path: root/54243-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 54243 ***

Transcriber's Notes

The original was printed with the Latin on verso and English on recto
pages with sections aligned. To preserve as much as possible of this
effect, Latin sections are followed immediately by the corresponding
translation.

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation spelling and punctuation remain unchanged.

Italics are represented thus _italic_, except in the main Latin text
which is almost entirely printed in italic script. Here the italics are
unmarked and plain text is indicted thus =plain=.

S. Augustinus (or Augustini) in the Latin text is translated as S.
Austin in the English.

       *       *       *       *       *




                              DEMONIALITY
                                  OR
                          INCUBI AND SUCCUBI
                              A TREATISE

 _wherein is shown that there are in existence on earth rational
 creatures besides man, endowed like him with a body and a soul, that
 are born and die like him, redeemed by our Lord Jesus-Christ, and
 capable of receiving salvation or damnation_,

                          BY THE REV. FATHER
                          SINISTRARI OF AMENO

                           (17^{th} century)

             _Published from the original Latin manuscript
                discovered in London in the year 1872,
             and translated into French by_ ISIDORE LISEUX
                   Now first translated into English
                         With the Latin Text.

                       [Illustration: Colophon]


                                 PARIS
                  _Isidore LISEUX, 2, Rue Bonaparte._
                                 1879




[Illustration: Decoration]


PREFACE

TO THE FIRST EDITION (_Paris, 1875, in-8º_)


I was in London in the year 1872, and I hunted after old books:

 _Car que faire là bas, à moins qu’on ne bouquine?_[1]

They caused me to live in past ages, happy to escape from the present,
and to exchange the petty passions of the day for the peaceable
intimacy of Aldus, Dolet or Estienne.

 [1] What can one do over there, unless he hunts up old books?

One of my favourite booksellers was Mr Allen, a venerable old
gentleman, whose place of business was in the Euston road, close to the
gate of Regent’s park. Not that his shop was particularly rich in dusty
old books; quite the reverse: it was small, and yet never filled.
Scarcely four or five hundred volumes at a time, carefully dusted,
bright, arrayed with symmetry on shelves within reach of one’s hand;
the upper shelves remained unoccupied. On the right, Theology; on the
left, the Greek and Latin Classics in a majority, with some French and
Italian books; for such were Mr Allen’s specialties; it seemed as if
he absolutely ignored Shakespeare and Byron, and as if, in his mind,
the literature of his country did not go beyond the sermons of Blair or
Macculloch.

What, at first sight, struck one most in those books, was the
moderateness of their price, compared with their excellent state of
preservation. They had evidently not been bought in a lot, at so much a
cubic yard, like the rubbish of an auction, and yet the handsomest, the
most ancient, the most venerable from their size, folios or quartos,
were not marked higher than 2 or 3 shillings; an octavo was sold 1
shilling, the duodecimo six pence: each according to its size. Thus
ruled Mr Allen, a methodical man, if ever there was one; and he was all
the better for it, since, faithfully patronized by clergymen, scholars
and collectors, he renewed his stock at a rate which more assuming
speculators might have envied.

But how did he get those well bound and well preserved volumes,
for which, everywhere else, five or six times more would have been
charged? Here also Mr Allen had his method, sure and regular. No one
attended more assiduously the auctions which take place every day in
London: his stand was marked at the foot of the auctioneer’s desk.
The rarest, choicest books passed before his eyes, contended for at
often fabulous prices by Quaritch, Sotheran, Pickering, Toovey, and
other bibliopolists of the British metropolis; Mr Allen smiled at such
extravagance; when once a bid had been made by another, he would not
add a penny, had an unknown _Gutenberg_ or _Valdarfer’s Boccaccio_
been at stake. But if occasionally, through inattention or weariness,
competition slackened (_habent sua fata libelli_), Mr Allen came
forward: _six pence!_, he whispered, and sometimes the article was left
him; sometimes even, two consecutive numbers, joined together for want
of having separately met with a buyer, were knocked down to him, still
for the minimum of six pence which was his maximum.

Many of those slighted ones doubtless deserved their fate; but among
them might slip some that were not unworthy of the honours of the
catalogue, and which, at any other time, buyers more attentive, or less
whimsical might perhaps have covered with gold. This, however, did not
at all enter into Mr Allen’s calculation: the size was the only rule of
his estimate.

Now, one day when, after a considerable auction, he had exhibited in
his shop purchases more numerous than usual, I especially noticed
some manuscripts in the Latin language, the paper, the writing and
the binding of which denoted an Italian origin, and which might
well be two hundred years old. The title of one was, I believe: _De
Venenis_; of another: _De Viperis_; of a third (the present work):
_De Dæmonialitate, et Incubis, et Succubis_. All three, moreover, by
different authors, and independent of each other. Poisons, adders,
demons, what a collection of horrors! yet, were it but for civility’s
sake, I was bound to buy something; after some hesitation, I chose
the last one: Demons, true, but Incubi, Succubi: the subject is not
vulgar, and still less so the way in which it seemed to me to have been
handled. In short, I had the volume for six-pence, a boon price for a
quarto: Mr Allen doubtless deemed such a scrawl beneath the rate of
type.

That manuscript, on strong paper of the 17^{th} century, bound in
Italian parchment, and beautifully preserved, has 86 pages of text. The
title and first page are in the author’s hand, that of an old man;
the remainder is very distinctly written by another, but under his
direction, as is testified by autographic side notes and rectifications
distributed all through the work. It is therefore the genuine original
manuscript, to all appearances unique and inedited.

Our dealer in old books had purchased it a few days before at Sotheby’s
House, where had taken place (from the 6^{th} to the 16^{th} of
December 1871) the sale of the books of baron Seymour Kirkup, an
English collector, deceased in Florence. The manuscript was inscribed
as follows on the sale catalogue:

 Nº 145. AMENO (_R. P. Ludovicus Maria_ [Cotta] de). De Dæmonialitate,
 et Incubis, et Succubis, _Manuscript._
  _Sæc. XVII-XVIII._

Who is that writer? Has he left printed works? That is a question I
leave to bibliographers; for, notwithstanding numerous investigations
in special dictionaries, I have been unable to ascertain any thing on
that score. Brunet (_Manuel du libraire_, art. COTTA d’Ameno) vaguely
surmises his existence, but confuses him with his namesake, most
likely also his fellow-townsman, Lazaro Agostino Cotta of Ameno, a
barrister and literary man of Novara. “The author,” says he, “whose
real Christian names would seem to be _Ludovico-Maria_, has written
many serious works....” The mistake is obvious. One thing is sure: our
author was living in the last years of the 17^{th} century, as appears
from his own testimony, and had been a professor of Theology in Pavia.

