of that liquor,\nnot its quantity. We are therefore bound to infer that Giants are born\nof another sperm than man\u2019s, and that, consequently, the Incubus Demon,\nfor the purpose of generation, uses a sperm which is not man\u2019s. But\nthen, what is to be said?\n\n\n34. Quantum ad hoc, sub correctione Sanct\u00e6 Matris Ecclesi\u00e6, et mere\nopinative dico, Incubum D\u00e6monem, dum mulieribus commiscetur, ex proprio\nipsius semine hominem generare.\n\n\n34. Subject to correction by our Holy Mother Church, and as a mere\nexpression of opinion, I say that the Incubus Demon, when having\nintercourse with women, begets the human fetus from his own sperm.\n\n\n35. Paradoxa in fide, et parum sana nonnullis videbitur h\u00e6c opinio;\nsed lectorem meum deprecor, ut judicium non pr\u00e6cipitet de ea: ut enim\nincivile est nondum tota lege perspecta judicare, ut Celsus, lib. 24.\nff. de legib. et S. C., ait, ita neque damnanda est opinio, nisi prius\nexaminatis, ac solutis argumentis, quibus innititur. Ad probandam\nigitur supradatam conclusionem, nonnulla sunt necessario pr\u00e6mittenda.\n\n\n35. To many that proposition will seem heterodox and hardly sensible;\nbut I beg of my reader not to condemn it precipitately; for if,\nas Celsus says, it is improper to deliver judgment without having\nthoroughly inquired into the law, no less unfair is the rejection of\nan opinion, before the arguments upon which it rests have been weighed\nand confuted. I have therefore to prove the above conclusion, and must\nnecessarily premise with some statements.\n\n\n36. Pr\u00e6mittendum primo de fide est, quod dentur Creatur\u00e6 pure\nspirituales nullo modo de materia corporea participantes, prout\nhabetur ex Concilio Lateranensi, sub Innocentio Tertio, c. Firm. de\nSum. Trin. et Fid. Cath. Conc. Eph. in Epist. Cyrill. ad Reggia, et\nalibi. Hujusmodi autem sunt Angeli beati, et D\u00e6mones damnati ad ignem\nperpetuum. Quamvis vero nonnulli Doctores, Bann. par. 1. q. 5. ar.\n1. Can. =de Loc. Theol.= l. 5. c. 5. Sixt. seu =Bibliot. San.= l. 5.\nannot. 8., Mirand. =Sum. Concil.= v\u00ba. =Angelus=, Molina, p. 1. q.\n50., a. 1., Carranz., =Annot. ad Synod.= 7., etiam post Concilium illud\ndocuerint spiritualitatem Angelorum et D\u00e6monum non esse de fide, ita\nut nonnulli alii, Bonav. in lib. 2. sent. dist. 3. q. 1., Scot. =de\nAnim.= q. 15., Cajet. =in Gen.= c. 4., Franc. Georg. =Problem.= l. 2.\nc. 57., August. Hyph., =de D\u00e6mon.=, l. 3. c. 3., scripserint illos esse\ncorporeos, et proinde Angelos D\u00e6monesque corpore et spiritu constare\nnon esse propositionem h\u00e6reticam, neque erroneam, probet Bonaventura\nBaro, =Scot. Defens.= tom. 9. apolog. 2., act. 1., p. \u00a7 7.: tamen quia\nConcilium ipsum statuit de fide tenendum, =Deum esse Creatorem omnium\nvisibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium, qui utramque\nde nihilo condidit creaturam spiritualem et corporalem Angelicam,\nvidelicet ut mundanam=: ideo dico de fide esse quasdam creaturas dari\nmere spirituales, et tales esse Angelos, non quidem omnes, sed quosdam.\n\n\n36. Firstly, I premise, as an article of belief, that there are purely\nspiritual creatures, not in any way partaking of corporeal matter,\nas was ruled by the Council of Lateran, under the pontificate of\nInnocent III. Such are the blessed Angels, and the Demons condemned\nto ever-lasting fire. Some Doctors, it is true, have professed,\nsubsequently even to this Council, that the spirituality of Angels and\nDemons is not an article of belief; others even have asserted that\nthey are corporeal, whence Bonaventure Baron has drawn the conclusion\nthat it is neither heretical nor erroneous to ascribe to Angels and\nDemons a twofold substance, corporeal and spiritual. Yet, the Council\nhaving formally declared it to be an article of belief that _God is the\nmaker of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who\nhas raised from nothing every creature spiritual or corporeal. Angelic\nor terrestrial_, I contend it is an article of belief that there are\ncertain merely spiritual creatures, and that such are Angels; not all\nof them, but a certain number.\n\n\n37. Inaudita forsan erit sententia h\u00e6c, sed non destituta erit\nprobabilitate. Si enim a Theologis tanta inter Angelos diversitas\nspecifica, et proinde essentialis statuitur, ut in via D. Thom\u00e6,\np. p. 50, ar. 4, plures Angeli nequeant esse in eadem specie, sed\nquilibet Angelus propriam speciem constituat, profecto nulla invenitur\nrepugnantia, quod Angelorum nonnulli sint purissimi spiritus, et\nproinde excellentissim\u00e6 natur\u00e6, alii autem corporei, et minus\nexcellentes, et eorum differentia petatur per corporeum et incorporeum.\nAccedit quod hac sententia facile solvitur alias insolubilis\ncontradictio inter duo Concilia \u0152cumenica, nempe Septimam Synodum\ngeneralem, et dictum Concilium Lateranense: siquidem in illa Synodo,\nqu\u00e6 est secunda Nic\u00e6na, actione quinta, productus est liber Joannis\nThessalonicensis scriptus contra quemdam Philosophum gentilem, in quo\nita habetur: =De Angelis et Archangelis, atque eorum Potestatibus,\nquibus nostras Animas adjungo, ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentit,\nesse quidem intelligibiles, sed non omnino corporis expertes, et\ninsensibiles, ut vos Gentiles dicitis, verum tenui corpore pr\u00e6ditos, et\naereo, sive igneo, sicut scriptum est: qui facit Angelos suos spiritus,\net ministros suos ignem urentem=. Et infra: =Quamquam autem non sint ut\nnos, corporei, utpote ex quatuor elementis, nemo tamen vel Angelos,\nvel D\u00e6mones, vel Animas dixerit incorporeas: multoties enim in proprio\ncorpore visi sunt ab illis, quibus Dominus oculos aperuit=. Et cum\nomnia lecta fuissent coram Patribus synodaliter congregatis, Tharasius,\nPatriarcha Constantinopolitanus, poposcit adprobationem Sanct\u00e6 Synodi\nhis verbis: =Ostendit Pater, quod Angelos pingi oporteat, quoniam\ncircumscribi possunt, et ut homines apparuerunt. Synodus autem uno ore\nrespondit: Etiam, Domine=.\n\n\n37. It may seem strange, yet it must be admitted not to be unlikely.\nIf, in fact, Theologians concur in establishing amongst Angels a\nspecific, and therefore essential, diversity so considerable that,\naccording to St. Thomas, there are not two Angels of the same species,\nbut that each of them is a species by himself, why should not certain\nAngels be most pure spirits, of a consequently very superior nature,\nand others corporeal, therefore of a less perfect nature, differing\nthus from each other in their corporeal or incorporeal substance?\nThis doctrine has the advantage of solving the otherwise insoluble\ncontradiction between two \u0152cumenical Councils, namely the Seventh\nGeneral Synod and the above-mentioned Council of Lateran. For, during\nthe fifth sitting of that Synod, the second of Nicea, a book was\nintroduced written by John of Thessalonica against a pagan Philosopher,\nwherein occur the following propositions: \u201c_Respecting Angels,\nArchangels and their Powers, to which I adjoin our own Souls, the\nCatholic Church is really of opinion that they are intelligences, but\nnot entirely bodyless and senseless, as you Gentiles aver; she on the\ncontrary ascribes to them a subtile body, aerial or igneous, according\nto what is written: He makes the spirits His Angels, and the burning\nfire His Minister_\u201d. And further on: \u201c_Although not corporeal in the\nsame way as ourselves, made of the four elements, yet it is impossible\nto say that Angels, Demons and Souls are incorporeal; for they have\nbeen seen many a time, invested with their own body, by those whose\neyes the Lord had opened_\u201d. And after that book had been read through\nbefore all the Fathers in Council assembled, Tharasius, the Patriarch\nof Constantinople, submitted it to the approval of the Council, with\nthese words: \u201c_The Father showeth that Angels should be pictured, since\ntheir form can be defined, and they have been seen in the shape of\nmen_\u201d. Without a dissentient, the Synod answered: \u201c_Yes, my Lord_\u201d.\n\n\n38. Hanc autem Conciliarem adprobationem de materia ad longum\npertractata a D. Joanne in libro coram Patribus lecto, statuere\narticulum fidei circa corporeitatem Angelorum, perspicuum est:\nunde ad tollendam contradictionem hujus, cum allata definitione\nConcilii Lateranensis, multum desudant Theologi. Unus enim, Suarez,\n=de Angelis=, ait, quod Patres non contradixerunt tali asserto de\ncorporeitate Angelorum, quia non de illa re agebatur. Alius, Bann.,\nin p. p. q. 10, ait, quod Synodus adprobavit conclusionem, nempe\nAngelos pingi posse, non tamen adprobavit rationem, =quia corporei\nsunt=. Alius, Molin., in p. p., q. 50. a. 1, ait, quod definitiones\nConciliares in illa Synodo fact\u00e6 sunt solum =actione septima=, proinde\nea qu\u00e6 habentur in actionibus pr\u00e6cedentibus non esse definitiones de\nfide. Alii, Joverc. et Mirand., =Sum. Conc.=, scribunt nec Nic\u00e6num,\nnec Lateranense Concilium intendisse definere de fide qu\u00e6stionem; et\nNic\u00e6num quidem locutum fuisse juxta opinionem Platonicorum, qu\u00e6 ponit\nAngelos corporeos, et tunc pr\u00e6valebat; Lateranense autem locutum esse\njuxta mentem Aristotelis, qui, l. 12. =Metaphys.=, tex. 49, ponit\nintelligentias incorporeas, qu\u00e6 sententia contra Platonicos apud\nplerosque Doctores invaluit expost.\n\n\n38. That this approbation by a Council of the doctrine set forth at\nlength in the book of John establishes an article of belief with\nregard to the corporeity of Angels, there is not a shadow of doubt: so\nTheologians toil and moil in order to remove the contradiction apparent\nbetween that decision and the definition, above quoted, by the Council\nof Lateran. One of them, Suarez, says that if the Fathers did not\ndisprove such an assertion of the corporeity of Angels, it is because\nthat was not the question. Another contends that the Synod did approve\nthe conclusion, namely that Angels might be pictured, but not the\nmotive given, _their corporeity_. A third, Molina, observes that the\ndefinitions issued in Council by the Synod were thus issued only at the\n_seventh sitting_, whence he argues that those of the previous sittings\nare not definitions of belief. Others, lastly, write that neither the\nCouncil of Nicea nor that of Lateran intended defining a question of\nbelief, the Council of Nicea having spoken according to the opinion of\nthe Platonists, which describes Angels as corporeal beings and was then\nprevailing, whilst that of Lateran went with Aristoteles, who, in his\n12th. book of _Metaphysics_, lays down the existence of incorporeal\nintelligences, a doctrine which has since carried the day with most\nDoctors over the Platonists.\n\n\n39. Sed quam frigid\u00e6 sint ist\u00e6 responsiones nemo non videt, ac eas\nminime satisfacere oppositioni palmariter demonstrat Bonaventura Baro,\n=Scot. Defens.=, tom. 9, apolog. 2, actio 1, \u00a7 2 per totum.\nProinde ad tollendam contradictionem Conciliorum dicendum est, Nic\u00e6num\nlocutum esse de una, Lateranense autem de alia specie Angelorum,\net illam quidem corpoream, hanc vero penitus incorpoream; et sic\nconciliantur aliter irreconciliabilia Concilia.\n\n\n39. But any one can discern the invalidity of those answers, and\nBonaventure Baro (_Scot. Defens._, tome 9) proves to evidence that\nthey do not bear. In consequence, in order to agree the two Councils,\nwe must say that the Council of Nicea meant one species of Angels,\nand that of Lateran another: the former, corporeal, the latter on the\ncontrary absolutely incorporeal; and thus are reconciled two otherwise\nirreconcilable Councils.\n\n\n40. Pr\u00e6mittendum 2\u00ba, nomen Angeli esse nomen officii, non natur\u00e6, ut\nconcorditer scribunt S. S. Patres: Ambros. in c. 1 =epist. ad Hebr.=,\nHilaris, l. 5 de Trin., Augustinus, lib. 15 =de Civit. Dei= c. 23,\nGregorius, =Hom. 34 in Evang.=, Isidorus, l. =de Sum. Bonit.=, c. 12;\nunde pr\u00e6clare ait D. Ambrosius: Angelus non ex eo quod est spiritus, ex\neo quod agit, Angelus, quia =Angelus= Gr\u00e6ce, Latine =Nuntius= dicitur;\nsequitur igitur ex hoc, quod illi, qui ad aliquod ministerium a Deo\nmittuntur, sive spiritus sint, sive homines, Angeli vocari possunt;\net de facto ita vocantur in Scripturis Sacris: nam de Sacerdotibus,\nConcionatoribus ac Doctoribus, qui tanquam Nuntii Dei explicant\nhominibus divinam voluntatem, dicitur, =Malach.= c. 2. v. 7: =Labia\nSacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem requirent ex ore ejus, quia\nAngelus Domini exercituum est=. D. Joannes Baptista ab eodem Propheta,\nc. 3 v. 1, vocatur Angelus, dum ait: =Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, et\npr\u00e6parabit viam ante faciem meam=. Et hanc prophetiam esse ad litteram\nde S. Joanne Baptista testatur Christus Dominus in =Evangelio Matth\u00e6i=,\n11, v. 10. Immo et ipse Deus, quia fuit missus a Patre in mundum ad\nevangelizandum legem grati\u00e6, vocatur Angelus. Ita in prophetia Isai\u00e6,\nc. 9 v. 6, juxta versionem Septuaginta: =Vocabitur nomen ejus magni\nconsilii Angelus=, et clarius in Malachi\u00e6 c. 3 v. 1: =Veniet ad templum\nsanctum suum Dominator quem vos qu\u00e6ritis, et Angelus testamenti quem\nvos vultis=. Qu\u00e6 prophetia ad litteram est de Christo Domino. Sequitur\nigitur nullum absurdum sequi ex hoc, quod dicimus Angelos quosdam\nesse corporeos, nam et homines, qui corpore constant, Angeli vocabulo\nefferuntur.\n\n\n40. Secondly, I premise that the word Angel applies, not indeed to\nthe kind, but to the office: the Holy Fathers are agreed thereupon\n(St. Ambrose, on the _Epistle to the Hebrews_; St. Austin, _City of\nGod_; St. Gregory, _Homily 34 on Scripture_; St. Isidorus, _Supreme\nGoodness_). An Angel, very truly says St. Ambrose, is thus styled,\nnot because he is a spirit, but on account of his office; \u1f09\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in\nGreek, _Nuntius_ in Latin, that is to say _Messenger_; it follows that\nwhoever is entrusted by God with a mission, be he spirit or man, may be\ncalled an Angel, and is thus called in the Holy Scriptures, where the\nfollowing words are applied to Priests, Preachers and Doctors, who, as\nMessengers of God, explain to men the divine will (Malachi, chapt. 2,\nv. 7). \u201c_The priest\u2019s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek\nthe law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts._\u201d The\nsame prophet, chapt. 3, v. 1, bestows the name of Angel on St. John\nthe Baptist, when saying: \u201c_Behold, I will send my Angel and he shall\nprepare the way before me._\u201d That this prophecy literally applies to\nSt. John the Baptist is testified by our Lord Jesus-Christ, in the\nGospel, according to St. Matthew, chapt. 11, v. 10. Still more: God\nhimself is called an Angel, because he has been sent by His Father to\nherald the law of mercy. To witness, the prophecy of Isaiah, chapt.\n9, v. 6, according to Septuagint: \u201c_He shall be called an Angel of\nWonderful Counsel._\u201d And more plainly still in Malachi, chapt. 3, v.\n1; \u201c_The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the\nAngel of the covenant whom ye delight in_\u201d, a prophecy which literally\napplies to our Lord Jesus-Christ. There is consequently nothing absurd\nin the contention that some Angels are corporeal, since men, who\nassuredly have a body, are called Angels.\n\n\n41. Pr\u00e6mittendum 3\u00ba, nondum rerum naturalium, qu\u00e6 sunt in mundo, satis\nperspectam esse existentiam, aut naturam, ut proinde aliquid negandum\nsit ex eo, quod de illo nunquam alias dictum, aut scriptum fuerit.\nPatet enim tractu temporis detectas esse novas terras, quas Antiqui\nnostri ignorarunt, novaque animalia, herbas, plantas, fructus, semina\nnunquam alias visa; et si pervia esset Terra Australis incognita,\ncujus indagatio, et lustratio a multis hucusque incassum tentata est,\nadhuc nova nobis alia panderentur. Patet adhuc, quod per inventionem\nmicroscopii, et alias machinas, et organa Philosophi\u00e6 experimentalis\nmodern\u00e6, sicut etiam per exactiorem indaginem Anatomistarum, multarum\nrerum naturalium existentiam, vires, naturamque tum innotuisse, tum\ndietim innotescere, qu\u00e6 pr\u00e6cedentes Philosophi ignorarunt, ut patet\nin auro fulminante, phosphoro, et centum aliis chymicis experimentis,\ncirculatione sanguinis, venis lacteis, vasis lymphaticis, et aliis\nhujusmodi qu\u00e6 nuper Anatomist\u00e6 adinvenerunt. Proinde ineptum erit\naliquod exsibillare ex hoc quod de eo nullus Antiquorum scripserit,\nattento maxime Logicorum axiomate, quod locus ab auctoritate negativa\nnon tenet.\n\n\n41. Thirdly, I premise that neither the existence nor the nature of\nthe natural things in this world has been sufficiently investigated to\nallow of denying a fact, merely because it has never been previously\nspoken of or written about. In the course of time have not new lands\nbeen discovered which the Ancients knew not of? New animals, herbs,\nplants, fruits and seeds, never seen elsewhere? And if that mysterious\nAustral land came at last to be explored, as has been to this day\nvainly tried by so many travellers, what unforeseen disclosures would\nbe the result! Through the invention of the microscope and other\ninstruments used by modern experimental Philosophy, combined with the\nmore exact methods of investigation of Anatomists, have there not been,\nand are there not, every day, brought to light the existence, qualities\nand characteristics of a number of natural things unknown to ancient\nPhilosophers, such as fulminating gold, phosphorus, and a hundred other\nchemical compounds, the circulation of the blood, the lacteal vessels,\nthe lymph-ducts and other recent anatomical discoveries? To deride a\ndoctrine because it does not happen to be mentioned in any ancient\nauthor would therefore be absurd, especially bearing in mind this axiom\nof Logic: _locus ab auctoritate negativa non tenet_.\n\n\n42. Pr\u00e6mittendum 4\u00ba, quod in Sacra Scriptura, et Ecclesiasticis\ntraditionibus non traditur nisi id, quod ad anim\u00e6 salutem necessarium\nest, quoad credendum, sperandum et amandum; unde inferre non licet\nex eo, quod nec ex Scriptura, nec ex traditione aliquod habetur,\nproinde negandum sit, quod illud tale existat: aut nos quidem Fides\ndocet, Deum per Verbum suum omnia creasse visibilia, et invisibilia;\npariterque ex Jesu Christi Domini nostri meritis tum gratiam, tum\ngloriam omni, et cuivis rationali creatur\u00e6 conferri. Num autem alius\nMundus a nostro, quem incolimus, sit, et in eo alii homines non ab\nAdam prognati, sed alio modo a Deo creati existant (sicut ponunt illi\nqui lunarem globum habitatum opinantur); pariterque num in hoc Mundo,\nquem incolimus, ali\u00e6 existant creatur\u00e6 rationales ultra homines, et\nSpiritus Angelicos, qu\u00e6 regulariter hominibus sint invisibiles, et\nper accidens, et earum executiva potentia fiant visibiles: hoc nullo\nmodo spectat ad fidem, et hoc scire, aut ignorare non est ad salutem\nhominis necessarium, sicut nec scire rerum omnium physicarum numerum\naut naturam.\n\n\n42. Fourthly, I premise that Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical\ntradition do not teach us any thing beyond what is requisite for the\nsalvation of the soul, namely Faith, Hope and Charity. Consequently,\nfrom a thing not being stated either by Scripture or tradition it must\nnot be inferred that that thing is not in existence. For instance,\nFaith teaches us that God, by His Word, made things visible, and\ninvisible, and also that, through the merits of our Lord Jesus-Christ,\ngrace and glory are conferred on every rational creature. Now, that\nthere be another World than the one we live in, and that it be peopled\nby men not born of Adam but made by God, in some other way, as is\nimplied by those who believe the lunar globe to be inhabited; or\nfurther, that in the very World we dwell in, there be other rational\ncreatures besides man and the Angelic Spirits, creatures generally\ninvisible to us and whose being is disclosed but accidentally, through\nthe instrumentality of their own power; all that has nothing to do with\nFaith, and the knowledge or ignorance thereof is no more necessary to\nthe salvation of man than knowing the number or nature of all physical\nthings.\n\n\n43. Pr\u00e6mittendum 5\u00ba, nullam inveniri repugnantiam, nec in Philosophia,\nnec in Theologia; quod dari possint creatur\u00e6 rationales constantes\nspiritu et corpore, ali\u00e6 ab homine, quia si esset repugnantia, hoc\nesset vel ex parte Dei (et hoc non quia ipse omnipotens est), vel\nex parte rei creabilis; et neque hoc, quia sicut creatura mere\nspiritualis, ut Angeli, creata est, et mere materialis, ut Mundus, et\npartim spiritualis, partim corporea, corporeitate terrestri, et crassa,\nut homo, ita creabilis est creatura constans spiritu rationali, et\ncorporeitate minus crassa, sed subtiliore, quam sit homo. Et profecto\npost Resurrectionem anima Beatorum erit unita corpori glorioso dote\nsubtilitatis donato: ut proinde concludi posset, potuisse Deum creare\ncreaturam rationalem corpoream, cui naturaliter indita sit corporis\nsubtilitas, sicut per gratiam corpori glorioso confertur.\n\n\n43. Fifthly, I premise that neither Philosophy nor Theology is\nrepugnant to the possible existence of rational creatures having spirit\nand body and distinct from man. Such repugnance could be supported only\non God, and that is inadmissible, since he is all-mighty, or on the\nthing to be made, and that likewise cannot be supported; for, as there\nare purely spiritual creatures, such as Angels, or merely material,\nsuch as the World, or lastly semi-spiritual and semi-corporeal, of an\nearthly and gross corporeity, such as man, so there may well be in\nexistence a creature endowed with a rational spirit and a corporeity\nless gross, more subtile than man\u2019s. No doubt, moreover, but that after\nResurrection, the souls of the blessed will be united with a glorious\nand subtile body; from which may be inferred that God may well have\nmade a rational and corporeal creature whose body naturally enjoys the\nsubtilty which will be conferred by the grace on the glorious body.\n\n\n44. Astruitur autem magis talium creaturarum possibilitas ex solutione\nargumentorum, qu\u00e6 contra positam conclusionem fieri possunt, pariterque\nex responsione ad interrogationes, qu\u00e6 possunt circa eam formari.\n\n\n44. But, the possible existence of such creatures will be still better\nset forth by solving the arguments which can be adduced against our\nconclusion, and replying to the questions it may raise.\n\n\n45. Prima interrogatio est, an tales creatur\u00e6 dicend\u00e6 essent animalia\nrationalia? Quod si sic, quomodo different ab homine, cum quo communem\nhaberent definitionem?\n\n\n45. First question: should such creatures be styled rational animals?\nAnd if so, in what do they differ from man, with whom they would have\nthat definition in common?\n\n\n46. Respondeo quod essent animalia rationalia sensibus et organis\ncorporis pr\u00e6dita, sicut homo: differrent autem ab homine non solum\nratione corporis tenuioris, sed etiam materi\u00e6. Homo siquidem ex\ncrassiore elementorum omnium parte, puta ex luto, nempe aqua et terra\ncrassa formatus est, ut constat ex Scriptura, =Gen.= 2. v. 7.; ista\nvero formata essent ex subtiliore parte omnium, aut unius, seu alterius\nelementorum; ut proinde alia essent terrea, alia aquea, alia aerea,\net alia ignea; et ut eorum definitio cum hominis definitione non\nconveniret, addendum esset definitioni hominis crassa materialitas sui\ncorporis, per quam a dictis animalibus differret.\n\n\n46. I reply: Yes, they would be rational animals, provided with senses\nand organs even as man; they would, however, differ from man not only\nin the more subtile nature, but also in the matter of their body. In\nfact, as is shown by Scripture, man has been made from the grossest\nof all elements, namely clay, a gross mixture of water and earth:\nbut those creatures would be made from the most subtile part of all\nelements, or of one or other of them; thus, some would proceed from\nearth, others from water, or air, or fire; and, in order that they\nshould not be defined in the same terms as man, to the definition of\nthe latter should be added the mention of the gross materiality of his\nbody, wherein he would differ from said animals.\n\n\n47. Secunda interrogatio est, quandonam hujus modi animalia fuissent\ncondita, et num cum brutis producta a terra, aut ab aqua, ut\nquadrupedia, et aves respective; an vero a Domino Deo formata, ut fuit\nhomo?\n\n\n47. Second question: At what period would those animals have been\noriginated, and wherefrom? From earth, like the beasts, or from water,\nlike quadrupeds, birds, etc.? Or, on the contrary, would they have been\nmade, like man, by our Lord God?\n\n\n48. Respondeo quod de fide est, quod posito, quod existant de\nfacto, creata sint a principio Mundi: sic enim definitur a Concilio\nLateranensi (Firm. de sum. Trinit. et fide cathol.); nempe quod\nDeus sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de\nnihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem. Sub illa etenim\nCreaturarum generalitate etiam illa animalia essent comprehensa. Quo\nvero ad eorum formationem, decuisse ipsorum corpus a Deo ministerio\nAngelorum formatum fuisse, sicut a Deo formatum legimus corpus hominis,\nquia ipsi copulandus erat spiritus immortalis, quandoquidem spiritus\nincorporeus et proinde nobilissimus corpori pariter originaliter\nnobiliori c\u00e6teris brutis jungendus erat.\n\n\n48. I reply: It is an article of belief, expressly laid down by the\nCouncil of Lateran, that whatever is in fact and at present, was\nmade in the origin of the world. By His all-mighty virtue, God, from\nthe beginning of time, raised together from nothing both orders of\ncreatures, spiritual and corporeal. Now, those animals also would be\nincluded in the generality of creatures. As to their formation, it\nmight be said that God Himself, through the medium of Angels, made\ntheir body as he did man\u2019s, to which an immortal spirit was to be\nunited. That body being of a nobler nature than that of other animals,\nit was meet that it should be united to an incorporeal and highly noble\nspirit.\n\n\n49. Tertia interrogatio, an talia animalia habuissent originem ab uno\nsolo, velut omnes homines ab Adam, an vero plura simul formata essent\nsicut fuit de c\u00e6teris animantibus a terra et aqua productis, in quibus\nfuerunt mares et f\u0153min\u00e6 qu\u00e6 speciem per generationem conservant? Et\nsi hoc oporteret inter talia animalia esse distinctionem sexus; ipsa\nnasci, et interire; passionibus sensus affici, nutriri, crescere; et\ntunc quo alimento vescerentur, esset qu\u00e6rendum; pr\u00e6terea an vitam\nsocialem ducerent, ut homines; qua politica regerentur; num urbes ad\nhabitandum struxissent; num artes, studia, possessiones, et bella\ninter ea essent, sicut est in hominibus.