Be that as it may, his book has seemed to me most interesting in divers
respects, and I confidently submit it to that select public for whom
the invisible world is not a chimera. I should be much surprised if,
after opening it at random, the reader was not tempted to retrace his
steps and go on to the end. The philosopher, the confessor, the medical
man will find therein, in conjunction with the robust faith of the
middle ages, novel and ingenious views; the literary man, the curioso,
will appreciate the solidity of reasoning, the clearness of style, the
liveliness of recitals (for there are stories, and delicately told).
All theologians have devoted more or less pages to the question of
material intercourse between man and the demon; thick volumes have
been written about witchcraft, and the merits of this work were but
slender if it merely developed the ordinary thesis; but such is not
its characteristic. The ground-matter, from which it derives a truly
original and philosophical stamp, is an entirely novel demonstration
of the existence of Incubi and Succubi, as rational animals, both
corporeal and spiritual like ourselves, living in our midst, being
born and dying like us, and lastly redeemed, as we are, through
the merits of Jesus-Christ, and capable of receiving salvation or
damnation. In the Father of Ameno’s opinion, those beings endowed with
senses and reason, thoroughly distinct from Angels and Demons, pure
spirits, are none other but the Fauns, Sylvans and Satyrs of paganism,
continued by our Sylphs, Elfs and Goblins; and thus is connected anew
the link of belief. On this score alone, not to mention the interest of
details, this book has a claim to the attention of earnest readers: I
feel convinced that attention will not be found wanting.

  I. L.

 _May 1875._

       *       *       *       *       *

The foregoing advertisement was _composed_ at the printer’s, and ready
for the press, when, strolling on the quays[2], I met by chance with a
copy of the _Index librorum prohibitorum_. I mechanically opened it,
and the first thing that struck my eyes was the following article:

  De Ameno Ludovicus Maria. _Vide_ Sinistrari.

 [2] Paris Embankment.

My heart throbbed fast, I must confess. Was I at last on the trace of
my author? Was it _Demoniality_ that I was about to see nailed to the
pillory of the _Index_? I flew to the last pages of the formidable
volume, and read:

 SINISTRARI (Ludovicus Maria) de Ameno, De Delictis et Pœnis Tractatus
 absolutissimus. _Donec corrigatur. Decret. 4 Martii 1709._

 _Correctus autem juxta editionem Romanam anni 1753 permittitur._

It was indeed he. The real name of the Father of Ameno was
_Sinistrari_, and I was in possession of the title of one at least of
those “serious works” which Brunet the bibliographer alluded to. The
very title, _De Delictis et Pœnis_, was not unconnected with that of my
manuscript, and I had reason to presume that _Demoniality_ was one of
the offenses inquired into, and decided upon, by Father Sinistrari; in
other words, that manuscript, to all appearances inedited, was perhaps
published in the extensive work revealed to me; perhaps even was it to
that monography of _Demoniality_ that the _Tractatus de Delictis et
Pœnis_ owed its condemnation by the Congregation of the _Index_. All
those points required looking into.

But it is necessary to have attempted investigations of that kind
in order to appreciate the difficulties thereof. I consulted the
catalogues of ancient books that came in my way; I searched the
back-shops of the dealers in old books, the _antiquaries_, as they
say in Germany, addressing especially to the two or three firms who
in Paris apply themselves to old Theology; I wrote to the principal
booksellers in London, Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples: all to no
purpose; the very name of Father Sinistrari of Ameno seemed to be
unknown. I should perhaps have begun by enquiring at our National
Library; I was obliged to resort to it, and there at least I obtained
an incipient gratification. I was shown two works by my author:
a quarto of 1704, _De incorrigibilium expulsione ab Ordinibus
Regularibus_, and the first tome of a set of his complete works: _R.
P. Ludovici Mariæ Sinistrari de Ameno Opera omnia_ (_Romæ, in domo
Caroli Giannini, 1753-1754_, 3 vol. in-folio). Unfortunately that first
tome contained but the _Practica Criminalis Minorum illustrata_; _De
Delictis et Pœnis_ was the subject matter of the third tome, which, as
well as the second, was missing at the Library.

Yet, I had a positive indication, and I pursued my investigations. I
might be more fortunate at the Library of St Sulpice Seminary. True,
it is not open to the public; but then, the Sulpician Fathers are
hospitable: did they not of yore afford a refuge to repentant Des
Grieux, and did not Manon Lescaut herself tread the flags of their
parlour? I therefore ventured into the holy House; it was half past
twelve, dinner was nearly over; I asked for the librarian, and after a
few minutes, I saw coming to me a short old man, unexceptionably civil,
who, leading me through the common parlour, introduced me into another
much narrower, a mere cell, looking into a gallery and glazed full
breadth, being thus exposed to every eye. An ingenious provision of
which Des Grieux’s escape had fully shown the urgency. I had no small
trouble in explaining the object of my visit to the good Father, who
was deaf and near sighted. He left me to go to the library, and soon
returned, but empty handed: there also, in that sanctuary of Catholic
Theology, Father Sinistrari of Ameno was entirely unknown. But one more
expedient could I try: namely, to go to his brothers in St Francis,
the Capuchin Fathers, in their convent of rue de la Santé! A cruel
extremity, it will be granted, for I had but little chance of meeting
there, as here, the lovely shadow of Manon.

At last a letter from Milan put an end to my perplexity. The unfindable
book was found; I received at the same time the first edition of _De
Delictis et Pœnis_ (_Venetiis, apud Hieronymum Albricium, 1700_), and
the edition of _Rome, 1754_.

It was a complete treatise, _tractatus absolutissimus_, upon all
imaginable crimes, offenses and sins; but, let us hasten to say, in
both those voluminous folios, _Demoniality_ occupies scarcely five
pages, without any difference in the text between the two editions. And
those five pages are not even a summary of the manuscript work which
I now give forth; they only contain the proposition and conclusion
(N^{rs} 1 to 27 and 112 to 115). As for that wherein lies the
originality of the book, to wit the theory of rational animals, Incubi
and Succubi, endowed like ourselves with a body and soul, and capable
of receiving salvation and damnation, it were vain to look for it.

Thus, after so many endeavours, I had settled all the points which I
had intended to elucidate: I had discovered the identity of the Father
of Ameno[3]; from the comparison of the two editions of _De Delictis et
Pœnis_, the first condemned, the second allowed by the Congregation of
the _Index_, I had gathered that the printed fragments of _Demoniality_
had nothing to do with the condemnation of the book, since they had
not been submitted to any correction; lastly, I had become convinced
that, save a few pages, my manuscript was absolutely inedited. A
happy event of a bibliographical Odyssey which I shall be excused for
relating at length, for the “jollification” of bibliophiles “and none
other”.

 [3] _Vide_ biographical notice at the end of this volume.

  ISIDORE LISEUX.

  _August 1875._




                              DEMONIALITY

                                  OR

                          INCUBI AND SUCCUBI




[Illustration: Decoration]


DÆMONIALITAS


=Vocabulum Dæmonialitatis= primo inventum reperio a Jo. Caramuele in
sua Theologia fundamentali, nec ante illum inveni Auctorem, qui de hoc
crimine tanquam distincto a =Bestialitate= locutus sit. Omnes enim
Theologi Morales, secuti D. Thomam, 2.2., q. 154. in corp., sub specie
Bestialitatis recensent omnem concubitum cum re non ejusdem speciei,
ut ibi loquitur D. Thomas; et proinde Cajetanus, in Commentario illius
quæstionis et articuli, 2.2., q. 154., ad 3. dub., coitum cum Dæmone
ponit in specie Bestialitatis; et Cajetanum sequitur Silvester, vº
=Luxuria=, Bonacina, =de Matrim.=, q. 4., et alii.


The first author who, to my knowledge, invented the word _Demoniality_
is John Caramuel, in his _Fundamental Theology_, and before him I
find no one who distinguished that crime from _Bestiality_. Indeed,
all Theological Moralists, following in the train of S. Thomas (2,
2, question 154), include, under the specific title of _Bestiality_,
“_every kind of carnal intercourse with any thing whatever of a
different species_”: such are the very words used by S. Thomas.
Cajetanus, for instance, in his commentary on that question, classes
intercourse with the Demon under the description of Bestiality; so does
Sylvester, _de Luxuria_, Bonacina, _de Matrimonio_, question 4, and
others.


2. Sed revera D. Thomas in illo loco considerationem non habuit ad
coitum cum Dæmone: ut enim infra probabimus, hic coitus non potest
in specie specialissima =Bestialitatis= comprehendi; et ut veritati
cohæreat sententia S. Doctoris, dicendum est, quod in citato loco,
quando ait, quod peccatum contra naturam, =alio modo si fiat per
concubitum ad rem non ejusdem speciei=, =vocatur Bestialitas=: sub
nomine =rei non ejusdem speciei= intellexerit animal vivens, non
ejusdem speciei cum homine: non enim usurpare potuit ibi nomen =rei=
pro =re=, puta, ente communi ad animatum et inanimatum: si enim quis
coiret cum cadavere humano, concubitum haberet ad rem non ejusdem
speciei cum homine (maxime apud Thomistas, qui formam corporeitatis
humanæ negant in cadavere), quod etiam esset si cadaveri bestiali
copularetur; et tamen talis coitus non esset bestialitas, sed
mollities. Voluit igitur ibi D. Thomas præcise intelligere concubitum
cum re vivente non ejusdem speciei cum homine, hoc est cum bruto, nullo
autem modo comprehendere voluit coitum cum Dæmone.


2. However it is clear that in the above passage S. Thomas did not at
all allude to intercourse with the Demon. As shall be demonstrated
further on, that intercourse cannot be included in the very particular
species of _Bestiality_; and, in order to make that sentence of the
holy Doctor tally with truth, it must be admitted that when saying of
the unnatural sin, “_that committed through intercourse with a thing
of different species, it takes the name of Bestiality_”, S. Thomas,
by _a thing of different species_, means a living animal, of another
species than man: for he could not here use the word _thing_ in its
most general sense, to mean indiscriminately an animate or inanimate
being. In fact, if a man should fornicate _cum cadavere humano_, he
would have to do with a thing of a species quite different from his
own (especially according to the Thomists, who deny the form of human
corporeity in a corpse); similarly _si cadaveri bestiali copularetur_:
and yet, _talis coitus_ would not be bestiality, but pollution. What
therefore S. Thomas intended here to specify with preciseness, is
carnal intercourse with a living thing of a species different from
man, that is to say, with a beast, and he never in the least thought of
intercourse with the Demon.


3. Coitus igitur cum Dæmone, sive Incubo, sive Succubo (qui proprie
est =Dæmonialitas=), specie differt a Bestialitate, nec cum ea facit
unam speciem specialissimam, ut opinatus est Cajetanus: peccata enim
contra naturam specie inter se distingui contra opinionem nonnullorum
Antiquorum, et Caramuelis, =Summ.=, Armill., v. =Luxur.=, n. 5.,
Jabien., eo. v. n. 6., Asten. lib. 2. tit. 46. art. 7., Caram. =Theol.
fundam.= post Filliucium, et Crespinum a Borgia, est opinio communis;
et contraria est damnata in proposit. 24. ex damnatis ab Alexandro
VII.; tum quia singula continent peculiarem, et distinctam turpitudinem
repugnantem castitati, et humanæ generationi; tum quia quodlibet ex iis
privat bono aliquo secundum naturam, et institutionem actus venerei,
ordinati ad finem generationis humanæ; tum quia quodlibet ipsorum
habet diversum motivum, per se sufficiens ad privandum eodem bono
diversimode, ut optime philosophatur Filliuc., tom. 2. c. 8. tract. 30.
q. 3. nº 142; Cresp., q. mor. sel. contro.; Caramuel., q. 5. =per tot.=


3. Therefore, intercourse with the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus
(which is, properly speaking, _Demoniality_), differs in kind from
Bestiality, and does not in connexion with it form one very particular
species, as Cajetanus wrongly gives it; for, whatever may have said
to the contrary some Ancients, and later Caramuel in his _Fundamental
Theology_, unnatural sins differ from each other most distinctly. Such
at least is the general doctrine, and the contrary opinion has been
condemned by Alexander VII: first, because each of those sins carries
with itself its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity
and to human generation; secondly, because the commission thereof
entails each time the sacrifice of some good by its nature attached to
the institution of the venereal act, the normal end of which is human
generation; lastly, because they each have a different motive which in
itself is sufficient to bring about, in divers ways, the deprivation of
the same good, as has been clearly shown by Fillucius, Crespinus and
Caramuel.