\n\n\n49. Third question: Would those animals descend from one individual, as\nall men descend from Adam, or, on the contrary, would many have been\nmade at the same time, as was the case for the other living things\nissued from earth and water, wherein were males and females for the\npreservation of the kind by generation? Would there be amongst them\na distinction between the sexes? Would they be subject to birth and\ndeath, to senses, passions, want of food, power of growth? If so, what\ntheir nutrition? Would they lead a social life, as men do? By what\nlaws ruled? Would they build up cities for their dwellings, cultivate\nthe arts and sciences, hold property, and wage war between themselves,\nas men are wont to?\n\n\n50. Respondeo: potuit esse quod omnia ab uno, velut homines ab Adam,\nsint progenita; potuit pariter esse, quod ex iis multi mares, et plures\nf\u0153min\u00e6 fuissent format\u00e6, a quibus per generationem eorum species essent\npropagat\u00e6. Ultro admitteremus talia animalia oriri et mori; mares\nalios, alias f\u0153minas inter ea esse; passionibus, sensibus agitari velut\nhomines; nutriri et crescere secundum molem sui corporis; cibum autem\nipsorum non crassum qualem requirit crassities corporis humani, sed\nsubstantiam tenuem et vaporosam emanantem per effluvia spirituosa a\nrebus physicis pollentibus corpusculis maxime volatilibus, ut nidor\ncarnium maxime assatarum, vapor vini, fructuum, florum, aromatum, a\nquibus copiosa hujusmodi effluvia usque ad totalem partium subtiliorum\nac volatilium evaporationem scaturiunt. Talia autem animalia civilem\nvitam ducere posse, et inter ea distinctos esse gradus dominantium\nac servientium pro conditione natur\u00e6 ipsorum, artesque, scientias,\nministeria, exercitia, loca, mansiones, ac alia necessaria ad eorum\nconservationem, nullam penitus importat repugnantiam.\n\n\n50. I reply: It may be that all descend from one individual, as men\ndescend from Adam; it may be also that a number of males and females\nwere made initially, who preserved their kind by generation. We will\nfurther admit that they are born and die; that they are divided into\nmales and females, and are moved by senses and passions, as men are;\nthat they feed and grow according to the size of their body; their\nfood, however, instead of being gross like that required by the human\nbody, must be delicate and vapoury, emanating through spirituous\neffluvia from whatever in the physical world abounds with highly\nvolatile corpuscles, such as the flavour of meats, especially of\nroasts, the fume of wine, the fragrancy of fruit, flowers, aromatics,\nwhich evolve an abundance of those effluvia until all their subtile\nand volatile parts have completely evaporated. To their being able to\nlead a social life, with distinctions of rank and precedence; to their\ncultivating the arts and sciences, exercising functions, maintaining\narmies, building up cities, doing in short whatever is requisite for\ntheir preservation, I have in the main no objection.\n\n\n51. Quarta interrogatio est, qualis esset eorum corporis figuratio,\nan humanam, an aliam formam, et qualem haberent, et an partes\ncorporis ipsorum haberent ordinem essentialem inter se, ut corpora\nc\u00e6terorum animalium, an vero accidentalem tantum, ut corpora fluidarum\nsubstantiarum, ut olei, aqu\u00e6, nubis, fumi, etc.; et num substanti\u00e6\nsuarum partium organicarum diversimode constarent, ut organa hominum,\nin quibus sunt ali\u00e6 partes crassissim\u00e6, ut ossa, ali\u00e6 minus crass\u00e6, ut\ncartilagines, ali\u00e6 tenues, ut membran\u00e6.\n\n\n51. Fourth question: What would their figure be, human or otherwise?\nWould the ordering of the divers parts of their body be essential, as\nwith other animals, or merely accidental, as with fluid substances,\nsuch as oil, water, clouds, smoke, etc.? Would those organic parts\nconsist of various substances, as is the case with the organs of the\nhuman body, wherein are to be found very gross parts, such as the\nbones, others less gross, such as the cartilages, and others slender,\nsuch as the membranes?\n\n\n52. Respondeo, quod quantum ad figuram corpoream nihil certi\naffirmare debemus, aut possumus, cum talis figura non sit exacte\nnobis sensibilis, nec quoad visum, nec quoad tactum, pr\u00e6 sui corporis\ntenuitate, ac perspicacitate; qualis proinde vere sit, noverent ipsi,\naliique, qui substantias immateriales intuitive cognoscere possunt.\nQuoad congruentiam et probabilitatem dico, illa referre speciem\ncorporis humani, cum aliquo distinctivo a corpore humano, nisi forte\nad hoc sufficiat sua ipsorum tenuitas. Ducor, quia corpus humanum\nplasmatum a Deo perfectissimum est, inter animalia qu\u00e6que, et cum\nc\u00e6tera bruta in terram sint prona, eo quia anima eorum mortalis est,\nDeus, ut ait poeta Ovid., =Metamorphos.=:\n\n    =Os homini sublime dedit, c\u0153lumque tueri\n    Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus=;\n\nquia anima hominis immortalis ordinata est ad c\u0153lestem mansionem. Cum\nigitur animalia, de quibus loquimur, spiritum haberent immaterialem,\nrationalem, ac immortalem, et proinde capacem beatitudinis ac\ndamnationis, congruum est, quod corpus, cui talis spiritus copulatur,\nsimile sit omnium animalium nobilissimo, corpori humano. Ex hac\npositione sequitur, quod ejus corporis partes ordinem inter se\nessentialem habere deberent; nec enim pes capiti, aut ventri manus\nconjungi deberet: sed congrua membrorum essentiali dispositione\nordinata, ut essent idonea ministeriis propriis perficiendis. Quo autem\nad partes componentes ipsarum organa, dico quod necessarium esset, ut\nnonnull\u00e6 ipsarum essent solidiores, ali\u00e6 minus solid\u00e6, ali\u00e6 tenues,\nali\u00e6 tenuissim\u00e6 pro necessitate operationis organic\u00e6. Nec contra hanc\npositionem facile potest asseri tenuitas ipsorum corporum: quippe\nsoliditas aut crassities organicarum partium, de qua dicimus, non\nesset talis simpliciter, sed comparative ad alias partes tenuiores. Et\nhoc patere potest in omnibus corporibus fluidis naturalibus, ut vino,\noleo, lacte, etc.; quantumvis enim omnes partes in ipsis videantur\nhomogene\u00e6 ac similares, non tamen ita est: nam in ipsis est pars\nterrea, pars aquea, sal fixum, sal volatile, et pars sulfurea, qu\u00e6\nomnia manipulatione spargirica oculis subjici possunt. Ita esset in\ncasu nostro: posito enim quod talium animalium corpora subtilia et\ntenuia, ut corpora naturalia fluida, velut aqua et aer, essent, non\ntamen tolleretur, quin in ipsorum partibus divers\u00e6 inter se essent\nqualitates, et aliqu\u00e6 ipsarum comparative ad alias essent solid\u00e6, et\nali\u00e6 tenuiores, quamvis totum corpus ex ipsis compositum tenue dici\nposset.\n\n\n52. I reply: As regards their figure, we neither can nor should be\naffirmative, since it escapes our senses, being too delicate for\nour sight or our touch. That we must leave to themselves, and to\nsuch as have the privilege of intuitive acquaintance with immaterial\nsubstances. But, so far as probability goes, I say that their figure\ntallies with the human body, save some distinctive peculiarity, should\nthe very tenuity of their body not be deemed sufficient. I am led to\nthat by the consideration that of all the works of God the human frame\nis the most perfect, and that whilst all other animals stoop to the\nground, because their soul is mortal, God, as Ovid, the poet, says, in\nhis _Metamorphoses_,\n\n    _Gave man an erect figure, bidding him behold the heavens\n    And raise his face towards the stars_,\n\nman\u2019s soul having been made immortal for the heavenly abode.\nConsidering that the animals we are speaking of would be gifted with\na spirit immaterial, rational and immortal, capable therefore of\nbeatitude and damnation, it is proper to admit that the body to which\nthat spirit is united may be like unto the most noble animal frame,\nthat is to say to the human frame. Whence it follows that in the\ndivers parts of that body there must be an essential order; that the\nfoot, for instance, cannot be an appendage to the head, nor the hand\nto the belly, but that each organ is in its right place, according\nto the functions it has to perform. As to the constitutive parts of\nthose organs, it is, in my opinion, necessary that there should be\nsome more or less strong, others more or less slender, in order to\nmeet the requirements of the organic working. Nor can this be fairly\nobjected to on the ground of the slenderness of the bodies themselves;\nfor the strength or thickness of the organic parts alluded to would\nnot be absolute, but merely in comparison with the more slender ones.\nThat, moreover, may be observed in all natural fluids, such as wine,\noil, milk, etc.; however homogeneous and similar to each other their\ncomponent parts may look, yet they are not so: for some are clayish,\nothers aqueous; there are fixed salts, volatile salts, brimstone, all\nof which are made obvious by a chemical analysis. So it would be in\nour case: for, supposing the bodies of those animals to be as subtile\nand slender as the natural fluids, air, water, etc., there would\nnevertheless be discrepancies in the quality of their constitutive\nparts, some of which would be strong when compared with others more\nslender, although the whole body which they compose might be called\nslender.\n\n\n53. Quod si dicatur, quod h\u00e6c repugnant positioni supra firmat\u00e6, circa\npartium essentialem ordinationem inter se: quandoquidem videmus,\nquod in corporibus fluidis ac tenuibus una pars non servat ordinem\nessentialem ad aliam, sed accidentalem tantum, ita ut h\u00e6c pars vini,\nqu\u00e6 modo alteri parti contigua est, mox inverso vase, aut moto vino,\nalteri parti unitur, et sic omnes partes diversam positionem habent\nquantumvis semper idem vinum sit, et ex hoc sequeretur, quod talium\nanimalium corpora figurata stabiliter non essent, et consequenter, nec\norganica.\n\n\n53. It may be objected that this is repugnant to what was said above\nconcerning the essential ordering of the parts among themselves;\nthat it is seen that, in fluid and subtile bodies, one part is not\nessentially but only accidentally connected with another; that a part\nof wine, for instance, just now contiguous with some other, soon\ncomes in contact with a third, if the vessel be turned upside down or\nthe wine shaken, and that all the parts together exchange positions\nat the same time, though it be still the same wine. Whence it should\nbe inferred that, the bodies of those animals would have no permanent\nfigure, and would consequently not be organic.\n\n\n54. Respondeo negando assumptum; etenim in corporibus fluidis, quamvis\nnon appareat, manet tamen essentialis partium ordinatio, qua stante\nstat in suo esse compositum, et hoc patet manifeste in vino: expressum\nenim ab uvis videtur liquor totaliter homogeneus, non tamen ita est;\nin eo enim sunt partes crass\u00e6, qu\u00e6 tractu temporis subsident in\ndoliis: sunt etiam partes tenues, qu\u00e6 evaporant: sunt partes fix\u00e6, ut\ntartarus, sunt partes volatiles, ut sulphur, sive spiritus ardens; sunt\npartes medi\u00e6 inter volatile ac fixum, ut phlegma. Partes ist\u00e6 ordinem\nessentialem inter se mutant; nam statim ac expressum est ab uvis, et\nmustum dicitur sulphur, sive spiritus volatilis, ita implicatum manet\nparticulis tartari, qui fixus est, ut nullo modo avolare valeat.\n\n\n54. I reply that I deny the assumption. In fact, if in fluid bodies\nthe essential ordering of the parts is not apparent, it subsists none\nthe less, and causes a compound to preserve its own state. Wine,\nfor instance, when expressed from the grapes, seems a thoroughly\nhomogeneous liquor, and yet is not so; for there are gross parts which,\nin the long run, subside in the casks; there are also slender parts\nwhich evaporate; fixed parts, such as tartar; volatile parts, such as\nbrimstone and alcohol; others again, half volatile and half fixed, such\nas phlegm. Those divers parts do not respectively maintain an essential\norder; for no sooner has the must been expressed from the grapes, and\nbeen styled brimstone or volatile spirits, than it continues so closely\ninvolved with the particles of tartar, which is fixed, as not to be in\nany way able to escape.\n\n\n55. Hinc est, quod a musto recenter ab uvis expresso nullo modo potest\ndistillari spiritus sulphureus, qui communiter vocatur =aqua vit\u00e6=: sed\npost quadraginta dies fermentationis particul\u00e6 vini ordinem mutant,\nita ut spiritus, qui alligati erant particulis tartareis, et propria\nvolatilitate eas suspensas tenebant, et vicissim ab eis ne possent\navolare detinebantur, ac tartareis particulis separantur, et divulsi\nac confusi remanent cum partibus phlegmaticis, a quibus per actionem\nignis faciliter separantur, et avolant; sicque per distillationem fit\naqua vit\u00e6, qu\u00e6 aliud non est quam sulphur vini volatile cum tenuiore\nparte phlegmatis simul cum dicto sulphure vi ignis elevata. Post\nquadraginta dies, alia incipit vini fermentatio, qu\u00e6 longiori, aut\nminus longo tempore perficitur, pro vini perfectiori aut imperfectiori\nmaturitate, et alio atque alio modo terminatur, pro minore aut majore\nspiritus sulphurei abundantia. Si enim abundat in vino sulphur, acescit\nfermentatione, et evadit acetum; si autem parum sulphuris continet,\nlentescit vinum, et Italice dicitur =vino molle=, aut =vino guasto=.\nQuod si vinum maturum sit, ut c\u00e6teris paribus est, vinum dulce breviori\ntempore, aut acescit, aut lentescit, ut quotidiana constat experientia.\nIn dicta autem fermentatione ordo essentialis partium vini mutatur;\nnon enim ipsius quantitas, aut materia imminuitur, aut mutatur:\nvidemus enim lagenam vino plenam tractu temporis evadere plenam aceto,\nnullatenus mutatam circa quantitatem materi\u00e6, qu\u00e6 prius ibi extabat,\nsed tantum mutato partium essentiali ordine: nam sulphur, quod, ut\ndiximus, erat phlegmati unitum, ac a tartaro separatum, iterum tartaro\nimplicatur, et cum eo fixatur, et proinde si distilletur acetum, primo\nprodit phlegma insipidum, et post spiritus aceti, qui est sulphur vini\nillaqueatum particulis tartari minus fixi. Mutatio autem essentialis\npartium supradictarum variat substantiam liquoris expressi ab uva,\nquod manifeste patet ex variis et contrariis effectibus, quos causant\nmustum, vinum, et acetum, et vinum lentum, quod vocatur corruptum, ut\nproinde duo prima apta materia sint ad consecrationem, secus alia duo.\nHanc porro vini economiam hausimus ab erudito opere Nicolai Lemerii,\nRegis Galliarum aromatarii, =Curs. de Chimi.=, p. 2. c. 9.\n\n\n55. That is the reason why must recently expressed from the grapes\nis of no use for the distillation of the sulfurous spirits, commonly\ncalled _brandy_; but, after forty days fermentation, the particles of\nthe wine change places: the spirits, no longer bound with the tartaric\nparticles which they kept in suspension through their own volatility,\nwhilst they were, in return, kept down by them and prevented from\nescaping, sever from those particles, and continue confused with\nthe phlegmatic parts from which they become easily released by the\noperation of fire, and evaporate: thus, by means of distillation,\nbrandy is made, which is nothing but the brimstone of wine volatilized\nby heat with the most slender part of phlegm. At the end of forty days\nanother fermentation begins, which extends more or less, according as\nthe maturity of the wine is more or less perfect, and the termination\nof which is dependent on the greater or lesser abundance of sulphurous\nspirits. If abounding with brimstone, the wine sours and turns to\nvinegar; if, on the contrary, it holds but little brimstone, it ropes,\nand becomes what the Italians call _vino molle_ or _vino guasto_.\nIf the wine is at once ripe, as happens in other cases, it sours or\nropes in less time, as is shown by every day experience. Now, in said\nfermentation the essential order of the parts of wine is altered,\nbut not so its quantity nor its matter, which neither changes nor\ndecreases: a bottle that had been filled with wine is, after a certain\ntime, found to be filled with vinegar, without any alteration in its\nquantity of matter; the essential order of its parts has alone been\nmodified: the brimstone, which, as we have said, was united to the\nphlegm and separated from the tartar, becomes again involved and fixed\nwith the tartar; so that, on distilling the vinegar, there issues from\nit first an insipid phlegm, and then spirits of vinegar, which are the\nbrimstone of wine intermixed with particles of tartar that is less\nfixed. Now, the essential shifting of the aforesaid parts alters the\nsubstance of the juice of the grapes, as is clearly shown by the varied\nand contrary effects of must, wine, vinegar, and ropy or spoiled wine;\nfor which cause the two first are fit, but the two last unfit materials\nfor consecration. We have borrowed the above exposition of the economy\nof wine from the able work of Nicholas Lemery, perfumer to the King of\nFrance, _Course of Chemistry_, p. 2. c. q.\n\n\n56. Datam ergo naturalem doctrinam applicando consequenter dico, quod\ndata dictorum animalium corporeitate subtili et tenui, sicut corpora\nliquidorum, et data pariter eorumdem organizatione et figuratione,\nqu\u00e6 partium essentialem ordinationem exigunt, non sequerentur\ninconvenientia ex adverso illata: nam sicut (quemadmodum dicebamus) ex\nconfusione partium vini, et diversa ipsarum accidentali positione non\nvariatur ordinatio earumdem essentialis, ita esset in corpore tenui\ndictorum animalium.\n\n\n56. If now we apply that natural doctrine to our subject, I say\nthat, being given the corporeity of the animals in question, subtile\nand slender like the substance of liquids; being given also their\norganisation and figure, which demand an essential order of the various\nparts, an adverse supposition could raise no argument contrary to their\nexistence; for, just as the jumbling together of the parts of wine\nand the diversity of their accidental dispositions do not alter their\nessential order, even so it would be with the slender frame of our\nanimals.\n\n\n57. Quinta interrogatio est, an talia obnoxia essent \u00e6gritudinibus,\nac aliis imperfectionibus, quibus homines laborant, ut ignorantia,\nmetu, segnitie, sensuum impedimentis, etc.? An laborando lassarentur,\net ad virium reparationem egerent somno, cibo, ac potu, et quo? et\nconsequenter an interirent, et subinde, an a c\u00e6teris animalibus casu,\naut ruina possent occidi?\n\n\n57. Fifth question: Would those animals be subject to diseases and\nother infirmities under which mankind lies, such as ignorance, fear,\nidleness, sensual paralysis, etc? Would they be wearied through labour,\nand require, for recruiting their strength, sleep, food, drink? And\nwhat food, what drink? Would they be fated to die, and might they be\nkilled casually, or by the instrumentality of other animals?\n\n\n58. Respondeo, quod ex quo corpora ipsorum, quamvis tenuia, essent\nmateriata, essent quidem corruptioni obnoxia; et ex consequenti possent\npati ab agentibus contrariis, et ita \u00e6grotare, puta, aut simpliciter,\naut nisi \u00e6gre, perverse, aut vitiose pr\u00e6stare non posse munera, ad\nqu\u00e6 eorum organa essent ordinata; in hoc siquidem consistit animalium\nquorumdam \u00e6gritudo qu\u00e6vis: ut resolutive docet pr\u00e6stantissimus Michael\nEttmullerus, =Physiol.= c. 5., thes. 1. Verum est, quod ex eo, quod\ntantam materi\u00e6 crassitatem non haberent, et forte ex tot elementorum\nmixtione eorum corpus non constaret, et minus compositum esset quam\nhumanum, non tam facile paterentur a contrariis, et consequenter non\ntot \u00e6gritudinibus velut homines essent obnoxia, et longiorem, etiam\nhomine, vitam ducerent: quo enim perfectius est animal, a tota specie,\netiam c\u00e6teris diutius vivit, ut patet de specie humana, cujus vita\nlongior c\u00e6teris animalibus est. Nec enim admitto s\u00e6cularem vitam\ncornicum, cervorum, corvorum et similium, de quibus more suo fabulatur\nPlinius, et ejus somnia sine pr\u00e6via discussione secuti sunt c\u00e6teri:\nquandoquidem nullus est, qui talium animalium natale et interitum\nfideliter adnotaverit, ut pari modo de eo scripserit; sed insolitam\ndiu fabulam quisque secutus est; sicut etiam illud, quod de ph\u0153nice\ndicitur, quod ut quid fabulosum, circa ejus vit\u00e6 spatium recenset\nTacitus, l. 6. =Annal.= Inferendum subinde esset quod illorum animalium\nvita etiam humana deberet esse diuturnior: ut enim infra dicemus, illa\nessent homine nobiliora; consequenter dicendum esset, quod essent\nobnoxia c\u00e6teris corporeis pathematis, et quiete, et cibo indigerent,\nquale diximus supra, n\u00ba 50. Quia vero rationalia, et proinde\ndisciplinabilia essent, ex consequenti etiam capacia ignoranti\u00e6, si\neorum ingenia non essent exculta studiis, et disciplina, et inter ea\npro intellectus eorum majori, et minori acumine essent aliqua magis,\naliqua minus in scientiis excellentia: universaliter vero, et a tota\nspecie essent homine doctiora, non ob eorum corpoream subtilitatem,\ntum forte, ob majorem spirituum activitatem, tum ob diuturniorem vit\u00e6\ndurationem, in qua plura, quam homines discere possent, quas causas\nassignat D. Augustinus, lib. de =Divin. D\u00e6m.= c. 3. init. tom. 3.,\net lib. de =Spir. et Anima=, c. 37., pro futurorum pr\u00e6notione in\nD\u00e6monibus. Ab agentibus autem naturalibus pati quidem possent, ac\ndifficulter occidi ratione velocitatis, qua possunt se subtrahere a\nnocentibus; quapropter, nec a brutis, nec ab homine armis naturalibus,\nseu artificialibus nisi maxima difficultate possent occidi, aut\nmutilari, et maxima eorumdem velocitate in declinando contrarium\nimpetum. Possent vero in somno aut in non advertentia occidi, et\nmutilari a corpore solido, ut ense vibrato ab homine, aut lapide\ndelapso per ruinam, quia eorum corpus licet tenue, tamen et quantum,\net divisibile esset, velut aer qui ferro, fuste, aut alio corpore\nsolido dividitur quamvis tenuis sit. Eorum autem spiritus impartibilis\nesset, et ceu anima hominis totus in toto, et totus in quavis corporis\nparte. Hinc fieret quod diviso corpore ipsorum, ut pr\u00e6fertur, per aliud\ncorpus, sequi posset mutilatio, et proinde etiam mors: non enim fieri\nposset ut diviso corpore idem spiritus utramque partem informaret, cum\nipse indivisibilis esset. Verum est quod sicut partes aeris divis\u00e6, per\nintermedium corpus, hoc sublato iterum uniuntur, et evadit idem aer,\npossent pariter partes corporis divis\u00e6, ut supra ponitur, reuniri, et\nab eodem spiritu revivificari. Sed hoc modo nequirent talia animalia\nab agentibus naturalibus aut artificialibus occidi: sed rationabilior\nesset prima positio; ex hoc enim, quod communicarent cum c\u00e6teris in\nmateria, \u00e6quum est, ut a c\u00e6teris etiam usque ad eorum interitum pati\npossent, ut fit cum c\u00e6teris.\n\n\n58. I reply: Their bodies, though subtile, being material, they would\nof course be liable to decay: they might therefore suffer from adverse\nagencies, and consequently be diseased; that is, their organs might\nnot perform, or painfully and imperfectly perform the office assigned\nto them, for therein consist all diseases whatever with certain\nanimals, as has been distinctly explained by the most illustrious\nMichael Ettmuller, _Physiology_, c. v. thesis 1. In sooth, their body\nbeing less gross than the human frame, comprising less elements mixed\ntogether, and being therefore less composite, they would not so easily\nsuffer from adverse influences, and would therefore be less liable\nto disease than man; their life would also exceed his; for, the more\nperfect an animal, as a species, the longer its days; thus mankind,\nwhose existence extends beyond that of other animals. For I do not\nbelieve in the centenary existence of crows, stags, ravens and the\nlike, of which Pliny tells his customary stories; and although his\ndreams have been reechoed by others without previous inquiry, it is\nno less clear that before writing thus, not one has faithfully noted\nthe birth nor the death of those animals: they have been content with\ntaking up the strange fable, as has been the case with the Phenix,\nwhose longevity is discarded as a story by Tacitus, _Annals_, b. 6.\nIt were therefore to be inferred that the animals we are speaking\nof would live longer still than man; for, as shall be said below,\nthey would be more noble than he; consequently also, they would be\nsubject to the other bodily affections, and require rest and food, as\nmentioned, number 50. Now, as rational beings amenable to discipline,\nthey might also continue ignorant, if their minds did not receive\nthe culture of study and instruction, and some amongst them would be\nmore or less versed in science, more or less clever, according as\ntheir intelligence had been more or less trained. However, generally\nspeaking, and considering the whole of the species, they would be more\nlearned than men, not from the subtilty of their body, but perhaps\nbecause of the greater activity of their mind or the longer space of\ntheir life, which would enable them to learn more things than men: such\nare indeed the motives assigned by S. Austin (_Divin. Demon._ ch.\n3. and _Spirit and Soul_, ch. 37), to the prescience of the future in\nDemons. They might indeed suffer from natural agencies; but they could\nhardly be killed, on account of the speed with which they could escape\nfrom danger; it is therefore most unlikely that they could, without\nthe greatest difficulty, be put to death or mutilated by beast or by\nman, with natural or artificial weapons, so quick would they be at\navoiding the impending blow. Yet, they might be killed or mutilated in\ntheir sleep, or in a moment of inadvertence, by means of a solid body,\nsuch as a sword brandished by a man, or the fall of a heavy stone; for,\nalthough subtile, their body would be divisible, just like air which,\nthough vaporous, is yet divided by a sword, a club, or any other solid\nbody. Their spirit, however, would be indivisible, and like the human\nsoul, entire in the whole and in each and every part of the body.\nConsequently, the division of their body by another body, as aforesaid,\nmight occasion mutilation and even death, for the spirit, itself\nindivisible, could not animate both parts of a divided body. True, just\nas the parts of air, separated by the agency of a body, unite again as\nsoon as that body is withdrawn, and constitute the same air as before,\neven so the parts of the body divided, as above-mentioned, might unite\nand be revived by the same spirit. But then, it must be inferred that\nthose animals could not be slain by natural or artificial agencies: and\nit were more rational to keep to our first position; for, if sharing\nmatter with other creatures, it is natural that they should be liable\nto suffer through those creatures, according to the common rule, and\neven unto death.\n\n\n59. Sexta interrogatio est, an ipsorum corpora possent alia corpora\npenetrare, ut parietes, ligna, metalla, vitrum, etc., et an multa\nipsorum possent in eodem loco materiali consistere, et ad quantum\nspatium extenderetur, seu restringeretur eorum corpus?