4. Ex his autem infertur, quod etiam Dæmonialitas specie differt
a Bestialitate: singula enim ipsarum peculiarem et distinctam
turpitudinem, castitati ac humanæ generationi repugnantem, involvit;
siquidem Bestialitas est copula cum bruto vivente, ac sensibus et
motu proprio prædito: Dæmonialitas autem est commixtio cum cadavere
(stando in sententia communi, quam infra examinabimus), nec sensum, nec
motum vitalem habente; et per accidens est, quod a Dæmone moveatur.
Quod si immunditia commissa cum brutali cadavere, vel humano, differt
specie a Sodomia et Bestialitate, ab ista differt pariter specie etiam
=Dæmonialitas=, in qua, juxta communem sententiam, homo cum cadavere
concumbit accidentaliter moto.


4. It follows that Demoniality differs in kind from Bestiality, for
each has its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity
and human generation. Bestiality is connexion with a living beast,
endowed with its own peculiar senses and impulses; Demoniality, on
the contrary, is copulation with a corpse (according at least to the
general doctrine which shall be considered hereafter), a senseless and
motionless corpse which is but accidentally moved through the power of
the Demon. Now, if fornication with the corpse of a man, a woman, or
a beast differs in kind from Sodomy and Bestiality, there is the same
difference with regard to _Demoniality_, which, according to general
opinion, is the intercourse of man with a corpse accidentally set in
motion.


5. Et confirmatur: quia in peccatis contra naturam, seminatio
innaturalis (hoc est, ea ad quam regulariter non potest sequi
generatio) habet rationem generis; subjectum vero talis seminationis
est differentia constituens species sub tali genere: unde si seminatio
fiat in terram, aut corpus inanime, est mollities; si fiat cum homine
in vase præpostero, est Sodomia; si fiat cum bruto, est bestialitas:
quæ absque controversia inter se specie differunt, eo quod terra, seu
cadaver, homo, et brutum, quæ sunt subjecta talis seminationis, specie
differunt inter se. Sed Dæmon a bruto non solum differt specie, sed
plusquam specie: differunt enim per corporeum, et incorporeum, quæ sunt
differentiæ genericæ. Sequitur ergo quod seminationes factæ cum aliis
differunt inter se specie, quod est intentum.


5. Another proof: in sins against nature, the unnatural semination
(which cannot be regularly followed by generation) is a genus; but the
object of such semination is the difference which marks the species
under the genus. Thus, whether semination takes place on the ground,
or on an inanimate body, it is pollution; if _cum homine in vase
præpostero_, it is Sodomy; with a beast, bestiality: crimes which
unquestionably all differ from each other in species, just as the
ground, the corpse, the man and the beast, passive objects _talis
seminationis_, differ in species from each other. But the difference
between the Demon and the beast is not only specific, it is more than
specific: the nature of the one is corporeal, of the other incorporeal,
which makes a generic difference. Whence it follows that _seminationes_
practised on different objects differ in species from each other: and
that is substantiated.


6. Pariter, trita est doctrina Moralistarum fundata in Tridentino,
sess. 14, c. 5. D. Th. in 4. dist. 16. q. 3. art. 2., Vasquez, q. 91.
art. 1. dub. 2. n. 6., Reginald. Valenz. Medin. Zerola. Pesant. Sajir.
Sott. Pitig. Henriquez apud Bonac. =de Sac.= disp. 5. q. 5. sect, 2.
punct. 2. § 3. diffic. 3. n. 5., et tradita per Theologos, quod in
confessione manifestandæ sint tantum circumstantiæ quæ mutant speciem
peccatorum. Si igitur Dæmonialitas et Bestialitas sunt ejusdem speciei
specialissimæ, sufficit in confessione dicere: =Bestialitatis peccatum
commisi=, quantumvis confitens cum Dæmone concubuerit. Hoc autem falsum
est: igitur non sunt ejusdem speciei specialissimæ.


6. It is also a trite doctrine with Moralists, established by the
Council of Trent, session 14, and admitted by Theologians, that in
confession it suffices to state the circumstances which alter the
species of sins. If therefore Demoniality and Bestiality belonged
to the same very particular species, it would be enough that, each
time he has fornicated with the Demon, the penitent should say to his
confessor: _I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality_. But that is
not so: therefore those two sins do not both belong to the same very
particular species.


7. Quod si dicatur, aperiendum esse in confessione circumstantiam
concubitus cum Dæmone ratione peccati contra Religionem: peccatum
contra Religionem committitur, aut ex cultu, aut ex reverentia, aut ex
deprecatione, aut ex pacto, aut ex societate cum Dæmone (D. Thomas, 2.
2. q. 90. art. 2. et q. 95. art. 4. in corp.); sed, ut infra dicemus,
dantur Succubi, et Incubi, quibus nullum prædictorum exhibetur, et
tamen copula sequitur: igitur respectu istorum nulla intervenit
irreligiositas, et commixtio cum istis nullam habebit rationem
ulteriorem, quam puri et simplicis coitus, qui, si est ejusdem speciei
cum =Bestialitate=, sufficienter exprimetur dicendo: =Bestialitatem
commisi=; quod tamen falsum est.


7. It may be urged that if the circumstances of a sensual intercourse
with the Demon should be revealed to the Confessor, it is on account of
its offense against Religion, an offense which comes either from the
worship rendered to the Demon, or from the homage or prayers offered up
to him, or from the compact of fellowship entered into with him (_S.
Thomas_, quest. 90). But, as will be seen hereafter, there are Incubi
and Succubi to whom none of the foregoing applies, and yet _copula
sequitur_. There is consequently, in that special case, no element of
irreligion, no other character _quam puri et simplicis coitus_; and, if
of the same species as _Bestiality_, it would be adequately stated by
saying: _I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality_; which is not so.


8. Ulterius in confesso est apud omnes Theologos Morales, quod longe
gravior est copula cum Dæmone, quam cum quolibet bruto; in eadem autem
specie specialissima peccati, non datur unum peccatum gravius altero,
sed omnia æque gravia sunt; perinde enim est coire cum cane, aut
asina, aut equa; sequitur ergo, quod si =Dæmonialitas= est gravior
Bestialitate, non sint ambo ejusdem speciei. Nec dicendum gravitatem
majorem in =Dæmonialitate= petendam esse ab irreligiositate, seu
superstitione ex societate cum Dæmone, ut scribit Cajetanus ad 2. 2. q.
154., ar. 11. § ad 3. in fine, quia hoc fallit in aliquibus Succubis
et Incubis, ut supra dictum est; tum quia gravitas major statuitur in
=Dæmonialitate= præ Bestialitate, in genere vitii contra naturam:
major autem gravitas in illa supra istam ratione irreligiositatis
exorbitat ex illo genere, proinde non facit in illo genere, et ex se
graviorem.


8. Besides, it is acknowledged by all Theological Moralists that
_copula cum Dæmone_ is much more grievous than the same act committed
with any beast soever. Now, in the same very particular species of
sins, one sin is not more grievous than another; all are equally so:
it comes to the same whether connection is had with a bitch, an ass,
or a mare; whence it follows that if _Demoniality_ is more grievous
than Bestiality, those two acts are not of the same species. And let
it not be argued, with Cajetanus, that _Demoniality_ is more grievous
on account of the offense to religion from the worship rendered to
the Demon or the compact of fellowship entered into with him: as has
been shown above, that is not always met with in the connection of man
with Incubi and Succubi; moreover, if in the genus of unnatural sin
_Demoniality_ is more grievous than Bestiality, the offense to Religion
is quite foreign to that aggravation, since it is foreign to that genus
itself.


9. Statuta igitur differentia specifica =Dæmonialitatis= a
Bestialitate, ut gravitas illius percipiatur in ordine ad pœnam de
qua principaliter nobis tractandum est, est necessarium inquirere
quotupliciter =Dæmonialitas= accidat. Non desunt qui sibi nimis scioli
negant quod gravissimi Auctores scripsere, et quod quotidiana constat
experientia, Dæmonem scilicet tum Incubum, tum Succubum, non solum
hominibus, sed etiam brutis carnaliter conjungi. Aiunt proinde esse
hominum imaginationem, phantasmatibus a Dæmone perturbatis læsam,
seu dæmoniaca esse præstigia: sicuti etiam Sagæ, seu Striges, sola
imaginatione perturbata a Dæmone, sibi videntur assistere ludis,
choreis, conviviis, et conventibus nocturnis, et carnaliter Dæmoni
commisceri; nullo vero reali modo deferuntur corpore ad ejusmodi loca
et actiones, prout textualiter dicitur in quodam Capitulo, ac duobus
Conciliis. =Cap. Episcop. 26.= q. 5., =Conch. Ancyr.= c. 24., =Conc.
Rom. 4. sub Damaso=, c. 5. =apud Laur. Epitom.= vº =Saga=.


9. Now, having laid down the specific difference between _Demoniality_
and Bestiality, so that the gravity thereof may be duly appreciated in
view of the penalty to be inflicted (and that is our most essential
object), we must inquire in how many different ways the sin of
_Demoniality_ may be committed. There is no lack of people who,
infatuated with their small baggage of knowledge, venture to deny what
has been written by the gravest authors and is testified by every day
experience: namely, that the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus, unites
carnally not only with men and women, but also with beasts. They allege
that it all comes from the human imagination troubled by the craft
of the Demon, and that there is nothing in it but phantasmagoria and
diabolical spells. The like happens, they say, to Witches or Sagas,
who, under the influence of an illusion brought on by the Demon, fancy
that they attend the nightly sports, dances, revels and vigils, and
have carnal intercourse with the Demon, though in reality they are not
bodily transferred to those places nor taking part in those deeds, as
has been defined verbatim by a Capitule and two Councils.


10. Sed non negatur, quin aliquando mulierculæ, illusæ a Dæmonibus,
videantur nocturnis Sagarum ludis corporaliter interesse, dum
tamen sola imaginaria visione ipsis hoc accidit: sicut etiam in
somnis videtur nonnullis cum fœmina aliqua concumbere, et semen
vere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis est, sed tantum
phantasticus, paratus non raro per illusionem diabolicam; et in hoc
verissimum est quod habent citatum Capitulum et Concilia. Sed hoc
non semper est; sed ut in pluribus, corpore deferuntur Sagæ ad ludos
nocturnos, et vere carnaliter corpore conjunguntur Dæmoni, et Malefici
non minus Dæmoni succubo miscentur, et hæc est sententia Theologorum,
et jure consultorum Catholicorum, quos abunde citat Frater Franciscus
Maria Guaccius in suo libro intitulato =Compendium Maleficarum=;
Grilland. Remig. Petr. Damian. Sylvest. Alphon. a Cast. Abul. Cajet.
Senon. Crespet. Spine. Anan. apud Guaccium, =Comp. Malef.=, c. =15.
§ Altera, quam verissimam ...= n. 69. lib. p.; quæ sententia
confirmatur decem et octo exemplis, ibidem allatis et relatis per
viros doctos et veridicos de quorum fide ambigendum non est, quibus
probatur Maleficos et Sagas corporaliter ad ludos convenire, et cum
Dæmonibus succubis et incubis corporaliter turpissime commisceri. Et
pro omnibus sufficere debet auctoritas Divi Augustini, qui loquens de
concubitu hominum cum Dæmonibus, sic ait lib. 15. de =Civitate Dei=, c.
=23.: “Et quoniam creberrima fama est, multique se expertos, vel ab
eis qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non est, audivisse
confirmant, Sylvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo Incubos vocant, improbos
sæpe extitisse mulieribus, et earum appetiisse et peregisse concubitum.
Et quosdam Dæmones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, hanc assidue
immunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque asseverant, ut hoc
negare impudentia videatur.”= Hæc Augustinus.