\n\n\n59. Sixth question: Could their bodies penetrate other bodies, such as\nwalls, wood, metals, glass, etc? Could many of them abide together on\nthe same material spot, and to what space would their body extend or be\nrestrained?\n\n\n60. Respondeo, quod cum in omnibus corporibus quantumvis compactis\ndentur pori, ut ad sensum patet in metallis, de quibus major esset\nratio, quod in ipsis non darentur pori: microscopio perfecte elaborato\ndiscernuntur pori metallorum, cum suis diversis figuris, utique\npossent per poros insinuari quibusvis corporibus, et hoc modo ista\npenetrare, quantumvis tales pori penetrari non possent ab alio liquore,\naut spiritu materiali, aut vini, salis ammoniaci, aut similium, quia\nlonge tenuiora essent istis liquoribus illorum corpora. Quamvis\nautem plures Angeli possint esse in eodem loco materiali, et etiam\nrestringi ad locum minorem minore non tamen in infinitum, ut probat\nScotus in 2. dist. 2. q. 6. =\u00a7 Ad proposi.= et qu\u00e6st. 8., per totum,\nhoc tamen concedendum non esset de corporibus talium animalium; tum\nquia corpora ipsa essent quanta, et eorum dimensio non esset reciproce\npenetrabilis; tum quia si duo corpora gloriosa non possunt esse in\neodem loco, quamvis possent simul esse gloriosum, et non gloriosum, ut\nvoluit Gotofredus de Fontibus, quodlibet 6. q. 5., a quo non discordat\nScotus in 2. distinct. 2. q. 8. in fine; multo minus possent simul esse\nistorum corpora, qu\u00e6, licet subtilia, non tamen \u00e6quarent subtilitatem\ncorporis gloriosi. Quo autem ad extensionem et restrictionem dicendum\nesset, quod sicut ex rarefactione, et condensatione, majus aut\nminus spatium occupatur ab aere, qui etiam arte potest constringi,\nut in minori loco contineatur, quam sit su\u00e6 quantitati naturaliter\ndebitus, ut patet in magnis pilis lusoriis, qu\u00e6 per fistulam seu tubum\ninflatorium inflantur: in his siquidem aer violenter immittitur, et\nconstringitur, et ejus major ibi continetur quantitas, quam naturalis\npil\u00e6 capacitas exigat; ita pariformiter talia corpora ex ipsorum\nnaturali virtute possent ad majus spatium, non tamen excedens eorum\nquantitatem, extendi: ut pariter etiam restringi, non tamen circa\ndeterminatum locum su\u00e6 quantitati debitum. Et quia ipsorum nonnulla,\nprout etiam in hominibus est, essent magna, et nonnulla parva, congruum\nesset, ut magna possent plus extendi, quam parva, et h\u00e6c ad minorem\nlocum restringi, quam magna.\n\n\n60. I reply: In all bodies, however compact, there are pores, as is\napparent in metals where, more than in other bodies, it would seem\nthere should be none; through a perfect microscope the pores of metals\nare discerned, with their different shapes. Now, those animals might,\nthrough the pores, creep into, and thus penetrate any other bodies,\nalthough such pores were impervious to other liquors or material\nspirits, of wine, ammoniacal salt, or the like, because their bodies\nwould be much more subtle than those liquors. However, notwithstanding\nmany Angels may abide together on the same material spot, and even\nconfine themselves in a lesser and lesser space, though not infinitely,\nas is shown by Scott, yet it were rash to ascribe the same power to\nthose animals; for, their bodies are determined in substance and\nimpervious to each other; and if two glorious bodies cannot abide\ntogether on the same spot, though a glorious and a non glorious one\nmay do so, according to some Doctors, much less would it be possible\nfor the bodies of those animals, which are indeed subtile, yet do not\nattain to the subtility of the glorious body. As regards their power\nof extension or compression, we may instance the case of air, which,\nrarefied and condensed, occupies more or less room, and may even, by\nartificial means, be compressed into a narrower space than would be\nnaturally due to its volume; as is seen with those large balls which,\nfor amusement, one inflates by means of a blow-pipe or tube: air, being\nforced into them and compressed, is held in larger quantity than is\nwarranted by the capacity of the ball. Similarly the bodies of the\nanimals we are speaking of might, by their natural virtue, extend to\na larger space, not exceeding however their own substance; they might\nalso contract, but not beyond the determined space due to that same\nsubstance. And, considering that of their number, as with men, some\nwould be tall and some short, it were proper that the tall should be\nable to extend more than the short, and the short to contract more than\nthe tall.\n\n\n61. Septima interrogatio est, an hujusmodi animalia in peccato\noriginali nascerentur, et a Christo Domino fuissent redempta; an ipsis\nconferretur gratia, et per qu\u00e6 sacramenta; sub qua lege viverent, et an\nbeatitudinis et damnationis essent capacia?\n\n\n61. Seventh question: Would those animals be born in original sin,\nand have been redeemed by the Lord Christ? Would the grace have been\nconferred upon them and through what sacraments? Under what law would\nthey live, and would they be capable of beatitude and damnation?\n\n\n62. Respondeo, quod articulus Fidei est, quod Christus Dominus pro\nuniversa creatura rationali gratiam et gloriam meruit. Pariter\narticulus Fidei est, quod Creatur\u00e6 rationali gloria non confertur nisi\npr\u00e6cedat in ea gratia, qu\u00e6 est dispositio ad gloriam. Similis articulus\nest quod gloria non confertur nisi per merita. H\u00e6c vero fundantur in\nobservantia perfecta mandatorum Dei adimpleta per gratiam. Ex his\nsatis fit positis interrogationibus. Incertum est an tales Creatur\u00e6\noriginaliter peccavissent, necne. Certum tamen est, quod si ipsarum\nProthoparens peccasset, sicut peccavit Adam, ipsius descendentes in\npeccato originali nascerentur, quemadmodum nascuntur homines. Et\nquia Deus nunquam reliquit Creaturam rationalem sine remedio, dum\nipsa est in via; si hujusmodi creatur\u00e6 in peccato originali, aut\nactuali inficerentur, Deus providisset illis de remedio, sed quale\nsit, an fecisset, noverit Deus, noverint ips\u00e6. Hoc certum est, si\ninter ipsas essent eadem, aut alia sacramenta, ac sunt in Ecclesia\nhumana militanti, ipsa habuissent, et institutionem, et efficaciam a\nmeritis Jesu Christi, qui omnium creaturarum rationalium Redemptor\net Satisfactor universalis est. Convenientissimum pariter, immo\nnecessarium esset quod sub aliqua lege a Deo sibi data viverent, ut per\nipsius observantiam possent sibi beatitudinem mereri; qu\u00e6nam autem lex\nfuisset, an naturalis tantum, aut scripta, Mosaica, aut Evangelica,\naut alia ab his omnibus differens, prout Deo placuisset, hoc nobis\nincognitum. Quoquomodo autem fuisset, nulla resultaret repugnantia\npossibilitatem talium creaturarum excludens.\n\n\n62. I reply: It is an article of belief that Christ has merited grace\nand glory for all rational creatures without exception. It is also an\narticle of belief that glory is not conferred on a rational creature\nuntil such creature has been previously endowed with grace, which\nis the disposition to glory. According to a like article, glory is\nconferred but by merits. Now, those merits are grounded on the perfect\nobservance of the commands of God, which is accomplished through grace.\nThe above questions are thus solved. Whether those creatures did or did\nnot sin originally is uncertain. It is clear, however, that if their\nfirst Parent had sinned as Adam sinned, his descent would be born in\noriginal sin, as men are born. And, as God never leaves a rational\ncreature without a remedy, so long as it treads the way, if those\ncreatures were infected with original or with actual sin, God would\nhave provided them with a remedy; but whether it is the case, and of\nwhat kind is the remedy, is a secret between God and them. Surely, if\nthey had sacraments identical with or different from those in use in\nthe human Church militant, for the institution and efficacy thereof\nthey would be indebted to the merits of Jesus-Christ, the Redeemer and\nuniversal Atoner of all rational creatures. It would likewise be highly\nproper, nay necessary, that they should live under some law given them\nby God, and through the observance of which they might merit beatitude;\nbut what would be that law, whether merely natural or written, Mosaic\nor Evangelical, or different from all these and specially instituted\nby God, that we are ignorant of. Whatever it might be though, there\nwould follow no objection exclusive of the possible existence of such\ncreatures.\n\n\n63. Unicum porro argumentum, et quidem satis debile post longam\nmeditationem mihi subit contra talium creaturarum possibilitatem:\net est quod si tales creatur\u00e6 in Mundo existerent, de ipsis notitia\naliqua tradita fuisset a Philosophis, Sacra Scriptura, Traditione\nEcclesiastica, aut Sanctis Patribus; quod cum non fuerit, tales\ncreaturas minime possibiles esse concludendum est.\n\n\n63. The only argument, and that a rather lame one, which long\nmeditations has suggested to me against the possibility of such\ncreatures, is that, if they really existed in the World, we should\nfind them mentioned somewhere by Philosophers, Holy Scripture,\nEcclesiastical Tradition, or the Holy Fathers; such not being the case,\ntheir utter impossibility should be inferred.\n\n\n64. Sed hoc argumentum, quod revera magis pulsat existentiam, quam\npossibilitatem illarum, facili negotio solvitur ex iis qu\u00e6 pr\u00e6missimus\nsupra n\u00ba 41. et 42. Argumentum enim ab auctoritate negativa non tenet.\nPr\u00e6terquam quod falsum est, quod de illis notitiam non tradiderint\ntum Philosophi, tum Scriptura, tum Patres. Plato siquidem, ut refert\nApuleius =de Deo Socratis= et Plutarchus =de Isid.= apud Baronem,\n=Scot. Defens.=, tom. 9. =Apparat.= p. 1. fol. 2., voluit D\u00e6mones\nesse animalia genere, animo passiva, mente rationalia, corpore aerea,\ntempore \u00e6terna: creaturasque istas nomine =D\u00e6monum= intitulavit; quod\ntamen nomen non male sonat ex se: importat enim =plenum sapientia=;\nunde cum Diabolum (Angelum nempe malum) volunt auctores exprimere,\nnon simpliciter D\u00e6monem sed =Cacod\u00e6monem= vocant: sicut =Eud\u00e6monem=,\nquando bonum Angelum volunt intelligi. Similiter in Scriptura Sacra et\nPatribus, de dictis creaturis habetur mentio, et de hoc infra dicemus.\n\n\n64. But that argument which, in fact, calls in question their existence\nrather than their possibility, is easily disposed of by our premises,\nNrs 41 and 42; for no argument can stand in virtue of a negative\nauthority. Besides, it is not correct to assert that neither the\nPhilosophers, nor the Scriptures, nor the Fathers have handed down\nany notion of them. Plato, as is reported by Apuleius (_The Demon of\nSocrates_) and Plutarch (_Isis and Osiris_), declared that Demons were\nbeings of the animal kind, passive souls, rational intelligences,\naerial bodies, everlasting; and he gave them the name of _Demons_,\nwhich of itself is nowise offensive, since it means _replete with\nwisdom_; so that, when authors allude to the Devil (or Evil Angel),\nthey do not merely call him Demon, but _Cacodemon_, and say likewise\n_Eudemon_, when speaking of a good Angel. Those creatures are also\nmentioned in Scripture and by the Fathers, as shall be said hereafter.\n\n\n65. Stabilita huc usque talium creaturarum possibilitate, ad\nearumdem existentiam probandam descendamus. Supposita tot historiarum\nveritate de coitu hujusmodi Incuborum et Succuborum cum hominibus et\nbrutis, ita ut hoc negare impudentia videatur, ut ait D. Augustinus\nquem dedimus supra n\u00ba 10., ita arguo: Ubi reperitur propria passio\nsensus, ibidem necessario reperitur sensus ipse, cum juxta principia\nphilosophica propria passio fluat a natura, sive ubi reperiuntur\nactiones, seu operationes sensus, ibidem reperitur sensus ipse, cum\noperationes et actiones sint a forma. Atqui in hujusmodi Incubis aut\nSuccubis, sunt actiones, operationes, ac propri\u00e6 passiones, qu\u00e6 sunt a\nsensibus; ergo in iisdem reperitur sensus: sed sensus reperiri nequit\nnisi adsint organa composita, nempe ex potentia anim\u00e6 et determinata\nparte corporis: ergo in iisdem reperiuntur corpus et anima; erunt\nigitur animalia: sed etiam in ipsis et ab ipsis sunt actiones, et\noperationes anim\u00e6 rationalis: ergo eorum anima erit rationalis: et ita\nde primo ad ultimum tales Incubi sunt animalia rationalia.\n\n\n65. Now that we have proved that those creatures are possible, let us\ngo a step further, and show that they exist. Taking for granted the\ntruth of the recitals concerning the intercourse of Incubi and Succubi\nwith men and beasts, recitals so numerous that it would look like\nimpudence to deny the fact, as is said by St Austin, whose testimony\nis given above (Nr 10), I argue: Where the peculiar passion of the\nsense is found, there also, of necessity, is the sense itself; for,\naccording to the principles of philosophy, the peculiar passion flows\nfrom nature, that is to say; that, where the acts and operations of\nthe sense are found, there also is the sense, the operations and acts\nbeing but its external form. Now, those Incubi and Succubi present\nacts, operations, peculiar passions, which spring from the senses; they\nare therefore endowed with senses. But senses cannot exist without\nconcomitant composite organs, without a combination of soul and body.\nIncubi and Succubi have therefore body and soul, and, consequentially,\nare animals; but their acts and operations are also those of a rational\nsoul; their soul is therefore rational; and thus, from first to last,\nthey are rational animals.\n\n\n66. Minor probatur quoad singulas ejus partes. Passio siquidem\nappetitiva coitus est passio sensus; m\u0153ror, ac tristitia, ac iracundia\net furor ex coitu denegato passiones sensus sunt, ut patet in quibusvis\nanimalibus; generatio per coitum est operatio sensus, ut notum est.\nH\u00e6c porro omnia in Incubis sunt: ut enim probavimus supra a n\u00ba 25. et\nseq., ipsi coitum muliebrem, et quandoque virilem appetunt, tristantur,\net furunt, ut amantes, amentes, si ipsis denegetur; coeunt perfecte et\nquandoque generant. Concludendum ergo quod polleant sensu, et proinde\ncorpore; unde inferendum etiam perfecta animalia esse. Pariter clausis\nostiis ac fenestris intrant ubivis locorum: igitur ipsorum corpus\ntenue est; item futura pr\u00e6noscunt, annuntiant, componunt, ac dividunt;\nqu\u00e6 operationes sunt propri\u00e6 anim\u00e6 rationalis: ergo anima rationali\npollent; et ita sunt vera animalia rationalia.\n\nRespondent communiter Doctores, quod malus D\u00e6mon est ille qui tales\nimpudicitias operatur, quod passiones, nempe amorem, tristitiamque\nsimulat ex coitu denegato, ut animas ad peccandum alliciat, et eas\nperdat; et si coit, et generat, hoc est ex semine, et in corpore\nalieno, ut dictum fuit supra n\u00ba 24.\n\n\n66. Our minor is easy of demonstration in each of its parts. And\nindeed, the appetitive passion of coition is a sensual passion; the\ngrief, sadness, wrath, rage, occasioned by the denial of coition, are\nsensual passions, as is seen with all animals; generation through\ncoition is evidently a sensual operation. Now, all that happens with\nIncubi, as has been shown above: they incite women, sometimes even men;\nif denied, they sadden and storm, like lovers: _amantes, amentes_; they\nperfectly practice coition, and sometimes beget. It must therefore be\ninferred that they have senses, and consequently a body; consequently\nalso, that they are perfect animals. More than that: with closed doors\nand windows they enter wherever they please: their body is therefore\nslender; they foreknow and foretell the future, compose and divide, all\nwhich operations are proper to a rational soul; they therefore possess\na rational soul and are, in sooth, rational animals.\n\nDoctors generally retort that it is the Evil Spirit that perpetrates\nthose impure acts, simulates passions, love, grief at the denial of\ncoition, in order to entice souls to sin and to undo them; and that,\nif he copulates and begets, it is with assumed sperm and body, as\naforesaid (Nr 24).\n\n\n67. Sed contra Incubi nonnulli rem habent cum equis, equabus,\naliisque etiam brutis, qu\u00e6 si coitum adversentur, male ab ipsis\ntractantur, ut quotidiana constat experientia; sed in istis cessat\nratio adducta, nempe quod fingat appetitum coitus, ut animas perdat,\ncum anima brutorum damnationis \u00e6tern\u00e6 sit incapax. Pr\u00e6terea amoris et\nir\u00e6 passiones in ipso contrarios effectus reales producunt. Si enim\naut mulier aut brutum amatum illis morem gerant, optime ab Incubis\ntractantur; viceversa pessime habentur, si ex denegato coitu irascantur\net furant; et hoc firmatur quotidiana experientia; ergo in ipsis sunt\nver\u00e6 passiones sensus. Insuper mali D\u00e6mones, ac incorporei, qui rem\nhabent cum Sagis et Maleficis, ipsas cogunt ad eorum adorationem,\nad denegandam Fidem Orthodoxam, ad maleficia et scelera enormia\nperpetranda tanquam pensum infamis coitus, ut supra n\u00ba 11. dictum\nfuit: nihil horum pr\u00e6tendunt Incubi, ergo mali D\u00e6mones non sunt.\nUlterius malus D\u00e6mon, ut ex Peltano et Thyreo scribit Guaccius,\n=Compend. Malef.= lib. 1. c. 19. fol. 128., ad prolationem nominis Jesu\naut Mari\u00e6, ad formationem signi Crucis, ad approximationem sacrarum\nReliquiarum, sive rerum benedictarum, et ad exorcismos, adjurationes,\naut pr\u00e6cepta sacerdotum, aut fugit aut pavet, concutiturque, et\nstridet, ut conspicitur quotidie in energumenis, et constat ex\ntot historiis, quas recitat Guaccius, ex quibus habetur, quod in\nnocturnis ludis Sagarum facto ab aliquo assistentium signo Crucis, aut\npronuntiato nomine Jesu, Diaboli et secum Sag\u00e6 omnes disparuerunt.\nSed Incubi ad supradicta nec fugiunt, nec pavent, quandoque cachinnis\nexorcismos excipiunt, et quandoque ipsos Exorcistas c\u00e6dunt, et sacras\nvestes discerpunt. Quod si mali D\u00e6mones, utpote a D. N. J. C. domiti,\nad ipsius nomen, Crucem, et res sacras pavent: boni autem Angeli\neisdem rebus gaudent, non tamen homines ad peccata et Dei offensam\nsollicitant: Incubi vero sacra non timent, et ad peccata provocant,\nconvincitur ipsos nec malos D\u00e6mones, nec bonos Angelos esse; sed patet,\nquod nec homines sunt, cum tamen ratione utantur. Quid ergo erunt? Si\nin termino sunt, et simplices spiritus sunt, erunt aut damnati aut\nbeati: non enim in bona Theologia dantur puri spiritus viatores. Si\ndamnati, nomen et Crucem Christi revererentur; si beati, homines ad\npeccandum non provocarent; ergo aliud erunt a puris spiritus; et sic\nerunt corporati, et viatores.\n\n\n67. But then, there are Incubi that have to do with horses, mares and\nother beasts, and, as shown by every day experience, ill-treat them if\nrebel to coition; yet, in those cases, it can no longer be adduced\nthat the Demon simulates the appetite for coition in order to bring\nabout the ruin of souls, since those of beasts are not capable of\neverlasting damnation. Besides, love and wrath with them are productive\nof quite opposite effects. For, if the loved woman or beast humours\nthem, those Incubi behave very well; on the contrary, they use them\nmost savagely when irritated and enraged by a denial of coition: this\nis amply proved by daily experience: those Incubi therefore have\ntruly sexual passions. Besides, the Evil Spirits, the incorporeal\nDemons which have to do with Sorceresses and Witches, constrain them\nto Demon-Worship, to the abjuration of the Orthodox Faith, to the\ncommission of enchantments and foul crimes, as preliminary conditions\nto the infamous intercourse, as has been above-stated (Nr 11); now,\nIncubi pretend to nothing of the kind: they are therefore no Evil\nSpirits. Lastly, as written by Guaccius, at the mere utterance of the\nname of Jesus or Mary, at the sign of the Cross, the approach of Holy\nRelics or consecrated objects, at exorcisms, adjurations or priestly\ninjunctions, the Evil Demon either shudders and takes to flight, or\nis agitated and howls, as is daily seen with energumens and is shown\nby numerous narratives of Guaccius concerning the nightly revels of\nWitches, where, at a sign of the Cross or the name of Jesus said by\none of the assistants, Devils and Witches all vanish together. Incubi,\non the contrary, stand all those ordeals without taking to flight or\nshowing the least fear; sometimes even they laugh at exorcisms, strike\nthe Exorcists themselves, and rend the sacred vestments. Now, if the\nevil Demons, subdued by our Lord Jesus-Christ, are stricken with fear\nby his name, the Cross and the holy things; if, on the other hand, the\ngood Angels rejoice at those same things, without however inciting men\nto sin nor to give offense to God, whilst the Incubi, without having\nany dread of the holy things, provoke to sin, it is clear that they are\nneither evil Demons nor good Angels; but it is clear also that they\nare not men, though endowed with reason. What then should they be?\nSupposing them to have reached the goal, and to be pure spirits, they\nwould be damned or blessed, for correct Theology does not admit of pure\nspirits on the way to salvation. If damned, they would revere the name\nand the Cross of Christ; if blessed, they would not incite men to sin;\nthey would therefore be different from pure spirits, and thus, have a\nbody and be on the way to salvation.\n\n\n68. Pr\u00e6terea agens materiale non potest agere nisi in passum similiter\nmateriale; tritum siquidem est axioma philosophorum, quod agens et\npatiens debent communicare in subjecto; nec id quod materiatum est,\npotest agere in rem pure spiritualem. Dantur autem agentia naturalia,\nqu\u00e6 agunt contra hujusmodi D\u00e6mones Incubos, sequitur igitur quod isti\nmateriati, seu corporei sunt. Minor probatur ex iis qu\u00e6 scribunt\nDioscorides, l. 2. c. 168. et l. 1. c. 100., Plinius, lib. 15. c. 4.,\nAristoteles, =Probl. 34.=, et Apuleius, =l. De Virtute Herbarum=,\napud Guaccium, =Comp. Malef.=, l. 3. c. 13. fol. 316., et confirmatur\nexperientia, nempe de pluribus herbis, lapidibus ac animalibus, qu\u00e6\nD\u00e6mones depellunt, ut ruta, hypericon, verbena, scordium, palma\nChristi, centaureum, adamas, corallium, gagates, jaspis, pellis capitis\nlupi aut asini, menstruum muliebre, et centum alia; unde habetur 26, q.\n7. cap. final.: =D\u00e6monium sustinenti liceat petras, vel herbas habere\nsine incantatione=. Ex quo habetur, petras aut herbas posse sua vi\nnaturali D\u00e6monis vires compescere, aliter Canon hoc non permitteret,\nsed ut superstitiosum vetaret. Et de hoc luculentum exemplum habemus in\nSacra Scriptura, ubi Angelus Raphael dixit Tobi\u00e6, c. 6, v. 8.: =Cordis\nejus= (nempe piscis, quem a Tigri attraxerat) =particulam, si super\ncarbones ponas, fumus ejus extricat omne genus D\u00e6moniorum=. Et ejus\nvirtutem experientia comprobavit: nam incenso jecore piscis, fugatus\nest Incubus, qui Saram deperiebat.\n\n\n68. Besides, a material agent cannot act but on an equally material\npassive. It is indeed a trite philosophical axiom, that agent and\npatient must have a common subject: pure matter cannot act on any\npurely spiritual thing. Now, there are natural agents which act on\nthose Incubi Demons: these are therefore material or corporeal. Our\nminor is proved by the testimony of Dioscorides, Pliny, Aristoteles and\nApuleius, quoted by Guaccius, _Comp. Malef._ b. 3, ch. 13, fol. 316;\nit is confirmed by our knowledge of numerous herbs, stones and animal\nsubstances which have the virtue of driving away Demons, such as rue,\nSt-John\u2019s wort, verbena, germander, palma Christi, centaury, diamonds,\ncoral, jet, jasper, the skin of the head of a wolf or an ass, women\u2019s\ncatamenia, and a hundred others: wherefore it is written: _For such as\nare assaulted by the Demon it is lawful to have stones or herbs, but\nwithout recourse to incantations_. It follows that, by their own native\nvirtue, stones or herbs can bridle the Demon: else the above mentioned\nCanon would not permit their use, but would on the contrary forbid\nit as superstitious. We have a striking instance thereof in Holy\nScripture, where the Angel Raphael says to Tobit, ch. 6, v. 8, speaking\nof the fish which he had drawn from the Tigris: \u201c_If thou puttest on\ncoals a particle of its liver, the smoke thereof will drive away all\nkinds of Demons._\u201d Experience demonstrated the truth of those\nwords; for, no sooner was the liver of the fish set on fire, than the\nIncubus who was in love with Sarah was put to flight.\n\n\n69. Respondent ad h\u00e6c communiter Theologi, quod talia agentia naturalia\ninchoative tantum fugant D\u00e6monem, completive autem vis supernaturalis\nDei aut Angeli, ita ut virtus supernaturalis sit causa primaria,\ndirecta, et principalis, naturalis autem secondaria, indirecta,\net minus principalis. Unde ad probationem, qu\u00e6 supra adducta est\nde D\u00e6mone fugato a fumo jecoris piscis incensi a Tobia, respondet\nVallesius, =De Sac. Philosoph.=, c. 28., quod tali fumo indita fuit a\nDeo vis supernaturalis fugandi Incubum, sicut igni materiali Inferni\ndata est virtus torquendi D\u00e6mones et animas Damnatorum. Ad eamdem\nautem probationem respondet Lyranus, et Cornelius ad c. 6. Tob. v.\n8., Abulentis in 1. Reg. c. 16. q. 46., Pererius in =Daniel.=, pag.\n272., apud Cornel. =loc. cit.=, fumum cordis piscis expulisse D\u00e6monem\ninchoate vi naturali, sed complete vi angelica et c\u0153lesti: naturali\nautem impediendo actionem D\u00e6monis per dispositionem contrariam, quia\nhic agit per naturales causas et humores, quorum qualitates expugnantur\na qualitatibus contrariis rerum naturalium, qu\u00e6 dicuntur D\u00e6mones\nfugare; et in eadem sententia sunt omnes loquentes de arte exorcista.\n\n\n69. To this Theologians usually retort that such natural agents merely\ninitiate the ejection of the Demon, and that the completive effect\nis due to the supernatural force of God or of the Angel; so that the\nsupernatural force is the primary, direct and principal cause, the\nnatural force being but secondary, indirect and subordinate. Thus, in\norder to explain how the liver of the fish burnt by Tobit drove away\nthe Demon, Vallesius asserts that the smoke thereof had been endowed by\nGod with the supernatural power of expelling the Incubus, in the same\nmanner as the material fire of Hell has the virtue of tormenting Demons\nand the souls of the Damned. Others, such as Lyranus and Cornelius,\nprofess that the smoke of the heart of the fish initiated the ejection\nof the Demon by native virtue, but completed it by angelical and\nheavenly virtue: by native virtue, insomuch that it opposed a contrary\naction to that of the Demon; for the Evil Spirit applies native causes\nand humours, the native qualities of which are combated by the contrary\nqualities of natural things known to be capable of driving away Demons;\nthat opinion is shared by all those who treat of the art of exorcisms.