10. Of course, it is not contested that sometimes young women, deceived
by the Demon, fancy taking part, in their flesh and blood, in the
nightly vigils of Witches, without its being any thing but an imaginary
vision. Thus, in a dream, one sometimes fancies _cum fœmina aliqua
concumbere, et semen vere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis
est_, but merely fantastic, and often brought about by a diabolical
illusion: and here the above mentioned Capitule and Councils are
perfectly right. But this is not always the case; on the contrary, it
more often happens that Witches are bodily present at nightly vigils
and have with the Demon a genuine carnal and corporeal connection, and
that likewise Wizards copulate with the Succuba or female Demon. Such
is the opinion of Theologians as well as of jurists, whose names will
be found at length in the _Compendium Maleficarum_, or _Chronicle of
Witches_, by Brother Francis Marie Guaccius. This doctrine is therein
confirmed by eighteen instances adduced from the recitals of learned
and truthful men whose testimony is beyond suspicion, and which prove
that Wizards and Witches are indeed bodily present at vigils and most
shamefully copulate with Demons, Incubi or Succubi. And, after all,
to settle the question, we have the authority of S. Augustine, who,
speaking of carnal intercourse between men and the Demon, expresses
himself as follows, book 15^{th}, chapt. 23^d of the _City of God_:
“_It is widely credited, and such belief is confirmed by the direct
or indirect testimony of thoroughly trustworthy people, that Sylvans
and Fauns, commonly called Incubi, have frequently molested women,
sought and obtained from them coition. There are even Demons, whom
the Gauls call Duses or Elfs, who very regularly indulge in those
unclean practices: the fact is testified by so many and such weighty
authorities, that it were impudent to doubt it._” Such are the very
words of S. Augustine.


11. Prout autem apud diversos Auctores legitur, et pluribus
experimentis comprobatur, duplici modo Dæmon hominibus carnaliter
copulatur: uno modo quo Maleficis et Sagis jungitur, alio modo quo
aliis hominibus minime maleficis miscetur.


11. Now, several authors profess, and it is confirmed by numerous
experiments, that the Demon has two ways of copulating carnally with
men or women: the one which it uses with Witches or Wizards, the other
with men or women entirely foreign to witchcraft.


12. Quantum ad primum modum, non copulatur Dæmon Sagis, seu Maleficis,
nisi præmissa solemni professione, qua iniquissimi homines Dæmoni
addicuntur; quæ professio, ut ex variis Auctoribus referentibus
confessiones Sagarum judiciales in tormentis factas, quas collegit
Franciscus Maria Guaccius, =Comp. Malef.=, c. 7., lib. 1.,
consistit in undecim ceremoniis.


12. In the first case, the Demon does not copulate with Witches or
Wizards until after a solemn profession, in virtue of which such
wretched human beings yield themselves up to him. According to several
authors who have related the judicial admissions of Witches when on the
rack, and whose recitals have been collected by Francis-Marie Guaccius,
_Compend. Malef.,_ book 1, chapt. 7, that profession consists of eleven
ceremonials:


13. Primo, ineunt pactum expressum cum Dæmone, aut alio Mago seu
Malefico vicem Dæmonis gerente, et testibus præsentibus, de servitio
diabolico suscipiendo: Dæmon vero vice versa honores, divitias, et
carnales delectationes illis pollicetur. =Guacc.= loc. cit. fol.
34.


13. Firstly, the Novices have to conclude with the Demon, or some other
Wizard or Magician acting in the Demon’s place, an express compact
by which, in the presence of witnesses, they enlist in the Demon’s
service, he giving them in exchange his pledge for honours, riches and
carnal pleasures.


14. Secundo, abnegant catholicam fidem, subducunt se obedientiæ Dei,
renuntiant Christo, et protectioni Beatissimæ Virginis Mariæ, ac
Ecclesiæ omnibus sacramentis. =Guacc.=, loc. cit.


14. Secondly, they abjure the catholic faith, withdraw from the
obedience to God, renounce Christ and the protection of the most
blessed Virgin Mary, and all the Sacraments of the Church.


15. Tertio, projiciunt a se Coronam, seu Rosarium B. V. M., Chordam S.
P. Francisci, aut Corrigiam S. Augustini, aut Scapulare Carmelitarum,
si quod habent, Crucem, Medaleas, Agnos Dei, et quidquid sacri aut
benedicti gestabant, et pedibus ea proculcant. =Guacc.= loc. cit.
fol. 35. Grilland.


15. Thirdly, they cast away the Crown, or Rosary of the most blessed
Virgin Mary, the girdle of S. Francis, or the strap of S. Austin, or
the scapular of the Carmelites, should they belong to one of those
Orders, the Cross, the Medals, the _Agnus Dei_, whatever other holy or
consecrated object may have been about their person, and trample them
all under foot.


16. Quarto, vovent in manibus Diaboli obedientiam, et subjectionem,
eique præstant homagium et vassallagium, tangendo quoddam volumen
nigerrimum. Spondent, quod nunquam redibunt ad fidem Christi, nec Dei
præcepta servabunt, nec ulla bona opera facient, sed ad sola mandata
Dæmonis attendent, et ad conventus nocturnos diligenter accedent.
=Guacc.= loc. cit. fol. 36.


16. Fourthly, in the hands of the Devil they vow obedience and
subjection; they pay him homage and vassalage, laying their fingers on
some very black book. They bind themselves never to return to the faith
of Christ, to observe none of the divine precepts, to do no good work,
but to obey the Demon alone and, to attend diligently the nightly
conventicles.


17. Quinto, spondent se enixe curaturos, et omni studio ac sedulitate
procuraturos adducere alios mares et fœminas ad suam sectam, et cultum
Dæmonis. =Guacc.= loc. cit.


17. Fifthly, they promise to strive with all their power, and to give
their utmost zeal and care for the enlistment of other males and
females in the service of the Demon.


18. Sexto, baptizantur a Diabolo sacrilego quodam baptismo, et
abnegatis Patrinis et Matrinis baptismi Christi, et Confirmationis,
et nomine, quod sibi fuit primo impositum, a Diabolo sibi assignantur
Patrinus et Matrina novi, qui ipsos instruant in arte maleficiorum, et
imponitur nomen novum, quod plerumque scurrile est. =Guacc.= loc.
cit.


18. Sixthly, the Devil administers to them a kind of sacrilegious
baptism, and after abjuring their Godfathers and Godmothers of the
Baptism of Christ and Confirmation, they have assigned to them a new
Godfather and a new Godmother, who are to instruct them in the arts of
witchcraft; they drop their former name and exchange it for another,
more frequently a scurrilous nickname.


19. Septimo, abscindunt partem propriorum indumentorum, et illam
offerunt Diabolo in signum homagii, et Diabolus illam asportat, et
servat. =Guacc.= loc. cit. fol. 38.


19. Seventhly, they cut off a part of their own garments, and tender it
as a token of homage to the Devil, who takes it away and keeps it.


20. Octavo, format Diabolus circulum super terram, et in eo stantes
Novitii Malefici et Sagæ firmant juramento omnia, quæ ut dictum est
promiserunt. =Guacc.= loc. cit.


20. Eighthly, the Devil draws on the ground a circle wherein stand the
Novices, Witches and Wizards, and there they confirm by oath all their
aforesaid promises.


21. Nono, petunt a Diabolo deleri a libro Christi, et describi in
libro suo, et profertur liber nigerrimus, quem tetigerunt præstando
homagium, ut dictum est supra, et ungue Diaboli in eo exarantur.
=Guacc.= loc. cit.


21. Ninthly, they request the Devil to strike them out of the book of
Christ, and to inscribe them in his own. Then comes forth that very
black book on which, as has been said before, they laid hands when
doing homage, and they are inscribed therein with the Devil’s claw.


22. Decimo, promittunt Diabolo statis temporibus sacrificia, et
oblationes; singulis quindecim diebus, vel singulo mense saltem, necem
alicujus infantis, aut mortale veneficium, et singulis hebdomadis alia
mala in damnum humani generis, ut grandines, tempestates, incendia,
mortem animalium, etc. =Guacc.= loc. cit. fol. 40.


22. Tenthly, they promise the Devil sacrifices and offerings at stated
times: once a fortnight or at least each month, the murder of some
child, or an homicidal act of sorcery, and other weekly misdeeds to
the prejudice of mankind, such as hailstorms, tempests, fires, cattle
plagues, etc.


23. Undecimo, sigillantur a Dæmone aliquo charactere, maxime ii, de
quorum constantia dubitat. Character vero non est semper ejusdem
formæ, aut figuræ: aliquando enim est simile lepori, aliquando pedi
bufonis, aliquando araneæ, vel catello, vel gliri; imprimitur autem in
locis corporeis magis occultis: viris quidem aliquando sub palpebris,
aliquando sub axillis, aut labiis, aut humeris, aut sede ima, aut
alibi; mulieribus autem plerumque in mammis, aut locis muliebribus.
Porro sigillum, quo talia signa imprimuntur, est unguis Diaboli.
Quibus peractis ad instructionem Magistrorum qui Novitios initiarunt,
hi promittunt denuo, se nunquam Eucharistiam adoraturos; injuriosos
Sanctis omnibus, et maxime B. V. M. futuros; conculcaturos ac
conspurcaturos Sacras Imagines, Crucem, ac Sanctorum Reliquias; nunquam
usuros Sacramentis, aut sacramentalibus, nisi ad maleficia; integram
confessionem sacramentalem sacerdoti nunquam facturos, et suum cum
Dæmone commercium semper celaturos. Et Diabolus vicissim pollicetur, se
illis semper præsto futurum; se in hoc mundo votis eorum satisfacturum,
et post mortem illos esse beaturum. Sic peracta professione solemni,
assignatur singulis eorum Diabolus, qui appellatur =Magistellus=, cum
quo in partes secedunt, et carnaliter commiscentur: ille quidem in
specie fœminæ, si initiatus est vir; in forma autem viri, et aliquando
satyri, aliquando hirci, si fœmina est saga professa. =Guacc.= loc.
cit. fol. 42 et 43.


23. Eleventhly, the Demon imprints on them some mark, especially on
those whose constancy he suspects. That mark, moreover, is not always
of the same shape or figure: sometimes it is the image of a hare,
sometimes a toad’s leg, sometimes a spider, a puppy, a dormouse. It is
imprinted on the most hidden parts of the body: with men, under the
eye-lids, or the armpits, or the lips, on the shoulder, the fundament,
or somewhere else; with women, it is usually on the breasts or the
privy parts. Now, the stamp which imprints those marks is none other
but the Devil’s claw. This having been all performed in accordance
with the instructions of the Teachers who have initiated the Novices,
these promise lastly never to worship the Eucharist; to insult all
Saints and especially the most blessed Virgin Mary; to trample under
foot and vilify the holy images, the Cross and the relics of Saints;
never to use the sacraments or sacramental ceremonials; never to make
a full confession to the priest, but to keep always hidden from him
their intercourse with the Demon. The Demon, in exchange, engages to
give them always prompt assistance; to fulfil their desires in this
world and to make them happy after their death. The solemn profession
being thus performed, each has assigned to himself a Devil, called
_Magistellus_ or Assistant Master, with whom he retires in private for
carnal satisfaction; the said Devil being, of course, in the shape
of a woman if the initiated person is a man, in the shape of a man,
sometimes of a satyr, sometimes of a buck-goat, if it is a woman who
has been received a witch.