\n\n\n70. Sed h\u00e6c responsio, que tamen validas habet instantias, ad plus\nquadrare potest contra malos D\u00e6mones obsidentes corpora, aut per\nmaleficia inferentes ipsis \u00e6gritudines, aut alia incommoda, sed\nnullo modo facit ad propositum de Incubis: siquidem isti nec corpora\nobsident, nec ipsis officiunt per \u00e6gritudines habituales, sed ad plus\nictibus et percussionibus torquent. Quod si equas coitum adversantes\nmacras reddunt, hoc faciunt subducendo illis cibum, et hoc modo\nmacrescere, et tandem interire eas faciunt. Ad h\u00e6c autem patranda\nnon eget Incubus alicujus rei naturalis applicatione (qua tamen eget\nmalus D\u00e6mon inferens agritudinem habitualem), ea enim potest ex sua\nvi organica naturali. Pariter D\u00e6mon malus plerumque obsidet corpora,\net infert \u00e6gritudines ad signa cum ipso conventa et posita a Saga aut\nMalefico, qu\u00e6 signa multoties res naturales sunt pr\u00e6dit\u00e6 vi nativa\nnocendi, quibus naturaliter resistunt alia pariter naturalia contrari\u00e6\nvirtutis. Incubus vero non sic; quia ex se, et nulla concurrente aut\nSaga, aut Malefico, suas vexationes infert. Pr\u00e6terea res naturales\nfugantes Incubos suam virtutem exercent, ac effectum sortiuntur absque\ninterventu alicujus exorcismi aut sacr\u00e6 benedictionis; ut proinde\ndici non possit, quod fuga Incubi inchoative sit a virtute naturali,\ncompletive autem a vi divina, quia ibi nulla particularis intervenit\ndivini nominis invocatio, sed est purus effectus rei naturalis, ad quem\nnon concurrit Deus, nisi concursu universali, tanquam auctor natur\u00e6, et\ncausa universalis, et prima in ordine efficientium.\n\n\n70. But that explanation, however plausible the facts upon which it\nrests, can at most be received as regards the Evil Spirits which\npossess bodies or, through malefice, infect them with diseases or other\ninfirmities; it does not at all meet the case of Incubi. For, these\nneither possess bodies nor infect them with diseases; they, at most,\nmolest them by blows and ill-treatment. If they cause the mares to grow\nlean because of their not yielding to coition, it is merely by taking\naway their provender, in consequence of which they fall off and finally\ndie. To that purpose the Incubus need not use a natural agent, as the\nEvil Spirit does when imparting a disease: it is enough that it should\nexert its own native organic force. Likewise, when the Evil Spirit\npossesses bodies and infects them with diseases, it is most frequently\nthrough signs agreed upon with himself, and arranged by a witch or a\nwizard, which signs are usually natural objects, indued with their own\nnoxious virtue, and of course opposed by other equally natural objects\nendowed with a contrary virtue. But not so the Incubus: it is of his\nown accord, and without the cooperation of either witch or wizard, that\nhe inflicts his molestations. Besides, the natural things which put the\nIncubi to flight exert their virtue and bring about a result without\nthe intervention of any exorcism or blessing; it cannot therefore be\nsaid that the ejection of the Incubus is initiated by natural, and\ncompleted by divine virtue, since there is in this case no particular\ninvocation of the divine name, but the mere effect of a natural object,\nin which God cooperates only as the universal agent, the author of\nnature, the first of efficient causes.\n\n\n71. Duas circa hoc historias do, quarum primam habui a Confessario\nMonialium, viro gravi, ac fide dignissimo. Alterius vero sum testis\noculatus.\n\nIn quodam Sanctimonalium monasterio degebat ad educationem Virgo\nqu\u00e6dam nobilis tentata ab Incubo, qui diu noctuque ipsi apparebat,\nipsam ad coitum sollicitando eniximis precibus, tamquam amasius pr\u00e6\namore dementatus; ipsa tamen semper restitit tentanti gratia Dei, ac\nsacramentorum frequentia roborata. Incassum abiere plures devotiones,\njejunia et vota facta a puella vexata, exorcismi, benedictiones, et\npr\u00e6ecepta ab exorcistis facta Incubo, ut desisteret a molestia illa;\nnec quidquam proficiebatur multitudo reliquiarum, aliarumque rerum\nbenedictarum disposita in camera virginis tentat\u00e6, nec benedict\u00e6\ncandel\u00e6 noctu ibidem ardentes impediebant, quominus juxta consuetum\nappareret ad tentandum in forma speciosissimi juvenis. Consultus\ninter alios viros doctos fuit quidam Theologus magn\u00e6 eruditionis:\niste advertens virginem tentatam esse temperamenti phlegmatici\na toto, conjectavit Incubum esse d\u00e6monem aqueum (dantur enim ut\nscribit Guaccius, =Comp. Malefic.= l. 1. c. 19. fol. 129., D\u00e6mones\nignei, aerei, phlegmatici, terrei, subterranei, et lucifugi), et\nconsului, quod in camera virginis tentat\u00e6 continue fieret suffimentum\nvaporosum sequens. Requirunt ollam novam figulinam vitreatam; in hac\nponitur calami aromatici, cubebarum seminis, aristolochi\u00e6 utriusque\nradicum, cardamomi majoris et minoris, gingiberis, piperis longi,\ncaryophyllorum, cinnamomi, canell\u00e6 caryophyllat\u00e6, macis, nucum\nmyristicarum, styracis calamit\u00e6, benzoini, ligni ac radicis rodi\u00e6,\nligni aloes, triasantalorum una uncia, semiaqu\u00e6 vit\u00e6 libr\u00e6 tres;\nponitur olla supra cineres calidas ut vapor suffimenti ascendat, et\ncella clausa tenetur. Facto suffimento advenit denuo Incubus, sed\ningredi cellam nunquam ausus est: sed si tentata extra eam ibat, et\nper viridarium ac claustra spatiabatur, aliis invisibilis sibi visus\napparebat Incubus, et puell\u00e6 collo injectis brachiis violenter, ac\nquasi furtive oscula rapiebat: quod molestissimum honest\u00e6 virgini erat.\nConsultus denuo Theologus ille ordinavit puell\u00e6, ut deferret pixidulas\nunguentarias exquisitorum odorum, ut moschi, ambr\u00e6, zibetti, balsami\nPeruviani, ac aliorum compositorum; quod cum fecisset, deambulanti per\nviridarium puell\u00e6 apparuit Incubus faci minaci, ac furenti; non tamen\nad illam approximavit, sed digitum sibi momordit tanquam meditans\nvindictam; tandem disparuit, nec amplius ab ea visus fuit.\n\n\n71. To illustrate this subject, I give two stories, the first of which\nI have from a Confessor of Nuns, a man of weight, and most worthy of\ncredit; the second I was eye-witness to.\n\nIn a certain monastery of holy Nuns there lived, as a boarder, a young\nmaiden of noble birth, who was tempted by an Incubus that appeared to\nher by day and by night, and with the most earnest entreaties, the\nmanners of a most passionate lover, incessantly incited her to sin;\nbut she, supported by the grace of God and the frequent use of the\nsacraments, stoutly resisted the temptation. But, all her devotions,\nfasts and vows notwithstanding, despite the exorcisms, the blessings,\nthe injunctions showered by exorcists on the Incubus that he should\ndesist from molesting her; in spite of the crowd of relics and other\nholy objects collected in the maiden\u2019s room, of the lighted candles\nkept burning there all night, the Incubus none the less persisted in\nappearing to her as usual, in the shape of a very handsome young man.\nAt last, among other learned men, whose advice had been taken on the\nsubject, was a very erudite Theologian who, observing that the maiden\nwas of a thoroughly phlegmatic temperament, surmised that that Incubus\nwas an aqueous Demon (there are in fact, as is testified by Guaccius,\nigneous, aerial, phlegmatic, earthly, subterranean demons who avoid the\nlight of day), and prescribed an uninterrupted fumigation in the room.\nA new vessel, made of glass-like earth, was accordingly brought in,\nand filled with sweet cane, cubeb seed, roots of both aristolochies,\ngreat and small cardamon, ginger, long-pepper, caryophylle\u00e6, cinnamon,\ncloves, mace, nutmegs, calamite storax, benzoin, aloes-wood and\nroots, one ounce of triasandalis, and three pounds of half brandy\nand water; the vessel was then set on hot ashes in order to force up\nthe fumigating vapour, and the cell was kept closed. As soon as the\nfumigation was done, the Incubus came, but never dared enter the cell;\nonly, if the maiden left it for a walk in the garden or the cloister,\nhe appeared to her, though invisible to others and throwing his arms\nround her neck, stole or rather snatched kisses from her, to her\nintense disgust. At last, after a new consultation, the Theologian\nprescribed that she should carry about her person pills made of the\nmost exquisite perfumes, such as musk, amber, chive, Peruvian balsam,\nand others. Thus provided, she went for a walk in the garden, where\nthe Incubus suddenly appeared to her with a threatening face, and in a\nrage. He did not approach her, however, but, after biting his finger as\nif meditating revenge, disappeared and was never more seen by her.\n\n\n72. Alia historia est, quod in Conventu Magn\u00e6 Cartusi\u00e6 Ticinensis,\nfuit quidam Diaconus, nomine dictus Augustinus, maximas, ac inauditas,\net pene incredibiles sustinens a quodam D\u00e6mone vexationes; qu\u00e6 tolli\nnullo remedio spirituali (quamvis plura juxta plures exorcistas, qui\nliberationem, sed incassum tentarunt, fuissent adhibita) potuerunt.\nMe consuluit illius Conventus vicarius, qui curam divexati, utpote\nClerici, ex officio habebat. Ego videns frustranea fuisse consueta\nexorcismorum remedia, exemplo histori\u00e6 suprarecensit\u00e6 consului\nsuffimentum simile superiori, utque divexatus pixidulas odoramentorum\nsupradictas deferret; et quia tabacchi usum habebat, et aqua vit\u00e6\ndelectabatur, suasi ut et tabaccho et aqua vit\u00e6 moschata uteretur.\nD\u00e6mon illi apparebat diu noctuque ultra alias species, puta scheleti,\nsuis, asini, Angeli, avis, modo in forma unius, modo alterius ex suis\nReligiosis, et semel in forma sui Pr\u00e6lati, nempe Prioris, qui hortatus\nest vexatum ad puritatem conscienti\u00e6, ad confidentiam in Deum, et ad\nfrequentiam confessionis; suasit ut sibi sacramentalem confessionem\nfaceret, quod etiam fecit; et expost Psalmos =Exsurgat Deus= et =Qui\nhabitat=, et mox Evangelium S. Joannis simul cum vexato recitavit, et\nad ea verba =Verbum caro factum est= genuflexit, et accepta stola,\nqu\u00e6 in cella erat, et aspergillo aqu\u00e6 benedict\u00e6 benedixit cell\u00e6, ac\nlecto vexati, et ac si revera fuisset ipsius Prior pr\u00e6ceptum fecit\nD\u00e6moni, ne auderet illum suum subditum amplius divexare, et post h\u00e6c\ndisparuit, sicque prodidit quisnam esset: aliter vexatus illum suum\nPr\u00e6latum esse reputaverat. Postquam igitur suffimentum, ac odores,\nut supra dictum est, consulueram, non destitit D\u00e6mon juxta solitum\napparere; imo assumpta figura vexati fuit ad cameram Vicarii, et ab\neo petiit aquam vit\u00e6, ac tabaccum moschatum, dicens sibi talia valde\nplacere. Vicarius utrumque illi dedit: quibus acceptis disparuit in\nmomento, quo facto cognovit Vicarius se fuisse illusum a D\u00e6mone tali\npacto: quod magis confirmavit assertum vexati, qui cum juramento\naffirmavit, se illa die nullo modo fuisse in cella Vicarii. Iste mihi\ntotum retulit, et ex tali facto conjeci D\u00e6monem illum non fuisse\naqueum, ut erat Incubus, qui virginem ad coitum sollicitabat, ut\ndictum supra est, sed igneum, vel ad minus aereum, ex quo gaudebat\nvaporibus, ac odoribus, tabacco, et aqua vit\u00e6, qu\u00e6 calida sunt. Et\nconjectur\u00e6 vim addidit temperamentum divexati, quod erat colericum quo\nad pr\u00e6dominium cum subdominio, tamen sanguineo. D\u00e6mones enim tales non\naccedunt nisi ad eos, qui secum in temperamento symbolizant; ex quo\nvalidatur opinio mea de illorum corporeitate. Unde suasi Vicario, ut\nacciperet herbas natura frigidas, ut nymph\u00e6am, hepaticam, portulacam,\nmandragoram, sempervivam, plantaginem, hyoscyamum, et alias similes, et\nex iis compositum fasciculum fenestr\u00e6, alium ostio cell\u00e6 suspenderet;\nsimilibusque herbis, tum cameram, tum lectum divexati sterneret. Mirum\ndictu! comparuit denuo D\u00e6mon, manens tamen extra cameram, nec ingredi\nvoluit, et cum divexatus illum interrogasset, quare de more intrare\nnon auderet, multis verbis injuriosis jactatis contra me, qui talia\nconsulueram, disparuit, nec amplius reversus est.\n\n\n72. Here is the other story. In the great Carthusian Friary of Pavia\nthere lived a Deacon, Austin by name, who was subjected by a certain\nDemon to excessive, unheard of and scarcely credible vexations;\nalthough many exorcists had made repeated endeavours to secure his\nriddance, all spiritual remedies had proved unavailing. I was consulted\nby the Vicar of the convent, who had the cure of the poor clerk.\nSeeing the inefficacy of all customary exorcisms, and remembering the\nabove-related instance, I advised a fumigation like unto the one that\nhas been detailed, and prescribed that the Deacon should carry about\nhis person fragrant pills of the same kind; moreover, as he was in the\nhabit of using tobacco, and was very fond of brandy, I advised tobacco\nand brandy perfumed with musk. The Demon appeared to him by day and by\nnight, under various shapes, as a skeleton, a pig, an ass, an Angel,\na bird; with the figure of one or other of the Friars, once even with\nthat of his own Abbot or Prior, exhorting him to keep his conscience\nclean, to trust in God, to confess frequently; he persuaded him to\nlet him hear his sacramental confession, recited with him the psalms\n_Exsurgat Deus_ and _Qui habitat_, and the Gospel according to St John:\nand when they came to the words _Verbum caro factum est_, he bent his\nknee, and taking hold of a stole which was in the cell, and of the\nHoly-water sprinkle, he blessed the cell and the bed, and, as if he had\nreally been the Prior, enjoined on the Demon not to venture in future\nto molest his subordinate; he then disappeared, thus betraying what\nhe was, for otherwise the young deacon had taken him for his Prior.\nNow, notwithstanding the fumigations and perfumes I had prescribed,\nthe Demon did not desist from his wonted apparitions; more than that,\nassuming the features of his victim, he went to the Vicar\u2019s room, and\nasked for some tobacco and brandy perfumed with musk, of which, said\nhe, he was extremely fond. Having received both, he disappeared in the\ntwinkling of an eye, thus showing the Vicar that he had been played\nwith by the Demon; and this was amply confirmed by the Deacon, who\naffirmed upon his oath that he had not gone that day to the Vicar\u2019s\ncell. All that having been related to me, I inferred that, far from\nbeing aqueous like the Incubus who was in love with the maiden above\nspoken of, this Demon was igneous, or, at the very least, aerial, since\nhe delighted in hot substances such as vapours, perfumes, tobacco\nand brandy. Force was added to my surmises by the temperament of the\nyoung deacon, which was choleric and sanguine, choler predominating\nhowever; for, those Demons never approach but those whose temperament\ntallies with their own: another confirmation of my sentiment regarding\ntheir corporeity. I therefore advised the Vicar to let his penitent\ntake herbs that are cold by nature, such as water-lily, liver-wort,\nspurge, mandrake, house-leek, plantain, henbane, and others similar,\nmake two little bundles of them and hang them up, one at his window,\nthe other at the door of his cell, taking care to strow some also on\nthe floor and on the bed. Marvellous to say! The Demon appeared again,\nbut remained outside the room, which he would not enter; and, on the\nDeacon inquiring of him his motives for such unwonted reserve, he burst\nout into invectives against me for giving such advice, disappeared, and\nnever came again.\n\n\n73. Ex his duabus historiis apparet tales odores, et herbas respective\nsua naturali virtute, nullaque interveniente vi supernaturali D\u00e6mones\npropulisse; unde convincitur quod Incubi patiuntur a qualitatibus\nmaterialibus, ut proinde concludi debeat, quod communicant in materia\ncum iis rebus naturalibus, a quibus fugantur, et ex consequenti corpore\nsint pr\u00e6diti, quod est intentum.\n\n\n73. The two stories I have related make it clear that, by their\nnative virtue alone, perfumes and herbs drove away Demons without the\nintervention of any supernatural force; Incubi are therefore subject to\nmaterial conditions, and it must be inferred that they participate of\nthe matter of the natural objects which have the power of putting them\nto flight, and consequently they have a body; that is what was to be\nshown.\n\n\n74. Et magis conclusio firmatur, si impugnetur sententia Doctorum\nsupracitatorum, dicentium, Incubum abactum a Sara fuisse vi Angeli\nRaphaelis, non vero jecoris piscis callionymi, qualis fuit piscis a\nTobia apprehensus ad ripam Tigris, ut cum Vallesio, =Sacr. Philos.=, c.\n42., scribit Cornelius a Lap. =in Tob.= c. 6. v. 2., =\u00a7 Quarto ergo=:\nsalva enim tantorum Doctorum reverentia, talis expositio manifeste\nadversatur sensui patenti Textus, a quo nullo modo recedendum est\ndummodo non sequantur absurda. En verba Angeli ad Tobiam: \u201c=Cordis ejus\nparticulam, si super carbones ponas, fumus ejus extricat omne genus\nD\u00e6moniorum, sive a viro, sive a muliere, ita ut ultra non accedant ad\neos, et fel valet ad unguendos oculos, in quibus fuerit albugo, et\nsanabuntur=.\u201d (=Tob.=, c. 6. v. 8. et 9.) Notetur, qu\u00e6so, assertio\nAngeli absoluta, et universalis de virtute cordis, seu jecoris, et\nfellis illius piscis: non enim dicit: =Si pones particulas cordis\nejus super carbones, fugabis omne genus D\u00e6moniorum, et si felle unges\noculos, in quibus fuerit albugo, sanabuntur=: si enim ita dixisset,\ncongrua esset expositio, quod nempe Raphael supernaturali sua virtute\nillos effectus patrasset, ad quos perficiendos inepta esset applicatio\nfumi, et fellis: sed non ita loquitur, sed ait talem esse virtutem\nfumi, et fellis absolute.\n\n\n74. But, the better to establish our conclusion, it behoves to impugn\nthe mistake into which have fallen the Doctors above-quoted, such as\nVallesius and Cornelius a Lapide, when they say that Sarah was rid from\nthe Incubus by the virtue of the Angel Raphael, and not by that of the\ncallionymous fish caught by Tobit on the banks of the Tigris. Indeed,\nsaving the reverence due to such great doctors, such a construction\nmanifestly clashes with the clear meaning of the Text, from which it\nis never justifiable to deviate, so long as it does not lead to absurd\nconsequences. Here are the words spoken by the Angel to Tobias: \u201c_If\nthou puttest on coals a particle of its heart, the smoke thereof will\nexpel all kinds of Demons, whether from man or woman, so that they\nshall never return, and its gall is good for anointing eyes that have\nwhiteness, and healing them._\u201d (Tobit, c. 6, v. 8 and 9). Pray notice\nthat the Angel\u2019s assertion respecting the virtue of the heart or liver\nand gall of that fish is absolute, universal; for, he does not say:\n\u201c_If thou puttest on coals particles of its heart, thou wilt put to\nflight all kinds of Demons, and if thou anointest with its gall eyes\nthat have a whiteness, they shall be healed._\u201d If he had thus spoken,\nI could agree with the construction that Raphael had brought about, by\nhis own supernatural virtue, the effects which the mere application of\nthe smoke and the gall might not have sufficed to produce: but he does\nnot speak thus, and, on the contrary, says absolutely, that such is the\nvirtue of the smoke and the gall.\n\n\n75. Qu\u00e6ro modo, an Angelus veritatem puram dixerit de virtute rerum, an\nmentiri potuerit; pariter an albugo ab oculis Tobi\u00e6 senioris ablata sit\nvi naturali fellis piscis, aut virtute supernaturali Angeli Raphaelis?\nAngelum mentiri potuisse blasphemia h\u00e6reticalis est; sequitur igitur\npuram veritatem fuisse ab eo assertam; talis autem non esset, si omne\ngenus D\u00e6moniorum non extricaretur a fumo jecoris piscis nisi addita\nvi supernaturali Angeli, maxime, si h\u00e6c esset causa principalis talis\neffectus, quemadmodum scribunt de hoc casu Doctores. Mentiretur absque\ndubio medicus qui diceret: talis herba curat taliter pleuritidem,\nsive epilepsiam, ut amplius non revertatur: si herba illa non curaret\nillas \u00e6gritudines nisi inchoate, et perfecta illarum sanatio esset\nab alia herba conjuncta priori; sic pari modo mentitus fuisset\nRaphael, asserens fumum jecoris extricare omne genus D\u00e6moniorum ita\nut ultra non accedant, si talis effectus esset a fumo solum inchoate,\nprincipaliter vero, et perfecte a virtute Angeli. Pr\u00e6terea talis fuga\nD\u00e6monis, vel secutura erat universaliter, et semper posito jecore\npiscis super carbones a quoquam, vel debebat sequi in illo solummodo\ncasu particulari, jecore incusso a juniore Tobia. Si primum, ergo\noportet, quod cuicumque talem fumum per accensionem jecoris paranti,\nassistat Angelus qui supernaturali virtute D\u00e6monem miraculose abigat\nregulariter; et hoc est absurdum; ad positionem enim rei naturalis\ndeberet regulariter sequi miraculum, quod est incongruum, et si absque\nAngeli operatione fuga D\u00e6monis non sequeretur, mentitus fuisset Raphael\nasserens eam esse virtutem jecoris. Si autem effectus ille sequi\nnon debeat, nisi in illo casu particulari, mentitus fuisset Angelus\nenuncians universaliter virtutem piscis, in fugando omni D\u00e6moniorum\ngenere, quod non est dicendum.\n\n\n75. It may be asked whether the Angel spoke the precise truth regarding\nthe virtue of those things, or whether he might have lied; and\nlikewise, whether the whiteness was withdrawn from the eyes of the\nelder Tobit by the native force of the gall of the fish, or by the\nsupernatural virtue of the Angel Raphael? To say that the Angel could\nhave lied would be an heretical blasphemy; he therefore spoke the\nprecise truth; but it would no longer be so if all kinds of Demons were\nnot expelled by the smoke of the liver of the fish, unless aided by the\nsupernatural force of the Angel, and especially, if such aid was the\nprincipal cause of the effect produced, as the Doctors assert in the\npresent case. It would doubtless be a lie if a physician should say:\nsuch an herb radically cures pleurisy or epilepsy, and if it should\nonly begin the cure, the completion of which required the addition of\nanother herb to the one first used; in the same manner, Raphael would\nhave lied when averring that the smoke of the liver expelled all kinds\nof demons, so that they should not return, if that result had been only\nbegun by the smoke, and its completion had been principally due to the\nvirtue of the Angel. Besides, that flight of the demon was either to\ntake place universally and by any one whomsoever putting the liver of\nthe fish on the coals, or else it was only to occur in that particular\ncase, the younger Tobit putting the liver on. In the first hypothesis,\nany person making that smoke by burning the liver should be assisted by\nan Angel, who, through his supernatural virtue should expel the Demons\nmiraculously and regularly at the same time; which is absurd; for,\neither words have no meaning, or a natural fact cannot be regularly\nfollowed by a miracle; and, if the Demon was not put to flight without\nthe assistance of the Angel, Raphael would have lied when ascribing\nthat virtue to the liver. If, on the contrary, that effect was only to\nbe brought about in that particular case, Raphael would again have lied\nwhen assigning to that fish, universally and absolutely, the virtue of\nexpelling the Demon: now, to say that the Angel lied is not possible.\n\n\n76. Ulterius albugo oculorum detracta est ab oculis Tobi\u00e6 senioris,\net ipsius c\u00e6citas sanata est a virtute naturali fellis piscis illius,\nut Doctores affirmant (Liran. Dyonisius; et Seraci. =apud Cornel. in\nTobi.=, c. 6. v. 9). Piscis enim Callionymus, qui vocatur Italice\n=bocca in capo=, et quo usus est Tobias, fel habet pro celeberrimo\nremedio ad detegendas albugines oculorum, ut scribunt concorditer\nDioscorides, l. 1. c. 96., Galenus, =De Simpl. Medicam.=, Plinius, l.\n32. c. 7., Aclanius, =De Ver. Histor.=, l. 13. c. 14., et Vallesius,\n=De Sacr. Philos.=, c. 47. Textus Gr\u00e6cus =Tobi\u00e6=, c. 11. v. 13., habet:\n\u201c=Inspersit fel super oculos patris sui, dicens: Confide, Pater; ut\nautem erosi sunt, detrivit oculos suos, et disquamat\u00e6 sunt ab angulis\noculorum albugines=.\u201d Cum igitur eodem contextu Angelus aperuerit\nTobi\u00e6 virtutem jecoris, et fellis piscis, et hoc sua naturali virtute\nc\u00e6citatem Tobi\u00e6 senioris curaverit, concludendum est, quod etiam\nfumus jecoris sua naturali vi Incubum fugaverit: quod concludenter\nconfirmatur a Textu Gr\u00e6co, qui ad =Tobi\u00e6= c. 8. v. 2., ubi Vulgata\nhabet: \u201c=Partem jecoris posuit super carbones vivos=\u201d, sic habet:\n\u201c=Accepit cinerem, sive prunam thimiamatum, et imposuit cor piscis, et\nhepar, fumumque fecit, et quando odoratus est D\u00e6mon odores, fugit=.\u201d Et\nTextus Hebraicus ita cantat: \u201c=Percepit Asmodeus odorem, et fugit=.\u201d Ex\nquibus textibus apparet, quod D\u00e6mon fugit ad perceptionem fumi, sibi\ncontrarii, ac nocentis, non autem a virtute Angeli supernaturali. Quod\nsi in tali liberatione Sar\u00e6 ab impetitione Incubi Asmodei, ultra fumum\njecoris intervenit operatio Raphaelis, hoc fuit in alligatione D\u00e6monis\nin deserto superioris \u00c6gypti, ut dicitur c. 8. v. 3. =Tobi\u00e6=; fumus\nquippe jecoris nequibat in tanta distantia agere in D\u00e6monem, aut illum\nalligare. Quod inservire potest pro concordia supracitatorum Doctorum\n(qui voluerunt Saram perfecte liberatam a D\u00e6mone virtute Raphaelis) cum\nsententia, quam tuemur: dico enim, quod ipsi senserint quod perfecta\ncuratio Sar\u00e6 a D\u00e6mone fuerit in alligatione ejus in deserto, qu\u00e6 fuit\nab Angelo, quod et nos concedimus; sed extricatio, sive fugatio ejusdem\na cubiculo Sar\u00e6 fuerit a vi innativa jecoris piscis, quod nos tuemur.\n\n\n76. The whiteness was withdrawn from the eyes of the elder Tobit, and\nhis blindness healed, through the native virtue of the gall of that\nsame fish, as Doctors aver. In fact, that the gall of the callionymous\nfish, which the Italians call _bocca in capo_, and of which Tobias made\nuse, is a highly renowned remedy for removing the whiteness from the\neyes, all are agreed, Dioscorides, Galen, Pliny, Aclanius, Vallesius,\netc. The Greek Text of _Tobit_, c. 11, v. 13, says: \u201c_He poured the\ngall on his father\u2019s eyes, saying: Have confidence, father; but, there\nbeing erosion, the old man rubbed his eyes, and the scales of the\nwhiteness came out at the corners._\u201d Now, since, according to the same\ntext, the Angel had disclosed to Tobias the virtue of the liver and\ngall of the fish, and since, through its native virtue, the gall cured\nthe elder Tobit\u2019s blindness, it must be inferred that it was likewise\nthrough its native force that the smoke of the liver put the Incubus to\nflight; which inference is conclusively confirmed by the Greek text,\nwhich, _Tobit_, c. 8, v. 2, instead of the reading in the Vulgate: \u201c_He\nlaid a part of the liver on burning coals_\u201d, says explicitly: _\u201cHe took\nthe ashes of the perfumes, and put the heart and the liver of the fish\nthereupon, and made a smoke therewith; the which smell when the evil\nspirit had smelled, he fled._\u201d The Hebrew text says: \u201c_Asmodeus smelled\nthe smell, and fled._\u201d From all those texts it appears that the Demon\ntook to flight on smelling a smoke which was prejudicial and hurtful\nto himself, and nowise from the supernatural virtue of the Angel.\nIf, in ridding Sarah from the assaults of the Incubus Asmodeus, the\noperation of the smoke of the liver was followed by the intervention\nof Raphael, it was in order to bind the Demon in the wilderness of\nHigh-Egypt, as related, _Tobit_, c. 8, v. 3; for, at such a distance,\nthe smoke of the liver could neither operate on the Demon, nor bind\nhim. And here we have the means of reconciling our opinion with that of\nthe above-mentioned Doctors, who ascribe to Raphael\u2019s power Sarah\u2019s\ncomplete riddance from the Demon: for, I say with them, that the cure\nof Sarah was completed by the binding of the Demon in the wilderness,\nthe deed of the Angel; which I concede; but I maintain that the\ndeliverance properly called, that is to say, the ejection from Sarah\u2019s\nbed-room, was the direct effect of the virtue of the liver of the fish.\n\n\n77. Probatur tertio principaliter nostra conclusio de existentia\ntalium animalium, seu de Incuborum corporeitate, ex auctoritate D.\nHieronymi, =in vita S. Pauli primi Eremit\u00e6=. Refert is D. Antonium\niter per desertum arripuisse, ut ad visendum D. Paulum perveniret, et\npost nonnullas di\u00e6tas itineris Centaurum reperiisse, a quo cum fuisset\npercontatus mansionem D. Pauli, et ille barbarum quid infrendens\npotius, quam proloquens, dextr\u00e6 protensione manus iter D. Antonio\ndemonstrasset, in sylvam se abdidit cursu concitatissimo. Prosecutus\niter S. Abbas in quadam valle invenit haud grandem quemdam homunculum,\naduncis manibus, fronte cornibus asperata, cujus extrema pars corporis\nin caprarum pedes desinebat. Ad ejus aspectum substitit Antonius, et\ntimens Diaboli artes signo Sanct\u00e6 Crucis se munivit. Ad tale signum\nnec fugit, nec metuit homuncio ille, immo ad sanctum senem actu humili\nappropinquans, palmarum fructus ad viaticum quasi pacis obsides illi\nofferebat. Tum B. Antonius quisnam esset interrogans, hoc ab eo\nresponsum accepit: \u201c=Mortalis ego sum, et unus ex accolis Eremi, quos\nvario errore delusa Gentilitas Faunos, Satyros, et Incubos vocans\ncolit; legatione fungor gregis mei; precamur, ut pro nobis communem\nDeum depreceris, quem pro salute mundi venisse cognovimus, et universam\nterram exiit sonus ejus=.\u201d Ad qu\u00e6 gaudens D. Antonius de gloria\nChristi, conversus ad Alexandriam, et baculo terram percutiens, ait:\n\u201c=Veh tibi, Civitas meretrix, qu\u00e6 pro diis animalia veneraris!=\u201d H\u00e6c\nD. Hieronymus, qui late prosequitur hoc factum, ipsius virtutem longo\ncomprobans sermone.\n\n\n77. A third principal proof of our conclusion regarding the existence\nof those animals, in other words, respecting the corporeity of Incubi,\nis adduced by the testimony of St Hieronymus, in his _Life of St\nPaul, the first Hermit_. St Anthony, says he, set on a journey to\nvisit St Paul. After travelling several days, he met a Centaur, of\nwhom he inquired the hermit\u2019s abode; whereupon the Centaur, growling\nsome uncouth and scarcely intelligible answer, shew the way with his\nout-stretched hand, and fled with the utmost speed into a wood. The\nHoly Abbot kept on his way, and, in a dale, met a little man, almost\na dwarf, with crooked hands, horned brow, and his lower extremities\nending with goat\u2019s feet. At the sight of him, St Anthony stood still,\nand fearing the arts of the Devil, comforted himself with a sign of\nthe Cross. But, far from running away, or even seeming frightened\nat it, the little fellow respectfully approached the old man, and\ntendered him, as a peace offering, dates for his journey. The blessed\nSt Anthony having then inquired who he was: \u201c_I am a mortal_,\u201d replied\nhe, \u201c_and one of the inhabitants of the Wilderness, whom Gentility,\nunder its varied delusions, worships under the names of Fauns, Satyrs\nand Incubi; I am on a mission from my flock: we request thee to pray\nfor us unto the common God, whom we know to have come for the salvation\nof the world, and whose praises are sounded all over the earth_.\u201d\nRejoicing at the glory of Christ, St Anthony, turning his face towards\nAlexandria, and striking the ground with his staff, cried out: \u201c_Woe be\nunto thee, thou harlot City, who worshipest animals as Gods!_\u201d Such is\nthe narrative of St Hieronymus, who expatiates at length on the fact,\nexplaining its import in a long discourse.\n\n\n78. De hujus histori\u00e6 veritate dubitare temerarium est, cum eam\nconstanter referat SS. Ecclesi\u00e6 Doctorum maximus D. Hieronymus, de\ncujus auctoritate nullus Catholicus dubitabit. Addit =fol. 21.\n25=. Notand\u00e6 proinde veniunt illius circumstanti\u00e6, qu\u00e6 sententiam\nnostram evidentissime confirmant.\n\n\n78. It were indeed rash to doubt the truth of the above recital,\nconstantly referred to by the greatest of the Doctors of the Holy\nChurch, St Hieronymus, whose authority no Catholic will ever deny. Let\nus therefore investigate the circumstances thereof which most clearly\nconfirm our opinion.\n\n\n79. Primo notandum est, quod si ullus Sanctorum artibus D\u00e6monis\nimpetitus fuit; si ullus diversas ejus artes nocendi calluit; si\nullus victorias, ac illustria de eodem trophea reportavit, is fuit D.\nAntonius, ut constat ex ejus vita a D. Athanasio descripta. Dum igitur\nD. Antonius homunculum illum non tanquam Diabolum agnovit, sed animal\nintitulavit, dicens: =Veh tibi, Civitas meretrix, qu\u00e6 pro Diis animalia\nveneraris!= convincitur, quod ille nullo modo fuit Diabolus, seu purus\nspiritus de c\u0153lo dejectus, ac damnatus, sed aliquod aliud animal. Et\nconfirmatur, quia D. Antonius erudiens suos monachos, eosque animans\nad metuendas D\u00e6monis violentias, aiebat, prout habetur in lectionibus\nBreviarii Romani in festo =S. Antonii Abb.= l. 1., qu\u00e6 recitantur in\nfesto ipsius: \u201c=Mihi credite, Fratres, pertimescit Satanas piorum\nvigilias, orationes, jejunia, voluntariam paupertatem, misericordiam,\net humilitatem; maxime vero ardentem amorem in Christum Dominum,\ncujus unico Sanctissim\u00e6 Crucis signo debilitatus fugit=.\u201d Dum igitur\nhomunculus ille, contra quem D. Antonius Crucis signo se munivit, ad\nejus aspectum nec pavit, nec fugit, immo confidenter, humiliter que\naccessit ad eum dactalos illi offerens, signum est, illum nullo modo\nDiabolum fuisse.\n\n\n79. Firstly, we must observe that if ever a Saint was assailed by the\narts of the Demon, saw through his infernal devices, and carried off\nvictories and trophies from the contest, that Saint was St Anthony,\nas is shown by his life written by St Athanasius. Now, since in that\nlittle man St Anthony did not recognize a devil but an animal, saying:\n\u201c_Woe be unto thee, thou harlot City, who worshipest animals as\nGods!_\u201d, it is clear that it was no devil or pure spirit ejected from\nheaven and damned, but some kind of animal. Still more: St Anthony,\nwhen instructing his friars and cautioning them against the assaults of\nthe Demon, said to them, as related in the Roman Breviary (_Festival\nof St Anthony, Abbot_, b. I): \u201c_Believe me, my brethren, Satan dreads\nthe vigils of pious men, their prayers, fasts, voluntary poverty,\ncompassion and humility; but, above all, he dreads their burning love\nof our Lord Christ, at the mere sign of whose most Holy Cross he flies\ndisabled._\u201d As the little man, against whom St Anthony guarded himself\nwith a sign of the Cross, neither took fright nor fled, but approached\nthe Saint confidently and humbly, offering him some dates, it is a\nsure sign that he was no Devil.\n\n\n80. Secundo notandum, quod homunculus ille dixit: =Mortalis et ego\nsum=; ex quibus verbis docemur, quod ille erat animal morti obnoxium,\net proinde, quod per generationem esse accepit: spiritus enim\nimmaterialis immortalis est, quia simplex, et ideo non accipit esse\nper generationem ex pr\u00e6jacente materia, sed per creationem; unde nec\namittit esse per corruptionem, qu\u00e6 dicitur mors, sed per annihilationem\ntantum potest desinere esse. Quod si ille se mortalem esse dixit,\nprofessus est se esse animal.\n\n\n80. Secondly, we must observe that the little man said: \u201c_I also am a\nmortal_\u201d, whence it follows that he was an animal subject to death, and\nconsequently called into being through generation; for, an immaterial\nspirit is immortal, because simple, and consequently is not called into\nbeing through generation from preexistent matter, but through creation,\nand, consequently also, cannot lose it through the corruption called\ndeath; its existence can only come to an end through annihilation.\nTherefore, when saying he was mortal, he professed himself an animal.\n\n\n81. Tertio notandum, quod ait se cognovisse communem Deum in carne\nhumana fuisse passum. Ex his verbis convincitur illud fuisse animal\nrationale: siquidem bruta nihil agnoscunt, nisi sensibile et pr\u00e6sens,\nunde ab ipsis Deus nullo modo cognosci potest. Quod si homunculus\nille ait, se cum aliis suis cognovisse Deum in carne humana passum,\nhoc probat, quod aliquo revelante habuit notitiam de Deo, sicut\netiam nos habemus de illo fidem revelatam; pariter que Deum carnem\nhumanam assumpsisse, et in ea passum: qu\u00e6 duo sunt articuli nostr\u00e6\nFidei principales, nempe Dei unius, et trini existentia, et ipsius\nIncarnatio, Passio, et Resurrectio; ex quibus omnibus habetur, ut\ndicebam, illud fuisse animal rationale capax divin\u00e6 cognitionis,\nper revelationem, ut nos, et proinde pollens anima rationali, et ex\nconsequenti immortali.\n\n\n81. Thirdly, we must observe that he said he knew that the common\nGod had suffered in human flesh. Those words show him to have been\na rational animal, for brutes know nothing but what is sensible and\npresent, and can therefore have no knowledge of God. If that little\nman said that he and his fellows were aware of God having suffered\nin human flesh, it shows that, by means of some revelation, he had\nacquired the notion of God, as we have ourselves the revealed faith.\nThat God assumed human flesh and suffered in it, is the essence of\nthe two principal articles of our Faith: the existence of God one and\nthreefold, His Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection. All that shows,\nas I said, that it was a rational animal, capable of the knowledge of\nGod through revelation, like ourselves, and endowed with a rational,\nand consequently, immortal soul.\n\n\n82. Quarto notandum, quod oraverit nomine omnium gregis sui, cujus\nlegatione fungi se profitebatur, D. Antonium, ut communem Deum pro\nillis deprecaretur. Ex his deducitur, quod homunculus ille capax erat\nbeatitudinis, et damnationis, et quod non erat in termino, sed in via:\nex hoc enim, quod, ut supra probatum est, se prodidit rationalem,\net anima immortali consequenter donatum, consequens est, quod et\nbeatitudinis, et damnationis capax sit: h\u00e6c enim propria passio est\nCreatur\u00e6 rationalis, ut constat ex natura angelica, et humana. Item\ndeducitur, quod ipse erat in via, et proinde capax meriti, et demeriti:\nsi enim fuisset in termino, fuisset vel beatus, vel damnatus; neutrum\nautem potuit esse, quia orationes D. Antonii, quibus se commendabat,\nipsi nullo modo prodesse potuissent, si fuisset finaliter damnatus; et\nsi beatus fuisset, illis non eguisset. Quod ipsi se commendavit, signum\nest eas sibi prodesse potuisse, et proinde ipsum fuisse in statu vi\u00e6,\net meriti.\n\n\n82. Fourthly, we must observe that, in the name of his whole flock\nwhose delegate he professed to be, he besought St Anthony to pray for\nthem to the common God. Wherefrom I infer that that little man was\ncapable of beatitude and damnation, and that he was not _in termino_\nbut _in via_; for, from his being, as has been shown above, rational\nand consequently endowed with an immortal soul, it flows that he was\ncapable of beatitude and damnation, the proper share of every rational\nCreature, Angel or man. I likewise infer that he was on the way, _in\nvia_, that is, capable of merit and demerit; for, if he had been at the\ngoal, _in termino_, he would have been either blessed or damned. Now,\nhe could be neither the one nor the other; for, St Anthony\u2019s prayers,\nto which he commended himself, could have been of no assistance to him,\nif finally damned, and, if blessed, he stood in no need of them. Since\nhe commended himself to those prayers, it shows they could be of avail\nto him, and, consequently, that he was on the way to salvation, _in\nstatu vi\u00e6 et meriti_.\n\n\n83. Quinto notandum, quod homunculus ille professus est, se esse\nlegatum aliorum su\u00e6 speciei, dum dixit =legatione fungor gregis mei=,\nex quibus verbis plura deducuntur. Unum est, quod homunculus ille\nnon solus erat, unde potuisset credi monstrum raro contingens, sed\nquod plures erant ejusdem speciei; tum quia simul congregati gregem\nfaciebant; tum quia nomine omnium veniebat: quod esse non posset si\nmultorum voluntates in illum non convenissent. Aliud est, quod isti\nprofitentur vitam socialem: ex quo nomine multorum unus ex ipsis missus\nest. Aliud est, quod quamvis dicantur habitare in Eremo, non tamen in\neo fixa est eorum permanentia: siquidem cum D. Antonius in illa eremo\nalias non fuisset (distabat enim illa per multas dietas ab eremo D.\nAntonii), scire non potuerunt quisnam ille esset cujusve sanctitatis;\nnecessarium igitur fuit, quod alibi eum cognoverint, et ex consequenti\nextra desertum illum vagaverint.\n\n\n83. Fifthly, we must observe that the little man professed to be\ndelegated by others of his kind, when saying: \u201c_I am on a mission\nfrom my flock_\u201d, words from which many inferences may be deduced. One\nis, that the little man was not alone of his kind, an exceptional and\nsolitary monster, but that there were many of the same species, since\ncongregating they made up a flock, and that he came in the name of all;\nwhich could not have been, had not the will of many centred in him.\nAnother is, that those animals lead a social life, since one of them\nwas sent in the name of many. Another again is, that, although living\nin the Wilderness, it is not assigned to them as a permanent abode;\nfor St Anthony having never previously been in that desert, which was\nfar distant from his hermitage, they could not have known who he was\nnor what his degree of sanctity; it was therefore necessary that they\nshould have become acquainted with him elsewhere, and, consequently,\nthat they should have travelled beyond that wilderness.\n\n\n84. Ultimo notandum, quod homunculus ille ait esse ex iis, =quos\nc\u00e6co errore delusa Gentilitas Faunos, Satyros et Incubos= appellant;\net ex his verbis convincitur nostrum intentum principale, Incubos nempe\nesse animalia rationalia beatitatis, et damnationis capacia.\n\n\n84. Lastly, we must observe that the little man said he was one of\nthose whom _the Gentiles, blinded by error, call Fauns, Satyrs and\nIncubi_: and by these words is shown the truth of our principal\nproposition: that Incubi are rational animals, capable of beatitude and\ndamnation.\n\n\n85. Talium homuncionum frequens est apparitio in metallorum fodinis,\nut scribit Gregorius Agricola, lib. =De Animal. subterran.=, prope\nfinem. Isti nempe coram fossoribus minerarum comparent induti habitu,\nqualem habent fossores ipsi, et jocantur inter se, tripudiantque, ac\nrident et cachinnantur, parvosque lapides joco mittunt in metallarios,\net tunc signum est, ait Auctor pr\u00e6dictus, optimi proventus, ac\ninventionis alicujus rami, aut trunci principalis arboris mineralis.\n\n\n85. The apparition of such little men is of frequent occurrence in\nmetallic mines, as is written by Gregorius Agricola in his book _De\nAnimal. subterran._ They appear to the miners, clothed like themselves,\nplay and caper together, laugh and titter, and throw little stones at\nthem for the sake of amusement: a sign, says the above-named Author,\nof excellent success, and of the finding of some branch or body of a\nmineral tree.\n\n\n86. Tales homunculos subterraneos negat Petrus Thyr\u00e6us Novesianus,\nlib. =De Terrificatio. Noctur.=, c. 2., =per totum=, nixus argumentis\nsane puerilibus, qu\u00e6 sunt h\u00e6c: si darentur hujusmodi homunciones,\nubinam degunt, et qu\u00e6nam, et ubi habent sua domicilia, qua ratione\ngenus suum conservant, si per generationem, aut quomodo? si oriantur,\net intereant, quo cibo vitam suam sustentent; si beatitudinis,\net damnationis capaces sint, et quibus mediis propriam salutem\nconsequantur? H\u00e6c sunt argumenta Thyr\u00e6i, quibus permotus negat talem\nexistentiam.\n\n\n86. Peter Thyr\u00e6us, of Neuss, in his book _De Terrification. nocturn._,\ndenies the existence of such little men, and supports his denial upon\nthe following truly puerile arguments: given such little men, says\nhe, where do they live, how and where do they dwell? How do they keep\nup their kind, through generation or otherwise? Are they born, do\nthey die, with what food do they sustain themselves? Are they capable\nof beatitude and damnation, and by what means do they procure their\nsalvation? Such are the arguments upon which Thyr\u00e6us relies for denying\nthat existence.\n\n\n87. Sed viri parum cordati est negare id, quod graves Auctores,\nfideque digni scribunt, quodque quotidiana constat experientia.\nArgumenta Thyr\u00e6i nec minimum cogunt, ac ea solvimus supra a n\u00ba 45.\net seq. Remanet solum satisfacere qu\u00e6stioni ubinam locorum habitent\nhujusmodi homunculi, seu Incubi? Ad quod dico, quod ut supra dedimus\nn\u00ba 71. ex Guaccio, istorum alii sunt terrei, alii aquei, alii aerei,\nalii ignei, quorum nempe corpora, aut constant ex talium elementorum\nsubtiliori parte, sive licet ex pluribus constent elementis, pr\u00e6valet\ntamen in iis, aut aqua, aut aer pro ipsorum natura. Mansiones igitur,\net domicilia eorum erunt in elemento illo cujus natura in eorum\ncorporibus pr\u00e6valet: ignei enim nisi violenter, et forte nullomodo in\naquis aut locis palustribus morabuntur, cum h\u00e6c sint sibi contraria,\nnec aquei ad superiorem \u00e6theris partem ascendere poterunt ob sibi\nrepugnantem regionis illius subtilitatem, quod etiam videmus accidere\nhominibus, qui ad quorumdam Alpium summa juga pervenire nequeunt pr\u00e6\nsumma aeris subtilitate, qu\u00e6 homines crassiori aeri assuetos nutrire\nnequit.\n\n\n87. But it really shows little judgment in a man, to deny that which\nhas been written by grave and credible Authors, and confirmed by every\nday experience. Thyr\u00e6us\u2019s arguments are worthless and have been already\nrefuted, N^{rs} 45 and following. The only question which remains to\nbe answered is this: where do those little men, or Incubi, dwell? To\nthat I reply: as has been shown above (N^r 71), according to Guaccius,\nsome are earthly, some aqueous, some aerial, some igneous, that is to\nsay, that their bodies are made of the most subtle part of one of the\nelements, or, if of the combination of many elements, that yet there is\none which predominates, either water or air, according to their nature.\nTheir dwellings will consequently be found in that element which is\nprevalent in their bodies: igneous Incubi, for instance, will only\nstay forcibly, may be will not stay at all, in water or marshes, which\nare adverse to them; and aqueous Incubi will not be able to rise into\nthe upper part of ether, the subtlety of which region is repugnant to\nthem. We see the like happen to men who, accustomed to thicker air,\ncannot reach certain lofty ridges of the Alps where the air is too\nsubtle for their lungs.\n\n\n88. Pluribus sanctorum Patrum auctoritatibus, quas congerit Molina in\np. p. D. Thom., q. 50., ar. 1. circa med., probare possemus D\u00e6monum\ncorporeitatem; qu\u00e6 tamen stante determinatione Concilii Lateranensis de\nincorporeitate Angelorum, ut dictum fuit supra n\u00ba 37., exponi debent\nde D\u00e6monibus istis Incubis, ac viatoribus adhuc, non autem de Damnatis.\nTamen ne nimis longus sim, solius D. Augustini, summi Ecclesi\u00e6\nDoctoris, auctoritates damus, quibus evidenter convincitur illum fuisse\nin sententia, quam nos docemus.\n\n\n88. Many testimonies of Holy Fathers, gathered by Molina, in his\n_Commentary of St Thomas_, would go to prove the corporeity of Demons;\nbut, taking into account the above-quoted decision of the Council\nof Lateran (N^r 37), concerning the incorporeity of Angels, we must\nunderstand that the Holy Fathers had in view those Incubi Demons which\nare still on the way to salvation, and not those that are damned.\nHowever, to make matters short, we merely give the authority of St\nAustin, that eminent Doctor of the Church, and it will be clearly seen\nhow thoroughly his doctrine harmonizes with ours.\n\n\n89. D. Augustinus igitur, lib. 2. =super Genesim= ad litteram c. 17.\n=de D\u00e6monibus=, sic habet: \u201c=Qu\u00e6dam vera nosse, partim quia subtiliore\nsensus acumine, partim quia subtilioribus corporibus vigent=,\u201d et lib.\n3. c. 1., \u201c=etsi D\u00e6mones aerea sunt animalia, quoniam corporum aereorum\nnatura vigent=.\u201d Et Epistola 115. ad Hebridium affirmat, eos esse\n\u201c=animantia aerea, seu \u00e6therea acerrimi sensus=.\u201d Et =de Civit. Dei=\nlib. 11. c. 23., affirmat \u201c=D\u00e6monem pessimum habere corpus aereum=.\u201d Et\nlib. 21. c. 10. scripsit: \u201c=Sunt sua qu\u00e6dam etiam D\u00e6monibus corpora,\nsicut doctis hominibus visum est, ex isto aere crasso et humido=.\u201d\nEt lib. 17. c. 23. ait \u201c=se non audere definire, an Angeli corpore\naereo, ita corporati possint etiam hanc pati libidinem, ut quomodo\npossint, sentientibus f\u0153minis misceantur=.\u201d Et in Enarrat. in Psal.\n85. ait \u201c=corpora beatorum futura post resurrectionem, qualia sunt\ncorpora Angelorum=;\u201d et in Enarrat. in Psal. 45. ait \u201c=corpus Angelicum\ninferius esse anima=.\u201d Et lib. =De Divinit. D\u00e6monum=, passim per totum,\nmaxime c. 23., docet \u201c=D\u00e6mones subtilia habere corpora=.\u201d\n\n\n89. St Austin, then, in his _Commentary on Genesis_, book 2, ch. 17,\nwrites as follows concerning Demons: \u201c_They have the knowledge of some\ntruths, partly through the more subtle acumen of their senses, partly\nthrough the greater subtilty of their bodies_\u201d, and, book 3, ch. 1:\n\u201c_Demons are aerial animals, because they partake of the nature of\naerial bodies._\u201d In his Epistle 115 to Hebridius, he affirms that they\nare \u201c_aerial or ethereal animals, endowed with very sharp senses_.\u201d\nIn the _City of God_, book 11, ch. 13, he says that \u201c_the worst Demon\nhas an aerial body_\u201d. Book 21, ch. 10, he writes: \u201c_The bodies of\ncertain Demons, as has been believed by some learned men, are even\nmade of the thick and damp air which we breathe._\u201d Book 15, ch. 23:\n_\u201cHe dares not define whether Angels, with an aerial body, could feel\nthe lust which would incite them to communicate with women._\u201d In his\ncommentary on Psalm 85, he says that \u201c_the bodies of the blessed will,\nafter resurrection, be like unto the bodies of Angels_;\u201d Psalm 14, he\nobserves that \u201c_the body of Angels is inferior to the soul_.\u201d And, in\nhis book _De Divinit. D\u00e6monum_, he every-where, and especially ch. 23,\nteaches that \u201c_Demons have subtle bodies_\u201d.\n\n\n90. Potest etiam sententia nostra auctoritatibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6\ncomprobari, qu\u00e6 licet ab Expositoribus aliter declarentur, non\nincongrue tamen ad nostrum intentum possunt aptari. Prima est Psalmi\n77., v. 24. et 25., ubi habetur: =panem Angelorum manducavit homo,\npanem c\u0153li dedit eis=. Hic loquitur David de Manna, qua cibatus fuit\nPopulus Israel toto tempore quo peregrinus fuit in deserto. Qu\u00e6rendum\nergo venit, quo sensu Manna dici possit =panis Angelorum=. Scio\nquidem plerosque Doctores exponere hunc passum in sensu mystico,\naientes in Manna figuratam esse =Sacram Eucharistiam=, qu\u00e6 vocatur\n=panis Angelorum=, quia Angeli fruuntur visione Dei, qui per\nconcomitantiam in Eucharistia reperitur.\n\n\n90. Our doctrine can also be confirmed by the testimony of the Holy\nScriptures, which, however diversely construed by commentators, are\nyet capable of adaptation to our proposition. First, Psalm 77, v. 24\nand 25, it is said: \u201c_The Lord had given them of the bread of heaven;\nman did eat angels\u2019 food._\u201d David here alludes to Manna, which fed\nthe People of Israel during the whole time that they wandered in the\nwilderness. It will be asked in what sense it can be said of Manna that\nit is the _Bread of Angels_. I am aware that most Doctors construe\nthis passage in a mystical sense, saying that Manna figures the Holy\nEucharist, which is styled the _bread of Angels_, because Angels enjoy\nthe sight of God who, by concomitance, is found in the Eucharist.\n\n\n91. Sed h\u00e6c expositio aptissima est quidem, et quam amplectitur Ecclesia\nin officio =Sanctissimi Corporis Christi=, sed in sensu spirituali\nest. Ego autem qu\u00e6ro sensum litteralem: neque enim in illo Psalmo\nDavid loquitur prophetice de futuris, sicut facit in aliis locis,\nut proinde facile non sit sensum litteralem habere; sed loquitur\nhistorice de pr\u00e6teritis. Ille enim Psalmus, ut patet legenti, est pura\nanacephalestis, seu compendium omnium beneficiorum, qu\u00e6 contulit Deus\nPopulo Hebr\u00e6o ab egressu ipsius de \u00c6gypto, usque ad tempus Davidis, et\nin eo versu loquitur de Manna Deserti, ut proinde qu\u00e6ratur quomodo, et\nquo sensu Manna vocetur Panis Angelorum.\n\n\n91. A most proper construction assuredly, and which is adopted by the\nChurch in the office of the _Most Holy Body of Jesus-Christ_; but it\nis in a spiritual sense. Now, what I want, is the literal sense; for,\nin that Psalm, David does not speak, as a prophet, of things to be,\nas he does in other places where a literal sense is not easily to be\ngathered; he speaks here as a historian, of things gone by. That Psalm,\nas is evident to whoever reads it, is a pure anacephal\u00e6osis, or summing\nup of all the benefits conferred by God on the Hebrew People from the\nexodus from Egypt to the days of David, and the Manna of the Wilderness\nis spoken of in it; how, and in what sense is it styled the Bread of\nAngels? that is the question.\n\n\n92. Scio alios, Lyran., Euthim., Bellarm., Titelman., Genebrard., in\nPsal. 77. v. 24. et 25., interpretari Panem Angelorum Panem ab Angelis\nparatum, seu Angelorum ministerio a C\u0153lo demissum; Hugonem autem\nCardinalem Panem Angelorum exponere: quia ille cibus hoc efficiebat\nin Jud\u00e6is, quod in Angelis efficit cibus illorum, pro parte: Angeli\nenim non incurrunt infirmitatem. Voluerunt enim expositores Hebr\u00e6i,\nut etiam asseverat Josephus, quod Jud\u00e6i in Deserto vescentes manna,\nnec senescerent, nec \u00e6grotarent, nec lassarentur; proinde illa esset\ntanquam panis, quo vescuntur Angeli, qui nec senio, nec \u00e6gritudine, nec\nlassitudine unquam laborant.\n\n\n92. I am aware that others look upon the Bread of Angels as bread\nprepared by Angels, or sent down from Heaven by the ministry of Angels.\nBut Cardinal Hugo explains that qualification by saying that that\nfood partly produced the same effect upon the Jews, which the food of\nAngels produces upon the latter. Angels, in fact, are not liable to\nany infirmity; on the other hand Hebrew commentators, and Josephus\nhimself, assert that whilst in the Wilderness, living upon Manna, the\nJews neither grew old, nor sickened, nor tired; so that Manna was like\nunto the bread that Angels feed upon, who know neither old age, nor\nsickness, nor fatigue.\n\n\n93. Istas quidem expositiones recipere \u00e6quum est, utpote tantorum\nDoctorum aucthoritate suffultas. Facessit tamen difficultatem, quod\nministerio Angelorum Hebr\u00e6is non minus parata fuere columna nubis,\net ignis, coturnices, et aqua de petra, quam manna; nec tamen ista\ndicta fuere columna, aqua, aut potus Angelorum. Cur ergo potius vocari\ndeberet manna, quia parata ministerio Angelorum, =Panis Angelorum=,\nquam =Potus Angelorum= aqua eorumdem ministerio saxo educta? Insuper\nin sacra Scriptura panis dum dicitur =panis alicujus=, dicitur =panis\nejus= qui illo vescitur, non ejus qui illum parat, aut fabricat, et de\nhoc infinita habemus exempla in sacra Scriptura: ut =Exod.= c. 23. v.\n25. =Benedicam panibus tuis, et aquis=; lib. 2. =Reg.= c. 12. v. 3.\n=De pane illius comedens=; =Tob.= c. 4, v. 17. =Panem tuum cum egenis\ncomede=; et v. 18. =Panem tuum super sepulturam Justi constitue=;\n=Ecclesiast.= c. 11. v. 1. =Mitte panem tuum super transeuntes aquas=;\n=Isai.= c. 58. v. 7. =Frange esurienti panem tuum=; =Jerem.= c.\n11. v. 19. =Mittamus lignum in panem ejus=; =Matth.= c. 15. v. 26.\n=Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum=; =Luc.= c. 11. v. 3. =Panem\nnostrum quotidianum.= Ex quibus locis patenter habetur, quod panis\ndicitur ejus qui eo vescitur, non vero, qui ipsum conficit, affert,\naut parat. Commode igitur in loco citato Psalmi accipi potest =Panis\nAngelorum=, cibus quo vescuntur Angeli non quidem incorporei (isti\nenim materiali cibo non egent), sed corporei, ista nempe rationalia\nanimalia, de quibus hucusque disseruimus, degentia in aere, et qu\u00e6\nratione tenuitatis suorum corporum, ac rationalis natur\u00e6, quam maxime\nad Angelos immateriales accedunt, ut proinde nuncupentur.\n\n\n93. These interpretations should indeed be received with the respect\ndue to the authority of such eminent Doctors. There is however one\ndifficulty in this: that, by the ministry of Angels, the pillars of\nthe cloud and fire, the quails, and the water from the rock were\nprovided for the Hebrews, no less than the Manna; and yet they were not\nstyled the pillar, the water or the beverage of Angels. Why therefore\nshould Manna be called _Bread of Angels_, because provided by their\nministry, when the qualification _Beverage of Angels_ is not given to\nthe water drawn from the rock likewise by their ministry? Besides,\nin Holy Scripture, when it is said of bread that it is the _bread of\nsomebody_, it is always the _bread of him_ who feeds on it, not of him\nwho provides or makes it. Of this there are numberless instances: thus,\n_Exodus_, ch. 23, v. 25: \u201c_That I may bless thy bread and thy water_;\u201d\n_Kings_, book 2, ch. 12, v. 3: \u201c_Eating of his bread_;\u201d _Tobit_, ch.\n4, v. 17: \u201c_Give of thy bread to the hungry_,\u201d and v. 18: \u201c_Pour out\nthy bread on the burial of the Just_;\u201d _Ecclesiasticus_, ch. 11, v.\n1: \u201c_Scatter thy bread over the flowing waters_;\u201d _Isaiah_, ch. 58,\nv. 7: \u201c_Deal thy bread to the hungry_;\u201d _Jeremiah_, ch. 11, v. 19:\n\u201c_Let us put wood into his bread_;\u201d _Matthew_, ch. 15, v. 26: \u201c_It is\nnot meet to take the children\u2019s bread_;\u201d _Luke_, ch. 11, v. 3: \u201c_Our\ndaily bread_.\u201d All those passages clearly show that, in Scripture, the\nbread of somebody is the bread of him who feeds upon it, not of him\nwho makes, brings or provides it. In the passage of the Psalm we have\nquoted, _Bread of Angels_ may therefore easily be taken to mean the\nfood of Angels, not incorporeal indeed, since these require no material\nfood, but corporeal, that is to say of those rational animals we have\ndiscoursed of, who live in the air, and, from the subtlety of their\nbodies and their rationality, approximate so closely to immaterial\nAngels as to fall under the same denomination.\n\n\n94. Ducor, quia cum animalia sint, et ideo generabilia et\ncorruptibilia, egent cibo, ut restauretur substantia corporea, qu\u00e6\nper effluvia deperditur; vita enim sentientis non consistit nisi in\nmotu partium corporearum qu\u00e6 fluunt, ac refluunt, acquiruntur, ac\ndeperduntur, ac iterum reparantur; qu\u00e6 reparatio fit per substantias\nspirituosas, materiales tamen, attractas a vivente, tum per aeris\ninspirationem, tum per fermentationem cibi, per quam substantia illius\nspiritualizatur, ut rationatur doctissimus Ettmullerus, =Instit. Medic.\nPhysiolog.=, c. 2.\n\n\n94. I deduce that, being animals, consequently reproducible through\ngeneration and liable to corruption, they require food for the\nrestoration of their corporeal substance wasted by effluvia: for the\nlife of every sensible being consists in nothing else but the motion\nof the corporeal elements which flow and ebb, are acquired, lost and\nrecruited by means of substances spirituous, yet material, assimilated\nby the living thing, either through the inhalation of air, or by the\nfermentation of food which spiritualizes its substance, as shown by the\nmost learned Ettmuller (_Instit. Medic. Physiolog._, ch. 2).\n\n\n95. Quia autem eorum corpus tenue est, tenui pariter, et subtili eget\nalimento. Hinc est quod sicut odoribus aliisque substantiis vaporosis,\nac volatilibus su\u00e6 natur\u00e6 contrariis l\u00e6duntur ac fugantur, ut constat\nex historiis recitatis supra, n\u00ba 71. et 72., ita paribus rebus sibi\nconvenientibus delectantur, et aluntur. Porro \u201c=manna non est aliud,\nquam halitus aqu\u00e6, terr\u00e6que, solis calore exacte attenuatus et coctus,\na frigore secut\u00e6 noctis in unum coactus, densatusque=,\u201d ut scribit\nCornelius; manna dico, quam demissam de c\u0153lo comederunt Hebr\u00e6i, qu\u00e6\ntoto c\u0153lo differt a manna nostrate, qu\u00e6 in medicinis adhibetur; nam\nh\u00e6c, ut scribit Ettmullerus Schroder. =Dilucid. Physiolog.=, c. 1. =de\nManna=, fol. m. 154., \u201c=nihil aliud est, quam succus quarumdam arborum\ntenuis, vel earum transsudatio, qu\u00e6 nocturno tempore permixta cum rore,\nmatutino tempore superventu caloris solis coagulatur, et inspissatur=.\u201d\nManna autem Hebr\u00e6orum diversis orta principii calore solis non\ncoagulabatur, sed vice versa liquefiebat, ut patet ex Scriptura,\n=Exod.= c. 16. v. 22. Manna ergo Hebr\u00e6orum utpote constans ex halitibus\ntenuibus terr\u00e6 et aqu\u00e6, profecto tenuissim\u00e6 erat substanti\u00e6, utpote,\nqu\u00e6 a sole solvebatur, et disparebat; optime ergo potuit esse talium\nanimalium cibus, ita ut diceretur a David =Panis Angelorum=.\n\n\n95. But, their body being subtile, equally subtile and delicate must\nbe its food. And, just as perfumes and other vaporous and volatile\nsubstances, when adverse to their nature, offend and put them to\nflight, as testified by what we related above (N^{rs} 71 and 72), in\nthe like manner, when agreeable, they delight in and feed upon them.\nNow, as is written by Cornelius, \u201c_Manna is nothing but an emanation\nof water and earth, refined and baked by the heat of the sun, and\nthen coagulated and condensed by the cold of the following night_;\u201d\nof course, I am speaking of the Manna sent down from Heaven for the\nnourishment of the Hebrews, and which differs all in all from nostrate\nor medicinal manna; the latter, in fact, according to Ettmuller\n(_Dilucid. Physiol._, ch. 1), \u201c_is merely the juice or transudation of\ncertain trees which, during the night, gets mixed up with dew, and, the\nnext morning, coagulates and thickens in the heat of the sun_.\u201d The\nmanna of the Hebrews, on the contrary, derived from other principles,\nfar from coagulating, liquefied in the heat of the sun, as is shown\nby Scripture, _Exodus_, ch. 16, v. 22. The manna of the Hebrews was\ntherefore undoubtedly of a most subtile substance, consisting as it did\nof emanations of earth and water, and being dissolved by the sun and\nmade to disappear: consequently, it may very well have been the food\nof the animals we are speaking of, and thus have been truly called by\nDavid _Bread of Angels_.\n\n\n96. Alia auctoritas habetur in Evangelio Joannis, in quo, =Johannes=,\nc. 10. v. 16., ita dicitur: =Alias oves habeo, qu\u00e6 non sunt ex hoc\novili, et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet\nunum ovile, et unus Pastor=. Si qu\u00e6ramus qu\u00e6nam sint oves, qu\u00e6 non sunt\nex hoc ovili, et qualenam sit ovile de quo loquitur Christus Dominus,\nrespondent communiter Expositores unum ovile Christi esse Ecclesiam, ad\nquam perducendi erant per pr\u00e6dicationem Evangelii Gentiles, qui erant\noves alterius ovilis, ab ovili Hebr\u00e6orum: opinantur enim Synagogam esse\nChristi ovile, quia dicebat David, =Psal. 94.= v. 9: =Nos populus ejus\net oves pascu\u00e6 ejus=; et quia Messias promissus fuerat Abraham et David\noriturus ex eorum semine, et a populo Hebr\u00e6o expectatus, et a Prophetis\nqui Hebr\u00e6i erant vaticinatus, et ejus adventus, conversatio, passio,\nmors et resurrectio in sacrificiis, cultu, et ceremoniis Hebr\u00e6orum\nlegis erant pr\u00e6figurata.\n\n\n96. We have another authority in the Gospel according to St John, ch.\n10, v. 16, where it is said; \u201c_And other sheep I have, which are not\nof this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice,\nand there shall be one fold and one shepherd._\u201d If we inquire what are\nthose sheep which are not of that fold, and what the fold of which the\nLord Christ speaketh, we are answered by all Commentators that the\nonly fold of Christ is the Church to which the preaching of the Gospel\nwas to bring the Gentiles, sheep of another fold than that of the\nHebrews. They are, in fact, of opinion that the fold of Christ was the\nSynagogue, because David had said, Psalm 95, v. 7: \u201c_We are the people\nof his pasture, and the sheep of his hand_\u201d, and also because Abraham\nand David had been promised that the Messiah should be born of their\nrace, because he was expected by the Hebrew people, foretold by the\nProphets who were Hebrews, and that his advent, his acts, his passion,\ndeath and resurrection were prefigured in the sacrifices, worship and\nceremonials of the Hebrew law.\n\n\n97. Sed salva semper Sanctorum Patrum, ac aliorum Doctorum reverentia,\nnon videtur talis expositio ad plenum satisfacere. Habemus enim quod\nde fide est a principio mundi Ecclesiam Fidelium extitisse unam, usque\nad finem s\u00e6culi duraturam. Cujus Ecclesi\u00e6 caput est mediator Dei et\nhominum Christus Jesus, cujus contemplatione creata sunt universa, et\nomnia per ipsum facta. Fides enim unius Dei Trini (quamvis non ita\nexplicite), et Verbi Incarnatio revelata fuit primo homini, et ab\nipso edocti ejus filii, et ab iis descendentes. Hinc est quod quamvis\nplerique homines ad idolatriam deflexerint, ac veram fidem deseruerint,\nmulti tamen veram fidem a patribus sibi traditam retinuerunt, et legem\nnatur\u00e6 servantes in vera Ecclesia Fidelium permanserunt, ut observat\nCardinalis Toletus in =Job=, c. 10. v. 16., et apparet in Job, qui\ninter Gentiles Idolatras sanctus fuit. Quamvis autem Deus populo Hebr\u00e6o\nspeciales favores contulerit, peculiaremque legem, ac ceremonias illi\npr\u00e6scripserit, ac a Gentilibus segregaverit, non tamen ad eam legem\nGentes tenebantur, nec fideles Hebr\u00e6i aliam Ecclesiam constituebant ab\nEcclesia Gentilium, qui fidem unius Dei et Messi\u00e6 venturi profitebantur.\n\n\n97. But, saving always the reverence due to the Holy Fathers and other\nDoctors, that explanation does not seem quite satisfactory. For it\nis an article of belief that the Church of the Faithful has been the\nonly one in existence from the beginning of the world, and will thus\nendure to the end of time. The head of that Church is Jesus-Christ,\nthe mediator between God and men, by whose contemplation all things\nwere made and created. Indeed, the faith in the divine Trinity, though\nless explicitly, and the Incarnation of the Word were revealed to the\nfirst man, and by him taught his children, who, in their turn, taught\nthem their descendants. And thus, although most men had strayed into\nidolatry and deserted the true faith, many kept the faith they had\nreceived from their fathers, and observing the law of nature, stayed\nin the true Church of the Faithful, as is noticed by Cardinal Tolet\nin reference to Job, who was a saint among idolatrous Gentiles. And,\nalthough God had conferred especial favours upon the Hebrew people,\nprescribed for them peculiar laws and ceremonials, and separated them\nfrom the Gentiles, yet those laws were not obligatory on the Gentiles,\nand the faithful Hebrews did not constitute a Church different from\nthat of the Gentiles who professed their faith in one God and the\ncoming of the Messiah.\n\n\n98. Hinc est, quod etiam ex Gentilibus fuere, qui Christi adventum,\net alia Christian\u00e6 fidei dogmata prophetarunt, ut patet de =Balaam=,\n=Mercurio Trismegisto=, =Hydaspe=, ac =Sibyllis=, de quibus loquitur\nLactantius, lib. 1. c. 6., ut scribit Cardinalis Baronius in =Apparatu\nAnnal.= n\u00ba 18. Et quod Messias erat a Gentilibus expectatus habet\nIsaias in pluribus locis, et luculentum testimonium de hoc est\nprophetia Patriarch\u00e6 Jacob de Messia, qu\u00e6 sic ait, =Gen.= c. 49. v. 10:\n=Non auferetur sceptrum de Juda, et dux de femore ejus, donec veniat\nqui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio Gentium=. Item Prophetia\nAgg\u00e6i, c. 2. v. 8: =Movebo omnes Gentes, et veniet desideratus cunctis\ngentibus=, quem locum explicans Cornelius a Lap. in Agg\u00e6. c. 2. v.\n8. \u00a7 =Denique gentes=, ait: \u201c=Gentes ante Christum credentes in Deum\nlege natur\u00e6, \u00e6que ac Jud\u00e6i expectabant ac desiderabant Christum=.\u201d\nPariter Christus ita se prodidit, et manifestavit Gentibus, sicut\nJud\u00e6is: si enim in ipsius nativitate per Angelum ejus notitia data\nfuit Pastoribus, per stellam miraculosam ad sui adorationem vocavit\nMagos, qui cum essent Gentiles fuerunt primiti\u00e6 Gentium in Christo\nagnoscendo, et adorando, ut ait S. Fulgentius, =Sermon. 6. de Epiph.=,\nsicut Pastores fuerunt primiti\u00e6 Jud\u00e6orum. Itidem manifestatio adventus\nChristi per pr\u00e6dicationem (non quidem Apostolorum) prius facta est\nGentilibus, quam Jud\u00e6is; siquidem ut scribit Ven. Mater Soror Maria\nde Agreda, in =Vita J. C. et B. M. V.=, p. 1. l. 4. c. 26. n. 664:\n\u201c=Quando B. M. Virgo cum S. Joseph portavit Puerum Jesum in \u00c6gyptum,\nfugiendo Herodis persecutionem, mansit ibi per septennium: quo tempore\nipsa Beatissima Virgo pr\u00e6dicavit \u00c6gyptiis veri Dei fidem, et Filii\nDei in carne humana adventum=.\u201d Ulterius in Christi nativitate multa\nfuere prodigia non solum in Jud\u00e6a, sed in \u00c6gypto, ubi corruerunt\nidola, ac oracula conticuere; Rom\u00e6, ubi fons olei scaturiit; visus\nglobus aurei coloris de c\u0153lo in terram descendere; apparuere tres\nsoles; ac contra naturam circulus variegatus ad modum iridis solis\ndiscum circumscripsit; in Gr\u00e6cia, ubi oraculum Delphicum obmutuit,\net interrogatus Apollo ab Augusto ipsi sacrificante in proprio\npalatio, ubi eidem aram extruxerat, de causa silentii sui, respondit,\nut referunt Nicephorus, l. 1 c. 17., Suidas, verbo =Augustus=, et\nCedrenus, =Compend. Histor.=:\n\n    =Me puer Hebr\u00e6us, Divos Deus ipse gubernans,\n    Cedere sede jubet, tristemque redire sub orcum;\n    Aris ergo dehinc tacitis abscedito nostris.=\n\nEt multa alia acciderunt prodigia, quibus pr\u00e6nunciabatur Gentilibus\nFilii Dei adventus, qu\u00e6 ex variis Aucthoribus recitat Baronius,\n=Apparat. Annal. Eccles.= n\u00ba 24. et seq., et Cornelius in =Agg\u00e6.= c.\n2. v. 8.\n\n\n98. And thus it came to pass that even among the Gentiles there were\nsome who prophesied the advent of Christ and the other dogmas of the\nChristian faith, to wit _Balaam_, _Mercurius Trismegistus_, _Hydaspes_,\nand the _Sibyls_ mentioned by Lactantius, book 1, ch. 6, as written by\nBaronius, _Apparat. Annal., n\u00ba 18_. That the Messiah was expected by\nthe Gentiles is shown by many passages of Isaiah, and plainly testified\nby the prophecy of Jacob, the Patriarch, thus worded, Genesis, ch. 49,\nv. 10: \u201c_The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from\nbetween his feet, until Shiloh (he who is to be sent) come, and unto\nhim shall the gathering of the people be._\u201d--Likewise in the prophecy\nof Haggai, ch. 2, v. 8: \u201c_I will shake all Nations, and the desire of\nall Nations shall come_\u201d; which passage is thus commented by Cornelius\na Lapide: \u201c_The Gentiles before the advent of Christ, who believed in\nGod and observed the law of nature, expected and desired Christ equally\nwith the Jews._\u201d Christ himself disclosed and manifested himself to the\nGentiles as well as to the Jews; for, at the same time as the Angel\napprized the shepherds of his nativity, by means of the miraculous star\nhe called the Magi to worship him, who, being Gentiles, were the first\namong the Nations, as the shepherds among the Jews, to acknowledge\nand worship Christ (_Vide_ St Fulgentius, _Sermon 6, upon Epiphany_).\nIn like manner, the advent of Christ was made known by preaching (I\nam not speaking of the Apostles) to the Gentiles before it was to the\nJews. As is written by the Venerable Mother, Sister Maria of Agreda,\nin her _Life of Jesus-Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary_: \u201c_When the\nBlessed Virgin Mary, fleeing with St Joseph, from the persecution of\nHerod, carried the Infant Jesus into Egypt, she tarried there seven\nyears; and, during that time, the Blessed Virgin herself preached to\nthe Egyptians the faith of the true God and the advent of the Son of\nGod in human flesh._\u201d Besides, the nativity of Christ was attended by\nnumerous prodigies, not only in Jud\u00e6a, but also in Egypt, where the\nidols tumbled and the oracles were hushed; in Rome, where a spring\nof oil gushed out, a gold-coloured globe was seen to descend from\nthe skies on earth, three suns appeared, and an extraordinary ring,\nvariegated like a rainbow, encircled the disc of the sun; in Greece,\nwhere the oracle of Delphi was struck dumb, and Apollo, asked the\nreason of his silence by Augustus, who was offering up a sacrifice in\nhis own palace where he had raised an altar to him, answered:\n\n  \u201c_A Hebrew child, who sways the Gods, and himself a God,\n  Bids me quit my seat and return to the infernal regions;\n  Depart therefore from our altars, henceforward mute._\u201d\n\nThere were many more prodigies warning the Gentiles of the advent of\nthe Son of God: they have been collected from various Authors, by\nBaronius, and are to be found in his _Apparat. Annal. Eccles._, and\nCornelius, _Commentary upon Haggai_.\n\n\n99. Ex istis patet, quod etiam Gentiles pertinebant ad ovile Christi\nidem, ad quod spectabant Jud\u00e6i, puta ad Ecclesiam eamdem fidelem;\nigitur non potest recte dici, quod illa verba Christi: =Alias oves\nhabeo, qu\u00e6 non sunt ex hoc ovili=, accipienda sint de Gentilibus,\nqui communem cum Hebr\u00e6is habuerunt de Deo fidem, de Messia spem,\nprophetiam, expectationem, et signa, et pr\u00e6dicationem.\n\n\n99. From all this it is clear that the Gentiles also belonged, like\nthe Jews, to the fold of Christ, that is, to the same Church of\nthe Faithful; it cannot therefore be correctly said that the words\nof Christ: \u201c_Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold_\u201d, are\napplicable to the Gentiles, who had, in common with the Hebrews, the\nfaith in God, the hope, prophecy, expectation, prodigies and preaching\nof the Messiah.\n\n\n100. Dico igitur quod nomine =aliarum ovium= commode possunt\nintelligi Creatur\u00e6 ist\u00e6 rationales, sive animalia, de quibus hucusque\ndisseruimus. Cum enim, ut diximus, capaces sint beatitudinis, et\ndamnationis, et Christus Jesus sit mediator Dei, et hominum, immo\ntotius rationalis creatur\u00e6 (creatur\u00e6 enim rationales, qu\u00e6 beatitudinem\nconsequuntur, hanc obtinent intuitu meritorum Christi per ab eo sibi\ncollatam gratiam, sine qua nequit beatitudo obtineri), debuit omnis\nrationalis creatura de eo venturo spem habere, sicut de uno Deo\nfidem, et de ipsius in carne nativitate, et de pr\u00e6ceptis legis grati\u00e6\nmanifestationem. Ist\u00e6 igitur erant oves, qu\u00e6 non erant =ex hoc ovili\nhumano=, et quas adducere Christum oportebat, et qu\u00e6 ejus vocem nempe\nnotitiam de ipsius adventu, et de evangelica doctrina, quantum per se,\ntum per Apostolos Christus erat manifestaturus, audire debebant, et\nex iis ac hominibus in c\u0153lo beatificatis fieri =unum ovile, et unus\nPastor=.\n\n\n100. I therefore say that by the words _other sheep_ may very well be\nunderstood those rational Creatures or animals of whom we have been\ntreating hitherto. They being, as we have said, capable of beatitude\nand damnation, and Jesus-Christ being the mediator between God and\nman, as also every rational Creature (for rational creatures attain\nto beatitude in consideration of the merits of Christ, through the\ngrace he confers upon them, without which beatitude is impossible\nof attainment), every rational creature must have cherished, at the\nsame time as the faith in one God, the hope of the advent of Christ,\nand have had the revelation of his nativity in the flesh and of the\nprinciples of the law of grace. Those were therefore the sheep which\nwere not _of that human fold_, and which Christ had to bring; the sheep\nwhich were to hear His voice, that is, the announcement of His advent\nand of the evangelical doctrine, either directly through Himself, or\nthrough the Apostles; the sheep which, partaking with men of heavenly\nbeatitude, were to realize _one fold and one shepherd_.\n\n\n101. Huic expositioni quam incongruam non puto, vim addit id quod\nsupra n\u00ba 77. ex D. Hieronymo retulimus de homunculo illo qui rogavit\nD. Antonium, ut communem Deum, quem in carne humana esse passum\ncognoverat, pro se et suis =deprecaretur=. Innuitur enim ex his, quod\nilli notitiam habuerunt de adventu et morte Christi, quem tamquam Deum\noptabant sibi propitium, ut proinde ad hoc intercessionem D. Antonii\nexpostularent.\n\n\n101. To this interpretation, which I hold to be in no way improper,\nforce is added by what we related, according to St Hieronymus, of that\nlittle man who requested St Anthony to _pray_, for him and his fellows,\nunto the common God, whom he knew to have suffered in human flesh.\nFor, it implies that they were aware of the advent and of the death\nof Christ, whom, as God, they were anxious to propitiate, since they\nsought, to that effect, the intercession of St Anthony.\n\n\n102. Facit ad idem id, quod ex Eusebio de =Pr\u00e6parat. Evang.= l. 5. c.\n9., et Plutarcho l. de =Defectu Oracul.=, refert Cardinalis Baronius,\n=Appar. Annal.= n\u00ba 129., et recenset inter prodigia, qu\u00e6 tempore\nmortis Christi evenere. Recitat igitur ex citatis Aucthoribus quod\nTiberii Imperatoris, sub quo passus est Christus, tempore, navigantibus\nnonnullis a Gr\u00e6cia in Italiam, circa Insulas Echinades, cessatis\nventis, noctu navigium appulit prope terram. Audita fuit ab omnibus vox\nmagna qu\u00e6 vocavit Tramnum. Erat is Nauclerus navigii, quo respondente\n=Adsum=, replicavit vox: \u201c=Quando perveneris prope quandam paludem,\nannunciabis MAGNUM PANA MORTUUM ESSE=\u201d: quod cum Tramnus fecisset,\nauditi sunt repente multorum, imo multitudinis prope infinit\u00e6 gemitus,\net ululatus. Profecto isti fuerunt D\u00e6mones, seu Angeli corporei, seu\nanimalia rationalia prope paludem degentia, utpote aquea, qu\u00e6 audita\nmorte Christi, qui nomine magni Pan efferebatur, in lacrymas et\nlamenta effusa sunt; prout etiam Hebr\u00e6i nonnulli visa Christi morte\npercutientes pectora sua revertebantur (=Luc.= c. 23. v. 48.). Ex\nhucusque igitur deductis patet, quod dantur hujusmodi D\u00e6mones, succubi\net incubi, constantes sensu, et ipsius passionibus obnoxii, ut probatum\nest; qui generantur, corrumpuntur, et capaces sunt beatitudinis, et\ndamnationis, et ratione corporis subtilioris, nobiliores homine sunt,\net qui si cum hominibus, maribus aut f\u0153minis, carnaliter commiscentur,\npeccant, et eo peccato, quo peccat homo jungendo se cum bruto, quod\nest homine ignobilius; proinde non raro hi D\u00e6mones consuetudinem\nhabentes cum homine, aut equabus, post longam habitam communicationem\neos interficiunt. Causa porro hujus est, quod si inter tales datur\npeccatum, cum sint in via, dari etiam debet p\u0153nitentia; sicut ergo\nhomini peccanti consuetudinaliter cum bruto, ad tollendam occasionem\nrecidivandi, Confessarius injungit, ut brutum tollat de medio, ita\ntali D\u00e6moni consuetudinario in peccato, et tandem p\u009c\u0153nitenti accidit,\nut animal cum quo peccavit, sive homo, sive brutum fuerit, occidat;\nnec enim tali D\u00e6moni mors data homini peccatum erit, sicut mors data\nbruto non imputatur tamquam peccatum homini: ratione enim essentialis\ndifferenti\u00e6 inter D\u00e6monem hujusmodi, et hominem, idem erit homo D\u00e6moni,\nquod est homini brutum.\n\n\n102. Thereto tends also the fact mentioned by Cardinal Baronius\n(_Appar. Annal._ n\u00ba 129), after Eusebius and Plutarch, as being one\nof the prodigies which took place at the time of the death of Christ.\nHe relates that in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, when Christ\nsuffered, whilst mariners bound from Greece to Italy, were by night,\nand during a calm, in the vicinity of the Echinade Isles, their ship\nwas brought close to land. All the crew heard a loud voice calling\nTramnus, the master of the ship. He having answered to his name, the\nvoice replied: \u201cWhen near such a marsh, announce that _the great Pan\nis dead_.\u201d Which Tramnus having done, there arose suddenly, as from\na numberless multitude, groans and shrieks. Doubtless, they were\nDemons, or corporeal Angels, or rational animals living near the marsh\non account of their aqueous nature, and who, hearing of the death\nof Christ, described by the name of Great Pan, burst into tears and\nbewailing, like some of the Jews who, after witnessing the death of\nChrist, went home smiting their breasts (_Luke_, ch. 23, v. 48). From\nall that has been deduced above, it is therefore clear that there are\nsuch Demons, succubi and incubi, endowed with senses and subject to the\npassions thereof, as has been shown; who are born through generation\nand die through corruption, are capable of beatitude and damnation,\nmore noble than man, by reason of the greater subtilty of their bodies,\nand who, when having intercourse with man, male or female, fall into\nthe same sin as man when copulating with a beast, which is inferior to\nhim. Also, it not unfrequently occurs that those Demons slay the men,\nwomen or mares with whom they have had protracted intercourse; and the\nreason is that, being liable to sin whilst on the way to salvation,\n_in via_, they must likewise be open to repentance; and, in the same\nmanner as a man, who habitually sins with a beast, is enjoined by\nhis confessor to destroy that beast, with a view to suppressing the\noccasion of relapsing, it may likewise happen that the penitent demon\nshould slay the animal with which it sinned, whether man or beast; nor\nwill death thus occasioned to a man be reckoned a sin to the Demon, any\nmore than death inflicted on a beast is imputed as a sin to man; for,\nconsidering the essential difference between a Demon of that kind and\nman, the man will be the same thing to the Demon as the beast is to man.\n\n\n103. Scio multos, et forte plerosque, qui h\u00e6c legerent, dicturos de me,\nquod Epicurei et Stoici Philosophi nonnulli dixerunt de Divo Paulo,\n=Actor.= c. 17. v. 18.: =Novorum D\u00e6moniorum videtur annunciator=, et\ndatam doctrinam exsibillabunt. Sed isti tenebuntur solvere argumenta\nsupra posita, et dicere quinam sint D\u00e6mones isti Incubi, vulgo\n=Folletti=, qui exorcismos, res sacras, et Christi Crucem non pavent, ac\nalios effectus istorum, ac ph\u00e6nomena salvare, qu\u00e6 nos ex data doctrina\nostendimus.\n\n\n103. I am aware that many, perhaps most of my readers, will say of me\nwhat the Epicureans and some Stoic Philosophers said of St Paul (_Acts\nof the Apostles_, ch. 17, v. 18). \u201c_He seemeth to be a setter forth of\nstrange gods_\u201d, and will deride my doctrine. But they will none the\nless have to answer the foregoing arguments, to show what are those\nIncubi Demons, commonly called _Goblins_, who dread neither exorcisms,\nnor the holy things, nor the Cross of Christ, and to explain the\nvarious effects and phenomena related when propounding that doctrine.\n\n\n104. Solvitur ergo ex his, qu\u00e6 hucusque deducta sunt, qu\u00e6stio, quam\nproposuimus supra n\u00ba 30 et n\u00ba 34: resolutive innuimus, quomodo\nmulier potest ingravidari a d\u00e6mone Incubo. Non enim hoc pr\u00e6stare potest\nex semine sumpto ab homine, ut fert communis opinio, quam confutavimus\nn\u00ba 31 et 32: sequitur ergo, quod ipsa impr\u00e6gnatur a semine Incubi, cum\nenim animal sit, et generet, proprio pollet semine: et hoc modo optime\nsalvatur generatio Gigantum secuta ex commixtione Filiorum Dei cum\nFiliabus hominum; nati siquidem sunt ex tali concubitu Gigantes, qui\nlicet homini essent similes, corpore tamen erant majores: et quamvis a\nD\u00e6monibus geniti, viribus proinde pollerent, non tamen D\u00e6monum vires\net potentiam \u00e6quabant, ut sequitur in mulis, hinnis et burdonibus, qui\nmedii quodammodo sunt inter eas species animalium, a quibus promiscue\ngenerantur, et superant quidem imperfectiorem, non attingunt autem\nperfectiorem speciem generantium: mulus enim superat asinum, sed non\n\u00e6quat perfectionem equ\u00e6, a quibus generatur.\n\n\n104. What we have hitherto deduced accordingly solves the question\nlaid down N^{rs} 30 and 34, to wit: how a woman can be got with\nchild by an Incubus Demon? In fact, it cannot be brought about by\nsperm assumed from a man, agreeably to the common opinion which we\nconfuted, N^{rs} 31 and 32; it follows, therefore, that she is directly\nimpregnated by the sperm of the Incubus, which, being an animal and\ncapable of breeding, has sperm of its own. And thus is fully explained\nthe begetting of Giants from the intercourse of the Sons of God with\nthe Daughters of men: for that intercourse gave birth to Giants who,\nalthough like unto men, were of higher stature, and, though begotten\nby Demons, and consequently of great strength, yet equalled them\nneither in might nor in power. It is the same with mules, which are\nintermediate, as it were, between the kinds of animals from whose\npromiscuousness they are sprung, and which excel indeed the most\nimperfect, but never equal the most perfect: thus, the mule excels\nthe ass, but does not attain the perfection of the mare, which have\nbegotten it.\n\n\n105. Confirmat autem hanc sententiam consideratio, quod animalia\ngenita ex commixtione diversarum specierum non generant; sed sunt\nsterilia, ut patet in mulis. Gigantes autem non leguntur Gigantes\ngenerasse, sed natos a Filiis Dei, puta Incubis, et Filiabus hominum:\ncum enim concepti fuerint ex semine D\u00e6moniaco mixto cum humano, non\npotuerunt, tamquam medi\u00e6 speciei inter D\u00e6monem et hominem, generare.\n\n\n105. In confirmation of the above inference, we observe that animals\nsprung from the mixing of different kinds do not breed, but are\nbarren, as is seen with mules. Now we do not read of Giants having been\nbegotten by other Giants, but of their having been born of the Sons\nof God, that is Incubi, and the Daughters of men: being thus begotten\nof the Demoniac sperm mixed with the human sperm, and being, as it\nwere, an intermediate species between the Demon and man, they had no\ngenerative power.\n\n\n106. Dicetur fortasse contra hoc, non posse, ex semine D\u00e6monum, quod\npro sui natura opportet esse tenuissimum, fieri mixturam cum semine\nhumano, quod crassum est; unde nec generatio sequi possit.\n\n\n106. It may be objected that the sperm of Demons, which must, by\nnature, be most fluid, could not mix with the human sperm, which is\nthick, and that, consequently, no generation would ensue.\n\n\n107. Respondeo quod, ut dictum fuit supra n\u00ba 32: virtus generandi\nconsistit in spiritu, qui simul cum materia spumosa et viscida\ndeciditur a generante; sequitur ex hoc, quod semen D\u00e6monis quantumvis\ntenuissimum, quia tamen materiale, optime potest commisceri cum spiritu\nmateriali seminis humani, ac fieri generatio.\n\n\n107. I reply that, as has been said above, N^r 32, the generative power\nlies in the spirit that comes from the generator at the same time as\nthe spumy and viscous matter; it follows that, although most liquid,\nthe sperm of the Demon, being nevertheless material, can very well mix\nwith the material spirit of the human sperm, and bring about generation.\n\n\n108. Replicabitur adhuc contra conclusionem, quod si vere fuisset\nGigantum generatio ex semine Incuborum et Mulierum, nunc quoque\nGigantes nascerentur: non desunt enim mulieres coeuntes cum Incubis,\nut patet ex gestis SS. Bernardi et Petri de Alcantara, et aliarum\nhistoriarum, qu\u00e6 passim ab auctoribus recitantur.\n\n\n108. It will be retorted that, if the generation of Giants had really\ncome from the combined sperms of Incubi and Women, Giants would\nstill be born in our time, since there is no lack of women who have\nintercourse with Incubi, as is shown by the Acts of St Bernard and\nPeter of Alcantara, and other stories related by various authors.\n\n\n109. Respondeo, quod prout ex Guaccio dictum fuit supra n\u00ba 81: alii\nsunt hujusmodi D\u00e6mones terrei, alii aquei, aerei alii, et alii ignei,\nqui respective in propriis eorum elementis habitant. Videmus autem\nanimalia eo majora esse quo majus est elementum in quo degunt, ut patet\nin piscibus, inter quos licet multi sint minuti, ut etiam sunt plura\nanimalia terrestria minutissima, et tamen quia elementum aqu\u00e6 majus\nest elemento terr\u00e6 (utpote continens majus semper est contento), ideo\npisces a tota specie superant in magnitudine molis animalia terrestria,\nut patet in balenis, orcynis, pistis seu pistricibus, thynnis, ac\naliis piscibus cetaceis, seu viviparis, qui quodvis animal terrestre\nlonge superant. Porro cum D\u00e6mones hujusmodi animalia sint, ut hucusque\nprobatum est, eo erunt majores in magnitudine quo elementum majus\npro sui natura inhabitabunt. Et cum aer excedat aquam, et ignis aere\nmajor sit, sequitur, quod D\u00e6mones \u00e6therei ac ignei longe superabunt\nterrestres et aqueos, tum in mole corporis, tum in virtute. Nec\ncontra hoc facit instantia de avibus, qui licet incolant aerem, qui\nmajor est aqua, tamen corpore minores sunt a tota specie piscibus et\nquadrupedibus, quia aves, licet per aerem volatu spatientur, revera\ntamen pertinent ad elementum terr\u00e6, in qua quiescunt; aliter enim\npisces nonnulli qui volant, ut hirundo marina, et alii, dici deberent\nanimalia aerea, quod falsum est.\n\n\n109. I reply that, as has been said above, N^r 81, from Guaccius, some\nof those Demons are earthly, some aqueous, some aerial, some igneous,\nand they all dwell in their respective element. Now, it is well known\nthat animals are of larger size, according to the element they live in;\nthus with fishes, many of which are diminutive, it is true, as happens\nwith animals that live on land; but, the element water being larger\nthan the element earth, since the container is always larger than the\ncontents, fishes as a species, surpass in size the animals that dwell\non land, as shown by whales, tunnies, cachalots, and other cetaceous\nand viviparous fish which surpass by far all animals that live on land.\nConsequently, these Demons being animals, as has been shown, their\nsize will be proportionate to the extent of the element they dwell in,\naccording to their nature. And, air being more extensive than water,\nand fire than air, it follows that ethereal and igneous Demons will\nby far surpass their earthly and aqueous fellows, both in stature and\nmight. It would be to no purpose to instance, as an objection, birds\nwhich, although inhabitants of the air, a more extensive element than\nwater, are smaller, as a species, than fishes and quadrupeds; for, if\nbirds do indeed travel through the air by means of their wings, they\nno less belong to the element earth, where they rest; otherwise, some\nfishes that fly, such as the sea swallow, would have to be classed\namong aerial animals, which is not.\n\n\n110. Advertendum autem, quod post diluvium aer iste terraqueo globo\ncitissimus magis incrassatus est ex humiditate aquarum, quam fuerit\nante diluvium, et hinc forte est, quod ex tali humido, quod est\nprincipium corruptionis, fiat, quod homines non \u00e6tatem ita producant,\nut faciebant ante diluvium. Ex ista autem aeris crassitie fit, quod\nD\u00e6mones \u00e6therei, ac ignei, c\u00e6teris corpulentiores, nequeunt diutius\nmanere in hoc aere crasso, et si descendunt aliquando hoc fit\nviolenter, et eo modo quo urinatores ad ima maris descendunt.\n\n\n110. Now, it must be observed that, after the flood, the air which\nsurrounds our earthy and aqueous globe, became, from the damp of the\nwaters, thicker than it had been before; and, damp being the principle\nof corruption, that may be the reason why men do not live as long as\nthey did before the flood. It is also on account of that thickness\nof the air that ethereal and igneous Demons, more corpulent than the\nothers, can no longer dwell in that thick atmosphere, and if they do\ndescend into it occasionally, do so only by force, much as divers\ndescend into the depths of the sea.\n\n\n111. Ante diluvium autem, cum adhuc aer non ita crassus erat, veniebant\nD\u00e6mones, et cum mulieribus miscebantur, et gigantes procreabant, qui\nmagnitudinem corpoream D\u00e6monum generantium \u00e6mulabantur. Nunc vero\nita non est: D\u00e6mones enim Incubi, qui f\u0153minas incessunt, sunt aquei\nquorum corporis moles magna non est: et proinde in forma homuncionum\napparent, et quia aquei etiam salacissimi sunt; luxuria enim in humido\nest: ut proinde Venerem e mari natam Poet\u00e6 finxerint, quod Mythologi\nexplicant de libidine, qu\u00e6 oritur ab humiditate. Cum ergo D\u00e6mones, qui\ncorpore parvi sunt his temporibus mulieres impr\u00e6gnent, non gigantes,\nsed statur\u00e6 ordinari\u00e6 filii nascuntur. Sciendum porro quod si miscentur\ncorporaliter cum mulieribus D\u00e6mones in sua ipsorum corpulentia\nnaturali, nulla facta immutatione aut artificio, mulieres illos non\nvident, nisi tanquam umbram p\u00e6ne incertam, ac quasi insensibilem, ut\npatet in muliere illa, de qua diximus supra n\u00ba 28., qu\u00e6 osculabatur\nab incubo, cujus tactus vix ab ea sentiebatur. Quando vero volunt se\nvisibiles amasiis reddere, atque ipsis delectationem in congressu\ncarnali afferre, sibi indumentum visibile assumunt, et corpus crassum\nreddunt. Qua vero hoc arte fiat, ipsi norunt. Nobis curta nostra\nPhilosophia hoc non pandit. Unum scire possumus, et est, quod tale\nindumentum seu corpus ex solo aere concreto constare nequiret, hoc enim\nesse deberet per condensationem, et proinde per frigus; unde oporteret,\nquod corpus illud ad tactum esset veluti glacies, et ita in coitu\nmulieres non delectaret, sed torqueret, cum tamen contrarium eveniat.\n\n\n111. Before the flood, when the air was not yet so thick, Demons came\nupon earth and had intercourse with women, thus procreating Giants\nwhose stature was nearly equal to that of the Demons, their fathers.\nBut now it is not so; the Incubi Demons who approach women are aqueous\nand of small stature; that is why they appear in the shape of little\nmen, and, being aqueous, they are most lecherous. Lust and damp go\ntogether: Poets have depicted Venus as born of the sea, in order to\nshow, as explained by Mythologists, that lust takes its source in damp.\nWhen, therefore, Demons of short stature impregnate women nowadays,\nthe children that are born are not giants, but men of ordinary size.\nIt should, moreover, be known that when Demons have carnal intercourse\nwith women in their own natural body, without having recourse to any\ndisguise or artifice, the women do not see them, or if they do, see but\nan almost doubtful, barely sensible shadow, as was the case with the\nfemale we spoke of, N^r 28, who, when embraced by an Incubus, scarcely\nfelt his touch. But, when they want to be seen by their mistresses,\n_atque ipsis delectationem in congressu carnali afferre_, they assume a\nvisible disguise and a palpable body. By what means this is effected,\nis their secret, which our short-sighted Philosophy is unable to\ndiscover. The only thing we know is that such disguise or body could\nnot consist merely in concrete air, since this must take place through\ncondensation, and therefore by the influence of cold; a body thus\nformed would feel like ice, _et ita in coitu mulieres non delectaret_,\nbut would give them pain; and it is the reverse that takes place.\n\n\n112. Visa igitur differentia D\u00e6monum spiritualium, qui cum sagis\ncoeunt, et Incuborum, qui cum f\u0153minis minime sagis rem habent,\nperpendenda est gravitas hujus criminis in utroque casu.\n\n\n112. Being admitted the distinction between spiritual Demons, which\nhave intercourse with witches, and Incubi, who have to do with women\nthat are nowise witches, we have to weigh the grievousness of the crime\nin both cases.\n\n\n113. In coitu sagarum cum D\u00e6monibus, eo quia non fit nisi cum\napostasia a Fide, et Diaboli cultu, et tot aliis impietatibus quas\nrecensuimus supra a n\u00ba 12. ad 24., est maximum quorumque peccatorum,\nqu\u00e6 ab hominibus fieri possunt: et ratione tant\u00e6 enormitatis contra\nReligionem, qu\u00e6 pr\u00e6supponitur coitu cum Diabolo, profecto D\u00e6monialitas\nmaximum est criminum carnalium. Sed spectato delicto carnis ut sic,\net ut abstracto a peccatis contra Religionem, D\u00e6monialitas redigenda\nest ad simplicem pollutionem. Ratio, et quidem convincentissima, est\nquia Diabolus, qui rem habet cum sagis, purus spiritus est, et est\nin termino ac damnatus ut dictum supra fuit; proinde si cum sagis\ncoit, hoc facit in corpore assumpto, aut a se formato, ut sentiunt\ncommuniter Theologi. Porro corpus illud quamvis moveatur, non tamen\nvivens est; sequitur ergo quod coiens cum tali corpore, sive mas sive\nf\u0153mina fuerit, idem delictum committit, ac si cum corpore inanimato aut\ncadavere coiret, quod esset simplex mollities, ut alias demonstravimus.\nVerum est, quod, ut observavit etiam Cajetanus, talis coitus effective\npotest habere deformitates aliorum criminum juxta corpus a Diabolo\nassumptum, et vas: si enim assumeret corpus virginis consanguine\u00e6, aut\nsacr\u00e6, effective esset tale crimen incestus aut sacrilegium, et si in\nfigura bruti coiret, aut in vase pr\u00e6postero, evaderet Bestialitas aut\nSodomia.\n\n\n113. The intercourse of witches with Demons, from its accompanying\ncircumstances, apostasy from the Faith, worshipping of the Devil, and\nso many other ungodly things related above, N^{rs} 12 to 24, is the\ngreatest of all sins which can be committed by man; and, considering\nthe enormity against Religion which is presupposed by coition with the\nDevil, Demoniality is assuredly the most heinous of all carnal crimes.\nBut, taking the sin of the flesh as such, exclusive of the sins\nagainst Religion, Demoniality should be reduced to simple pollution.\nThe reason is, and a most convincing one, that the Devil who has to do\nwith witches is a pure spirit, has reached the goal and is damned, as\nhas been said above; if, therefore, he copulates with witches, it is\nin a body assumed or made by himself, according to the common opinion\nof Theologians. Though set in motion, that body is not a living one;\nand it follows that the human being, male or female, _coiens cum tali\ncorpore_, is guilty of the same offence as if copulating with an\ninanimate body or a corpse, which would be simple pollution, as we have\nshown elsewhere. It has, moreover, been truly observed by Cajetanus,\nthat such intercourse can very well carry with it the disgraceful\ncharacteristics of other crimes, according to the body assumed by the\nDevil, and the part used: thus, if he should assume the body of a\nkinswoman or of a nun, such a crime would be incest or sacrilege; if\ncoition took place in the shape of a beast, or _in vase pr\u00e6postero_, it\nwould be Bestiality or Sodomy.\n\n\n114. In coitu autem cum Incubo, in quo nulla habetur qualitas, vel\nminima, criminis contra Religionem, difficile est rationem invenire,\nper quam tale delictum Bestialitate et Sodomia gravior esset. Siquidem\ngravitas Bestialitatis pr\u00e6 Sodomia, prout supra diximus, consistit\nin hoc, quod homo vilificat dignitatem su\u00e6 speciei jungendo se cum\nbruto quod est speciei longe inferioris sua. In coitu autem cum\nIncubo diversa est ratio: nam Incubus ratione spiritus rationalis,\nac immortalis, \u00e6qualis est homini; ratione vero corporis nobilioris,\nnempe subtilioris, est perfectior, et dignior homine; et hoc modo\nhomo jungens se Incubo non vilificat, immo dignificat suam naturam,\net ita, juxta hanc considerationem, D\u00e6monialitas nequit esse gravior\nBestialitate.\n\n\n114. As for intercourse with an Incubus, wherein is to be found no\nelement, not even the least, of an offence against Religion, it is hard\nto discover a reason why it should be more grievous than Bestiality and\nSodomy. For, as we have said above, if Bestiality is more grievous than\nSodomy, it is because man degrades the dignity of his kind by mixing\nwith a beast, of a kind much inferior to his own. But, when copulating\nwith an Incubus, it is quite the reverse: for the Incubus, by reason\nof his rational and immortal spirit, is equal to man; and, by reason\nof his body, more noble because more subtile, he is more perfect and\nmore dignified than man. Consequently, when having intercourse with an\nIncubus, man does not degrade, but rather dignifies his nature; and,\ntaking that into consideration, Demoniality cannot be more grievous\nthan Bestiality.\n\n\n115. Tamen gravior communiter censetur, et ratio, meo videri, potest\nesse: quia peccatum contra Religionem est, qu\u00e6vis communicatio cum\nDiabolo, sive ex pacto, sive non; puta habendo cum eo consuetudinem\naut familiaritatem, seu ab eo petendo auxilium, consilium, favorem,\naut ab ipso qu\u00e6rendo revelationem futurorum, relationem pr\u00e6teritorum,\nabsentium aut alias occultorum. Hujusmodi autem homines, seu mulieres,\nconcumbendo cum Incubis, quos nesciunt animalia esse, sed putant esse\ndiabolos, contra conscientiam erroneam delinquunt; et hoc modo ex\nconscientia erronea ita peccant cum Incubis se jungendo, ac si cum\ndiabolis coirent: unde et gravitatem ejusdem criminis incurrunt.\n\n\n115. It is, however, commonly held to be more grievous, and the\nreason I take to be this: that it is a sin against Religion to hold\nany communication with the Devil, either with or without compact, for\ninstance by being habitually or familiarly connected with him, by\nasking his assistance, counsel or favor, or by seeking from him the\nrevelation of things to be, the knowledge of things gone by, absent,\nor otherwise hidden. Thus, men and women, by mixing with Incubi, whom\nthey do not know to be animals but believe to be devils, sin through\nintention, _ex conscientia erronea_, and their sin is intentionally the\nsame, when having intercourse with Incubi, as if such intercourse took\nplace with devils; in consequence, the grievousness of their crime is\nexactly the same.\n\n\n\n\n                                 FINIS\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\nThe manuscript of _Demoniality_ breaks off with the conclusion just\ngiven. In a purely philosophical and theoretical acception, the work is\ncomplete: for it was enough that the author should define, in general\nterms, the grievousness of the crime, without concerning himself with\nthe proceedings which were to make out the _proof_, nor with the\n_penalty_ to be inflicted. Both those questions, on the contrary, had,\nas a matter of course, a place assigned to them in the great work _De\nDelictis et P\u0153nis_, which is a veritable _Code for the Inquisitor_; and\nFather Sinistrari of Ameno could not fail to treat them there with all\nthe care and conscientiousness he has so amply shown in the foregoing\npages.\n\nThe reader will be happy to find here that practical conclusion to\n_Demoniality_.\n\n  (_Note by the Editor._)\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\nPROBATIO D\u00c6MONIALITATIS\n\n\n=SUMMARIUM\n\n1. De probatione criminis D\u00e6monialitatis, distinguendum est.\n\n2. Indicia probantia coitum Sag\u00e6 cum Diabolo.\n\n3. Requiritur confessio ipsius malefici ad plenam probationem.\n\n4. Historia de Moniali habente consuetudinem cum Incubo.\n\n5. Si adsint indicia visa in recitata historia, potest ad torturam\ndeveniri.=\n\n\nPROOF OF DEMONIALITY\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\n1. _Distinctions to be made in the proof of the crime of Demoniality._\n\n2. _Signs proving the intercourse of a Witch with the Devil._\n\n3. _The confession of the Sorcerer himself is requisite for a full\neviction._\n\n4. _Tale of a Nun who had an intimacy with an Incubus._\n\n5. _If the indictment is supported by the recitals of eye-witnesses,\ntorture may be resorted to._\n\n\n_1. Quantum ad probationem hujus criminis attinet, distinguendum est\nde D\u00e6monialitate, puta, vel ejus, qu\u00e6 a Sagis seu Maleficis fit cum\nDiabolis; sive de ea, qu\u00e6 ab aliis fit cum Incubis._\n\n\n1. As regards the proof of that crime, a distinction must be made of\nthe kind of Demoniality, to wit: whether it is that which is practiced\nby Witches or Wizards with the Devil, or that which other persons\nperpetrate with Incubi.\n\n\n2. Quoad primam, probato crimine pacti facti cum Diabolo, probata\nremanet =D\u00e6monialitas= ex consequentia necessaria; nam scopus\ntum Sagarum, tum Maleficorum in ludis nocturnis, ultra convivia, et\nchoreas, est hujusmodi infamis congressus: aliter, illius criminis\nnullus potest esse testis, quia Diabolus, qui Sag\u00e6 visibilis est,\naliorum oculos effugit. Verum est, quod aliquoties vis\u00e6 sunt mulieres\nin sylvis, agris, et nemoribus, supin\u00e6 jacentes, ad umbilicum tenus\ndenudat\u00e6, et juxta dispositionem actus venerei, divaricatis et adductis\ncruribus, clunes agitare, prout scribit Guacc., lib. 1, cap. 12, v.\n=Sciendum est s\u00e6pius, fol. 65.= Tali casu emergeret suspicio\nvehemens talis criminis, dummodo esset aliunde adminiculata, et\ncrederem talem actum per testes sufficienter probatum, sufficere Judici\nad indagandam tormentis veritatem; et hoc maxime, si post aliqualem\nmoram in illo actu, visus fuisset a muliere elevari quasi fumus niger,\net tunc mulierem surgere, prout ibidem scribit Guaccius; talis enim\nfumus, aut umbra, D\u00e6monem fuisse concumbentem cum f\u0153mina inferre\npotest. Sicut etiam, si mulier visa fuisset concumbere cum homine,\nqui post actum de repente evanuit, ut non semel accidisse idem auctor\nibidem narrat.\n\n\n2. In the first case, the compact entered into with the Devil\nbeing proved, the evidence of _Demoniality_ follows as a necessary\nconsequence; for, the purpose, both of Witches and Wizards, in the\nnightly revels that take place after feasting and dancing, is none\nother but that infamous intercourse; otherwise there can be no witness\nof that crime, since the Devil, visible to the Witch, escapes the sight\nof others. Sometimes, it is true, women have been seen in the woods, in\nthe fields, in the groves, lying on their backs, _ad umbilicum tenus\nnudat\u00e6, et juxta dispositionem actus venerei_, their legs _divaricatis\net adductis, clunes agitare_, as is written by Guaccius, book I, chap.\n12, v. _Sciendum est s\u00e6pius_, fol. 65. In such a case there would be\na very strong suspicion of such a crime, if supported by other signs;\nand I am inclined to believe that such action, sufficiently proved by\nwitnesses, would justify the Judge in resorting to torture in order\nto ascertain the truth; especially if, shortly after that action, a\nsort of black smoke had been seen to issue from the woman, and she had\nbeen noticed to rise, as is also written by Guaccius; for it might\nbe inferred that that smoke or shadow had been the Devil himself,\n_concumbens cum f\u0153mina_. Likewise if, as has more than once happened,\naccording to the same author, a woman had been seen _concumbere cum\nhomine_, who, the action over, suddenly disappeared.\n\n\n3. C\u00e6terum ad probandum concludenter aliquem esse Maleficum, seu\nMaleficam, requiritur propria confessio; nullus enim haberi potest de\nhoc testis, nisi forte sint alii Malefici, qui in judicio deponunt de\ncomplicibus; sed quia socii criminis sunt, eorum dictum non concludit,\nnec etiam ad torturam sufficit, nisi alia existent indicia, puta,\nsigillum Diaboli impressum in eorum corpore, prout diximus supra\n=num. 23.=; et in eorum domibus, facta perquisitione, inveniant\nsigna, ac instrumenta artis diabolic\u00e6, ut ossa mortuorum, pr\u00e6sertim\ncalvariam; crines artificiose contextos; nodos plumarum intricatos;\nalas, aut pedes, aut ossicula vespertilionum, aut bufonum, aut\nserpentium; ignotas seminum species; figuras cereas; vasculos plenos\nincognito pulvere, aut oleo, aut unguentis minime notis, etc., ut\nordinarie contingit reperiri a Judicibus, qui, accepta accusatione\nde hujusmodi Sagis, ad capturam, et domus visitationem deveniunt, ut\nscribit Delbene, =de Off. S. Inquis., par. 2. dub. 206, num. 7.=\n\n\n3. Moreover, in order to prove conclusively that a person is a Wizard\nor a Witch, the own confession of such person is requisite: for there\ncan be no witnesses to the fact, unless perhaps other Sorcerers giving\nevidence at the trial against their accomplices; from their being\nconfederates in the crime, their statement is not conclusive and does\nnot justify the recourse to torture, should not other indications be\nforthcoming, such as the seal of the Devil stamped on their body, as\naforesaid, N^r 23, or the finding in their dwelling, after a search,\nof signs and instruments of the diabolic art: for instance, bones\nand, especially, a skull, hair artfully plaited, intricate knots of\nfeathers, wings, feet or bones of bats, toads or serpents, unfamiliar\nseeds, wax figures, vessels filled with unknown powder, oil or\nointments, etc., as are usually detected by Judges who, upon a charge\nbeing brought against Sorcerers, proceed to their apprehension and the\nsearch of their houses.\n\n\n4. Quantum vero ad probationem congressus cum Incubo, par est\ndifficultas; non minus enim Incubus, ac alii Diaboli effugiunt, quando\nvolunt, visum aliorum, ut videri se faciunt a sola amasia. Tamen non\nraro accidit, quod etiam visi sint Incubi modo sub una, modo sub alia\nspecie in actu carnali cum mulieribus.\n\nIn quodam Monasterio (nomen ejus et urbis taceo, ne veterem ignominiam\nmemori\u00e6 refricem) qu\u00e6dam fuit Monialis, qu\u00e6 cum alia Moniali, qu\u00e6\ncellam habebat su\u00e6 contiguam, simultatem ex levibus causis, ut\nassolet inter mulieres, maxime Religiosas, habebat. H\u00e6c sagax in\nobservando quascumque actiones Monialis sibi advers\u00e6, per plures dies\nvidit, quod ista in diebus \u00e6stivis, statim a prandio non spatiabatur\nper viridarium cum aliis, sed ab iis sequestra, se retrahebat in\ncellam, quam sera obserabat. Observatrix igitur \u00e6mula curiositate\ninvestigans, quid tali tempore illa facere posset, etiam ipsa in\npropriam cellam se recipiebat; c\u0153pit autem audire submissam quasi\nduorum insimul colloquentium vocem (quod facile erat, nam cella parvo\nsimplicis, scilicet lateris unius, disterminio dividebatur), mox\nsonitum poppysmatum[4], concussionis lecti, gannitus, ac anhelitus,\nquasi duorum concubentium; unde aucta in \u00e6mula curiositate stetit\nin observatione, ut sciret, quinam in illa cella essent. Postquam\nautem per tres vices vidit, nullam aliam Monialem egressam e cella\nilla, pr\u00e6ter \u00e6mulam, dominam cell\u00e6, suspicata est Monialem in camera\nabsconditum aliquem virum, clanculum introductum, retinere; unde\net rem detulit ad Abbatissam, qu\u00e6 consilio habito cum discretis,\nvoluit audire sonitus, et observare indicia relata ab accusatrice, ne\npr\u00e6cipitanter et inconsiderate ageret. Abbatissa igitur cum discretis\nse receperunt in cellam observatricis, et audierunt strepitus, et\nvoces, quas accusatrix detulerat. Facta igitur inquisitione, an ulla\nMonialium potuisset secum in illa cella clausa esse, et reperto quod\nnon, Abbatissa cum discretis fuit ad ostium cell\u00e6 claus\u00e6; et pulsato\nfrustra pluries ostio, cum Monialis nec respondere, nec aperire vellet,\nAbbatissa minata est, se velle ostium prosterni facere, et vecte\naggredi opus fecit a quadam conversa. Tunc aperuit ostium Monialis,\net facta perquisitione, nullus inventus est in camera. Interrogata\nMonialis cum quonam loqueretur, et de causa concussionis lecti,\nanhelituum, etc., omnia negavit.\n\nCum vero res perseveraret, accuratior, ac curiosior reddita Monialis\n\u00e6mula perforavit tabulas lacunaris, ut posset cellam introspicere; et\nvidit elegantem quemdam juvenem cum Moniali concumbentem, quem etiam\neodem modo ab aliis Monialibus videndum curavit. Delata mox accusatione\nad Episcopum, ipsaque Moniali omnia negante, tandem metu tormentorum\ncomminatorum adacta, confessa est se cum Incubo consuetudinem habuisse.\n\n\n4. The proof of intimacy with an Incubus offers the same difficulty;\nfor, no less than other Demons, the Incubus is, at will, invisible to\nall but his mistress. Yet, it has not seldom happened that Incubi have\nallowed themselves to be surprised in the act of carnal intercourse\nwith women, now in one shape, now in another.\n\nIn a Monastery (I mention neither its name nor that of the town where\nit lies, so as not to recall to memory a past scandal), there was\na Nun, who, about trifles, as is usual with women and especially\nwith nuns, had quarrelled with one of her mates who occupied a cell\nadjoining to hers. Quick at observing all the doings of her enemy, this\nneighbour noticed, several days in succession, that instead of walking\nwith her companions in the garden after dinner she retired to her cell,\nwhere she locked herself in. Anxious to know what she could be doing\nthere all that time, the inquisitive Nun betook herself also to her\ncell. Soon she heard a sound, as of two voices conversing in subdued\ntones, which she could easily do, since the two cells were divided but\nby a slight partition), then a peculiar friction[4], the cracking of\na bed, groans and sighs, _quasi duorum concumbentium_; her curiosity\nwas raised to the highest pitch, and she redoubled her attention\nin order to ascertain who was in the cell. But having, three times\nrunning, seen no other nun come out but her rival, she suspected that\na man had been secretly introduced and was kept hidden there. She went\nand reported the thing to the Abbess, who, after holding counsel with\ndiscreet persons, resolved upon hearing the sounds and observing the\nindications that had been denounced her, so as to avoid any precipitate\nor inconsiderate act. In consequence, the Abbess and her confidents\nrepaired to the cell of the spy, and heard the voices and other noises\nthat had been described. An inquiry was set on foot to make sure\nwhether any of the Nuns could be shut in with the other one; and the\nresult being in the negative, the Abbess and her attendants went to the\ndoor of the closed cell, and knocked repeatedly, but to no purpose: the\nNun neither answered, nor opened. The Abbess threatened to have the\ndoor broken in, and even ordered a convert to force it with a crow-bar.\nThe Nun then opened her door: a search was made and no one found. Being\nasked with whom she had been talking, and the why and wherefore of the\nbed cracking, of the sighs, etc., she denied every thing.\n\nBut, matters going on just the same as before, the rival Nun, become\nmore attentive and more inquisitive than ever, contrived to bore a hole\nthrough the partition, so as to be able to see what was going on inside\nthe cell; and what should she see but an elegant youth lying with the\nNun, and the sight of whom she took care to let the others enjoy by the\nsame means. The charge was soon brought before the bishop: the guilty\nNun endeavoured still to deny all; but, threatened with the torture,\nshe confessed having had an intimacy with an Incubus.\n\n [4] _Poppysmatum._--That word being but little used, it may be useful\n to record here the definition given of it by the _Glossarium eroticum\n lingu\u00e6 latin\u00e6_ (auctore P. P., Paris, 1826):\n\n  POPPYSMA.--Oris pressi sonus, similis illi quo permulcentur equi et\n  canes. Obscene vero de susurro cunni labiorum, quum frictu madescunt.\n\n Father Sinistrari, well versed in classical literature, had turned to\n account the following epigram of Martial (book VII, 18):\n\n IN GALLAM\n\n     Quum tibi sit facies, de qua nec f\u0153mina possit\n       Dicere, quum corpus nulla litura notet;\n     Cur te tam rarus cupiat, repetatque fututor,\n       Miraris? Vitium est non leve, Galla, tibi.\n     Accessi quoties ad opus, mixtisque movemur\n       Inguinibus, cunnus non tacet, ipsa taces.\n     Di facerent, ut tu loquereris, et ipse taceret!\n       Offendor cunni garrulitate tui.\n     Pedere te mallem: namque hoc nec inutile dicit\n       Symmachus, et risum res movet ista simul.\n     Quis ridere potest fatui =poppysmata= cunni?\n       Quum sonat hic, cui non mentula mensque cadit\n     Dic aliquid saltem, clamosoque obstrepe cunno:\n       Et si adeo muta es, disce vel inde loqui.\n\n   (_Editorial Note._)\n\n\n5. Quando igitur adessent talia indicia, sicut in recitata historia\nintervenerunt, posset utique in rigoroso examine rea constitui; sine\ntamen ejus confessione, non censendum est delictum plene probatum,\nquantumvis a testibus visus fuisset congressus; siquidem aliquando\naccidit, quod Diabolus, ut infamiam alicui innocenti pararet,\npr\u00e6stigiose talem concubitum repr\u00e6sentaverit. Unde in his casibus debet\nJudex Ecclesiasticus esse perfecte oculatus.\n\n\n5. When, therefore, indications are forthcoming, such as those\nrecited above, a charge might be brought after a searching inquiry;\nyet, without the confession of the accused, the offence should not\nbe regarded as fully proved, even if the intercourse were testified\nby eye-witnesses; for it sometimes happens that, in order to undo an\ninnocent female, the Devil feigns such intercourse by means of some\ndelusion. In those cases, the Ecclesiastical Judge must consequently\ntrust but his own eyes.\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\n\n\nP\u0152N\u00c6\n\n\nQuantum ad p\u0153nas =D\u00e6monialitatis=, nulla lex civilis, aut\ncanonica, quam legerim, reperitur, qu\u00e6 p\u009c\u0153nam sanciat contra crimen\nhujusmodi. Tamen, quia crimen hoc supponit pactum, ac societatem cum\nD\u00e6mone, ac apostasiam a fide, ultra veneficia, atque alia infinita\npropemodum damna, qu\u00e6 a Maleficis inferuntur, regulariter, extra\nItaliam, suspendio et incendio punitur. In Italia autem, rarissime\ntraduntur hujusmodi Malefici ab Inquisitoribus Curi\u00e6 s\u00e6culari.\n\n\nPENALTIES\n\n\nAs regards the penalties applicable to _Demoniality_, there is no law\nthat I know of, either civil or canonical, which inflicts a punishment\nfor a crime of that kind. Since, however, such a crime implies a\ncompact and fellowship with the Demon, and apostasy of the faith,\nnot to speak of the malefices and other almost numberless outrages\nperpetrated by Sorcerers, as a rule it is punished, out of Italy, by\nthe gallows and the stake. But, in Italy, it is but very seldom that\noffenders of that kind are delivered up by the Inquisitors to the\nsecular power.\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\nBIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE[5]\n\n\n [5] This Notice is an extract from tome 1 of the complete works of\n Father Sinistrari, _Rom\u00e6_, 1753.\n\nFather Ludovico Maria Sinistrari, of the Order of Reformed Minors of\nthe strict Observance of St. Francis, was born in Ameno, a small town\nof the district of St. Julius, in the diocese of Novara, on the 26^{th}\nof February 1622. He received a liberal education and went through a\ncourse of humanities in Pavia, where, in the year 1647, he entered the\nOrder of Franciscans. Devoting himself henceforward to tuition, he was\nfirst a professor of Philosophy; he then, during fifteen successive\nyears, taught Theology in the same town, amidst a numerous concourse\nof students attracted from all parts of Europe by his high repute. His\nsermons preached in the principal cities of Italy, at the same time as\nthey caused his eloquence to be admired, were productive of the most\nhappy results for piety. Equally endeared to the World and to Religion,\nhe had been favoured by nature with the most brilliant gifts: square\nframe, high stature, open countenance, broad forehead, sparkling eyes,\nhigh-coloured complexion, pleasant conversation replete with sallies\nof wit[6]; more valuable still, he was in possession of the gifts of\ngrace, through which he was enabled to sustain, with unconquerable\nresignation, the assaults of an arthritical disease he was subject to;\nhe was, moreover, remarkable for his meekness, candour and absolute\nsubmission to the rules of his Order. A man of all sciences[7], he had\nlearnt foreign languages without any master, and often, in the general\nMeetings of his Order, held in Rome, he supported, in public, theses\n_de omni scibili_. He, however, addicted himself more particularly to\nthe study of Civil and Canon laws. In Rome he filled the appointment\nof Consulter to the supreme Tribunal of the Holy-Inquisition; was some\ntime Vicar general of the Archbishop of Avignon, and then Theologian\nattached to the Archbishop of Milan. In the year 1688, charged by the\ngeneral Meeting of Franciscans with the compilation of the statutes of\nthe Order, he performed this task in his treatise entitled _Practica\ncriminalis Minorum illustrata_. He died in the year of our Lord 1701,\non the 6th of March, at the age of seventy-nine[8].\n\n [6] Quadrato corpore, statura procera, facie liberali, fronte\n spatiosa, oculis rutilantibus, colore vivido, jucund\u00e6 conversationis,\n ac lepidorum salium.\n\n [7] Omnium scientiarum vir.\n\n [8] The complete works of P. Sinistrari (_Rome, Giannini_, 1753-1754,\n 3 vol. in-folio) include the following books: _Practica criminalis\n Minorum illustrata_,--_Formularium criminale_,--_De incorrigibilium\n expulsione ab Ordinibus Regularibus_,--_De Delictis et P\u0153nis_, to\n which should be added the present work: _De D\u00e6monialitate_, published\n for the first time in the year 1875.\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n                                                                   Pages\n  Preface.                                                             v\n\n  Demoniality: origin of the word.--Wherein\n  that crime differs from those\n  of Bestiality and Sodomy.--Opinion\n  of St Thomas. N^{rs} 1 to 8.                                         1\n\n  Material intercourse with Incubi and\n  Succubi is not a thing of imagination;\n  testimony of St Austin. N^{rs} 9 and 10.                            15\n\n  Wizards and Witches; their relations\n  with the Devil; ceremonials of their\n  profession. N^{rs} 11 to 23.                                        21\n\n  Artifices resorted to by the Devil for the\n  assumption of a body. N^r 24.                                       31\n\n  Incubi do not assail but women. N^r 26.                             35\n\n  _Goblins_ have no dread of exorcisms. N^r 27.                       37\n\n  Humorous story of signora Hieronyma:\n  the enchanted repast. N^r 28.                                       37\n\n  Men begotten by Incubi: Romulus and\n  Remus, Plato, Alexander the Great,\n  C\u00e6sar-Augustus; Merlin the Enchanter,\n  Martin Luther.--The Antechrist\n  to be born of an Incubus. N^r 30.                                   53\n\n  Incubi are not pure spirits: they beget,\n  and therefore have a body of their own.--Remark\n  concerning Giants. N^{rs} 31\n  to 33.                                                              57\n\n  Angels are not all pure spirits: decision\n  to that effect of the second Council of\n  Nicea N^r 37.                                                       71\n\n  Existence of rational creatures or animals\n  other than man, and endowed,\n  like him, with a body and a soul. N^{rs} 38\n  to 43.                                                              85\n\n  Wherein do those animals differ from\n  man? What their origin? Do they all\n  descend from one individual, as men\n  descend from Adam? Is there between\n  them a distinction of the sexes? What\n  are their manners, laws, social customs?\n  N^{rs} 44 to 50.                                                    87\n\n  What are the shape and organisation of\n  their body? A comparison drawn from\n  the composition of wine. N^{rs} 51 to 56.                           95\n\n  Are those animals subject to diseases,\n  to physical and moral infirmities, to\n  death? N^{rs} 57 and 58.                                           107\n\n  Are they born in the original sin? Have\n  they been redeemed by Jesus-Christ,\n  and are they capable of beatitude and\n  damnation? N^{rs} 61 and 62.                                       119\n\n  Proofs of their existence. N^{rs} 65 to 70.                        123\n\n  Story of an Incubus and of a young\n  Nun. N^r 71.                                                       139\n\n  Story of a young deacon. N^r 72.                                   145\n\n  Incubi are affected by material substances:\n  they therefore participate of the\n  matter of those substances. N^r 73.                                149\n\n  Instance drawn from the history of Tobit;\n  ejection of the Incubus which\n  vexed Sarah; cure of old Tobias.\n  N^{rs} 74 to 76.                                                   151\n\n  St Anthony falls in with a Faun in the\n  wilderness: their conversation. N^r 77\n  to 84.                                                             161\n\n  Other proofs of the corporeity of Incubi,\n  especially the Manna of the Hebrews\n  or Bread of Angels. N^{rs} 90 to 95.                               179\n\n  In what sense are to be understood the\n  words of Christ: \u201c_Other sheep I have\n  which are not of this fold?_\u201d Apollo\u2019s\n  address to the Emperor Augustus:\n  the end of the Gods. N^{rs} 96 to 101.                             191\n\n  \u201cTHE GREAT PAN IS DEAD\u201d, or the death\n  of Christ announced to Fauns, Sylvans\n  and Satyrs: their bewailing. N^r 102.                              203\n\n  Solving of the problem: How can a\n  woman be impregnated by an Incubus?--Comparison\n  of Giants with\n  mules. N^{rs} 104 and 105.                                         207\n\n  Wherein lies the generating virtue;\n  why no more Giants are born. _Luxuria\n  in humido._ N^{rs} 106 to 111.                                     211\n\n  Appreciation of the crime of Demoniality:\n  1\u00ba committed with the Devil;\n  2\u00ba committed with an Incubus. N^{rs} 112\n  to 114.                                                            219\n\n  Is Demoniality more grievous than Bestiality?--Conclusion.\n  N^r 115.                                                           223\n\n  APPENDIX                                                           227\n\n  BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE                                                245\n\n[Illustration: Decoration]\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER\n\n                                OF THE\n\n                 _REV. FATHER PROVINCIAL OF CAPUCHINS_\n\n                       FOR THE PROVINCE OF P....\n\n\n  _P..., Friday (8 October 1875)._\n\n   \u2020\n  Pax\n\n  MONS. ISIDORE LISEUX,\n  Paris.\n\n_I have gone through the work you sent me yesterday, and have, indeed,\nbeen satisfied with the edition; the time has not yet arrived for me to\ngive my opinion on the value of the work itself. Here you would have\nmet with no other works of the Rev. Father Sinistrari of Ameno than his\nbook:_ Practica criminalis Minorum; De Delictis et P\u0153nis _is to be\nfound, I believe, in another of our convents; but you would have been\ngiven a most welcome reception._\n\n_I believe that Des Grieux can hardly have resided in the present\nSt-Sulpice, which dates but from the year 1816.... So far as a\nsuperficial glance has enabled me to ascertain, there are some other\nmistakes; but, altogether, the work is a good one, and you may accept\nof the congratulations of_\n\n  _Your very little servant,_\n  _Fr. A..._\n  o.m.c.\n  m.p.\n\n  _Convent of Capuchins, rue ...._\n\n\nParis, imprimerie D. JOUAUST, rue Saint-Honor\u00e9, 338.\n\n\n\n\n                   ISIDORE LISEUX, LIBRAIRE-\u00c9DITEUR\n\n                      Rue Bonaparte, n\u00ba 2, PARIS\n\n\n                           CATALOGUE COMPLET\n\n                         AU 1^{er} AVRIL 1879\n\n                                PETITE\n\n                        COLLECTION ELZEVIRIENNE\n\n_Ouvrages curieux, rares ou in\u00e9dits, tir\u00e9s \u00e0 petit nombre sur papier de\nHollande._\n\n\nTh\u00e9ologie\n\nHISTOIRE ECCL\u00c9SIASTIQUE, PROTESTANTISME\n\nSINISTRARI (Le R. P.). _De la D\u00e9monialit\u00e9_ et des animaux _Incubes et\nSuccubes_, publi\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois, d\u2019apr\u00e8s le manuscrit original\nd\u00e9couvert \u00e0 Londres en 1872, et traduit du Latin par Isidore Liseux;\navec le texte en regard.\n  5 fr.\n\nVALLA (Laurent). _La Donation de Constantin_, premier titre du pouvoir\ntemporel des Papes, o\u00f9 il est prouv\u00e9 que cette Donation n\u2019a jamais\nexist\u00e9, et que l\u2019Acte attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Constantin est l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019un faussaire.\nTraduit en Fran\u00e7ais pour la premi\u00e8re fois et pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 d\u2019une \u00e9tude\nhistorique par Alcide Bonneau, avec le texte Latin.\n  10 fr.\n\n_LES ECCL\u00c9SIASTIQUES_ de France, leur nombre, celuy des religieux et\ndes religieuses, ce dont ils subsistent et \u00e0 quoy ils servent (XVII^e\nsi\u00e8cle).\n  2 fr.\n\nHUTTEN (Ulrich de). _Julius_, dialogue entre Saint Pierre et le Pape\nJules II \u00e0 la porte du Paradis; traduction nouvelle par Edmond Thion,\ntexte Latin en regard.\n  3 fr. 50\n\nLUTHER. _La Conf\u00e9rence entre Luther et le Diable_ au sujet de la Messe.\n  4 fr.\n\nTH\u00c9ODORE DE B\u00c8ZE. _Ep\u00eetre de ma\u00eetre Beno\u00eet Passavant_; traduit pour la\npremi\u00e8re fois du Latin macaronique de Th\u00e9odore de B\u00e8ze, par Isidore\nLiseux, avec le texte en regard.\n  3 fr. 50\n\n_PASSEVENT PARISIEN respondant \u00e0 Pasquin Romain: De la vie de ceux qui\nsont allez demourer \u00e0 Gen\u00e8ve_; fait en forme de Dialogue (1556).\n  3 fr. 50\n\n\nPhilosophie\n\nM\u0152URS ET USAGES, HISTOIRE\n\nLA MOTHE LE VAYER. _Soliloques sceptiques._\n  2 fr. 50\n\nPOGGE. _Un vieillard doit-il se marier?_ traduit par Alcide Bonneau.\n  3 fr.\n\nPOGGE. _Les Bains de Bade_ au XV^e si\u00e8cle, sc\u00e8ne de m\u0153urs de l\u2019\u00e2ge\nd\u2019or; traduit en Fran\u00e7ais pour la premi\u00e8re fois par Antony M\u00e9ray.\n  2 fr.\n\n\u00c9RASME. _La Civilit\u00e9 pu\u00e9rile_, traduction nouvelle, texte Latin en\nregard, par Alcide Bonneau.\n  4 fr.\n\nHENRI ESTIENNE. _La Foire de Francfort_ (Exposition universelle et\npermanente au XVI^e si\u00e8cle); traduit pour la premi\u00e8re fois par Isidore\nLiseux, texte Latin en regard.\n  4 fr.\n\nGESNER (J.-M.). _Socrate et l\u2019Amour Grec_ (_Socrates sanctus_\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2); traduit en Fran\u00e7ais pour la premi\u00e8re fois, texte Latin en\nregard, par Alcide Bonneau.\n  3 fr. 50\n\nTACITE. _La Germanie_, traduction enti\u00e8rement nouvelle, texte Latin en\nregard, par E.-P. Dubois-Guchan.\n  3 fr. 50\n\nULRICH DE HUTTEN. _Arminius_, dialogue, traduit pour la premi\u00e8re fois\npar Edmond Thion, texte Latin en regard.\n  2 fr.\n\n_REMONSTRANCE AUX FRAN\u00c7OIS_, pour les induire \u00e0 vivre en paix \u00e0\nl\u2019advenir (1576).\n  1 fr.\n\n\nPo\u00e9sie\n\nDU BELLAY (Joachim). _Divers jeux rustiques._\n  3 fr. 50\n\nDU BELLAY (Joachim). _Les Regrets._\n  3 fr. 50\n\nBONNEFONS (Jean). _Pancharis._\n  4fr.\n\nBOULMIER (Joseph). _Villanelles_, avec eau-forte de Lalauze.\n  5 fr.\n\n\nContes et Nouvelles\n\nARISTENET. _Les \u00c9pistres amoureuses d\u2019Aristenet_, tourn\u00e9es de Grec en\nFran\u00e7ois par Cyre Foucault, sieur de la Coudri\u00e8re (1597); avec notice\npar A.-P. Malassis.\n  5 fr.\n\nBOCCACE. _D\u00e9cam\u00e9ron_, traduit par Antoine Le Ma\u00e7on, 6 vol.\n  30 fr.\n\nPOGGE. _Fac\u00e9ties_, 2 vol. (publi\u00e9 \u00e0 20 fr.)\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\nL\u2019ABB\u00c9 FAVRE. _Histoire de Jean-l\u2019ont-pris_, conte Languedocien du\nXVIII^e si\u00e8cle, traduit et pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 d\u2019une notice par Jules Troubat.\n  3 fr.\n\nVIVANT DENON. _Point de Lendemain_, conte d\u00e9di\u00e9 \u00e0 la Reine, avec\nfleurons dessin\u00e9s par Marillier; notice par A. P.-Malassis (publi\u00e9 \u00e0 4\nfr.).\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\nCASTI. _La Papesse._\n  10 fr.\n\n\nPhilologie, Histoire litt\u00e9raire\n\nGABRIEL NAUD\u00c9, Parisien. _Advis pour dresser une Biblioth\u00e8que._\n  4 fr.\n\nLA MOTHE LE VAYER. _Hexam\u00e9ron rustique_ (publi\u00e9 \u00e0 3 fr. 50).\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\nGRIMAREST. _La Vie de M^r Moli\u00e8re_; notice par A. P.-Malassis (publi\u00e9 \u00e0\n5 fr.).\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\n_LES INTRIGUES DE MOLI\u00c8RE_ et celles de sa femme, avec notes par Ch.-L.\nLivet (publi\u00e9 \u00e0 6 fr.).\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\n_MOLI\u00c8RE JUG\u00c9_ par ses contemporains; notice par A. P.-Malassis.\n  4 fr.\n\n_ELOMIRE HYPOCONDRE_, com\u00e9die (contre Moli\u00e8re), avec une note sur les\nEnnemis de Moli\u00e8re, par Ch.-L. Livet.\n  10 fr.\n\n\nCOLLECTION IN-8\u00ba\n\nESTIENNE (Henri). _Apologie pour H\u00e9rodote_, avec Introduction et Notes\npar P. Ristelhuber, 2 vol.\n  25 fr.\n\nSINISTRARI (Le R. P.). _De la D\u00e9monialit\u00e9_ et des animaux Incubes et\nSuccubes, premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition (publi\u00e9e \u00e0 10 fr.).\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\nLOISELEUR. _Les Points obscurs de la vie de Moli\u00e8re_ (publi\u00e9 \u00e0 12 fr.).\n  _\u00c9puis\u00e9._\n\n_LES INTRIGUES DE MOLI\u00c8RE_ et de sa femme, avec Pr\u00e9face et Notes par\nCh.-L. Livet.\n  12 fr.\n\n\nFORMAT GRAND IN-18\n\nSAINT-PIERRE (Bernardin de). _Paul et Virginie_, avec huit eaux-fortes\nde Lalauze.\n  25 fr.\n\n-- Les huit eaux-fortes tir\u00e9es \u00e0 part, sur papier de Chine ou de\nHollande.\n  10 fr.\n\nPOGGE. _Fac\u00e9ties_, deuxi\u00e8me \u00e9dition compl\u00e8te, avec le texte Latin, 2\nvol.\n  15 fr.\n\nPIEDAGNEL. _Avril_, po\u00e9sies, avec un frontispice de Giacomelli, grav\u00e9 \u00e0\nl\u2019eau-forte par Lalauze.\n  5 fr.\n\nBOULMIER (Joseph). _Villanelles_, premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition (avec eau-forte de\nLalauze).\n  5 fr.\n\nBOUTMY (Eug\u00e8ne). _Dictionnaire de la Langue verte typographique._\n  3 fr.\n\nSINISTRARI. _Demoniality_, or Incubi and Succubi, now first translated\ninto English, with the Latin text.\n\nPOGGIO. The \u201c_Faceti\u00e6_\u201d, or Jocose Tales, now first translated into\nEnglish, with the Latin text.\n\nTROUBAT (Jules). _Plume et Pinceau_, \u00e9tudes de litt\u00e9rature et d\u2019art.\n  3 fr.\n\nDESMARETS. _L\u2019ancienne Jonction de l\u2019Angleterre \u00e0 la France_, ou le\nD\u00e9troit de Calais, avec deux cartes topographiques.\n  3 fr.\n\n\n_ENVOI FRANCO RECOMMAND\u00c9_\n\nContre le prix en Mandat de Poste.\n\n\nParis.--Imp. Motteroz, rue du Dragon, 31.","title":"Demoniality; or, Incubi and Succubi","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":47019}