24. Quod si quæratur ab Auctoribus, quomodo possit Dæmon, qui corpus
non habet, corporalem commixtionem habere cum homine: respondent
communiter, quod Dæmon aut assumit alterius maris aut fœminæ, juxta
exigentiam, cadaver, aut ex mixtione aliarum materiarum effingit sibi
corpus, quod movet, et mediante quo homini unitur. Et subdunt, quod
quando fœminæ gaudent imprægnari a Dæmone (quod non fit, nisi in
gratiam fœminarum hoc optantium), Dæmon se transformat in succubam,
et juncta homini semen ab eo recipit; aut per illusionem nocturnam in
somnis procurat ab homine pollutionem, et semen prolectum in suo nativo
calore et cum vitali spiritu conservat, et incubando fœminæ infert
in ipsius matricem, ex quo sequitur conceptio. Ita multis citatis
docet Guaccius, l. i. c. 12., per totum, qui prædicta multis exemplis
desumptis a variis Doctoribus confirmat.


24. If the authors be asked how it comes to pass that the Demon,
who has no body, yet has carnal intercourse with man or woman, they
unanimously answer that the Demon assumes the corpse of another human
being, male or female as the case may be, or that, from the mixture of
other materials, he shapes for himself a body endowed with motion, and
by means of which he is united with the human being; and they add that
when women are desirous of becoming pregnant by the Demon (which only
occurs by the consent and express wish of the said women), the Demon
is transformed into a Succuba, _et juncta homini semen ab eo recipit_;
or else he procures pollution from a man during his sleep, _et semen
prolectum in suo nativo calore, et cum vitali spiritu conservat,
et incubando fœminæ infert in ipsius matricem_, whence follows
impregnation. Such is the teaching of Guaccius, book 1, chapt. 12, who
supports it on a number of quotations and instances taken from various
Doctors.


25. Alio modo jungitur Dæmon tum Incubus, tum Succubus, hominibus,
fœminis aut maribus, a quibus nec honorem, nec sacrificia, oblationes,
maleficia, quæ a Sagis et Maleficis, ut supra dictum est, prætendit,
recipit; sed ostendens deperdite amorem, nil aliud appetit, quam
carnaliter commisceri cum iis quos amat. Multa sunt de hoc exempla,
quæ ab Auctoribus referuntur, ut Menippi Lycii, qui fuit sollicitatus
a quadam fœmina ad sibi nubendum, postquam cum ea multoties coivit;
et detecta fœmina quænam esset a quodam Philosopho, qui convivio
nuptiali intererat, et Menippo dixit illam esse =Compusam=, puta
Dæmonem succubam, statim ejulans evanuit, ut narrat Cœlius Rhodiginus,
=Antiq.=, lib. 29. c. 5. Pariter adolescens quidam Scotus a Dæmone
succuba omnium gratissima, quas vidisset, forma, quæ occlusis cubiculi
foribus ad se ventitabat, blanditiis, osculis, amplexibus per multos
menses fuit sollicitatus, ut secum coiret, ut scribit Hector Boethius,
=Hist. Scotor.= lib. 8., quod tamen a casto juvene obtinere non
potuit.=


25. At other times also the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus,
copulates with men or women from whom he receives none of the
sacrifices, homage or offerings which he is wont to exact from Wizards
or Witches, as aforesaid. He is then but a passionate lover, having
only one desire: the carnal possession of the loved ones. Of this
there are numerous instances to be found in the authors, amongst
which the case of Menippus Lycius, who, after frequent coition with a
woman, was by her entreated to marry her; but a certain philosopher,
who partook of the wedding entertainment, having guessed what that
woman was, told Menippus that he had to deal with a _Compusa_, that
is a Succuba Demon; whereupon the bride vanished bewailing: such is
the narrative given by Cœlius Rhodiginus, _Antiq._, book 29, chapt.
5. Hector Boethius (_Hist. Scot._) also relates the case of a young
Scot, who, during many months, with closed doors and windows, was
visited in his bed-room by a Succuba Demon of the most bewitching
beauty; caresses, kisses, embraces, entreaties, she resorted to every
blandishment _ut secum coiret_: but she could not prevail on the chaste
young man.


26. Similiter, multas fœminas legimus ab Incubo Dæmone expetitas ad
coitum, ipsisque repugnantibus facinus admittere, precibus, fletibus,
blanditiis, non secus ac perditissimus amasius, procurasse animum
ipsarum demulcere, et ad congressum inclinare; et quamvis aliquoties
hoc eveniat ob maleficium, ut nempe Dæmon missus a maleficis hoc
procuret: tamen non raro Dæmon ex se hoc agit, ut scribit Guaccius,
=Comp. Mal.= lib. 3. c. 8., et non solum hoc evenit cum mulieribus,
sed etiam cum equabus, cum quibus commiscetur; quæ si libenter coitum
admittunt, ab eo curantur optime, ac ipsarum jubæ varie artificiosis
et inextricabilibus nodis texuntur; si autem illum adversentur, eas
male tractat, percutit, macras reddit, et tandem necat, ut quotidiana
constat experientia.


26. We read likewise of numerous women incited to coition by the
Incubus Demon, and who, though reluctant at first of yielding to
him, are soon moved by his entreaties, tears and endearments; he is
a desperate lover and must not be denied. And although this comes
sometimes of the craft of some Wizard who avails himself of the agency
of the Demon, yet the Demon not infrequently acts on his own account;
and it happens not merely with women, but also with mares; if they
readily comply with his desire, he pets them, and plaits their mane in
elaborate and inextricable tresses; but if they resist, he ill-treats
and strikes them, smites them with the glanders, and finally puts them
to death, as is shown by daily experience.


27. Et quod mirum est, et pene incapabile, tales Incubi, qui Italice
vocantur =Folletti=, Hispanice =Duendes=, Gallice =Follets=, nec
Exorcistis obediunt, nec exorcismos pavent, nec res sacras reverentur
ad earum approximationem timorem ostendendo, sicuti faciunt Dæmones,
qui obsessos vexant; quantumvis enim maligni Spiritus sint obstinati,
nec parere velint Exorcistæ præcipienti, ut exeant a corporibus quæ
obsident, tamen ad prolationem Sanctissimi Nominis Jesu, aut Mariæ, aut
aliquorum versuum Sacræ Scripturæ, impositionem Reliquiarum, maxime
Ligni Sanctæ Crucis, approximationem Sacrarum Imaginum, ad os obsessi
rugiunt, strident, frendent, concutiuntur, et timorem ac horrorem
ostendunt. Folletti vero nihil horum, ut dictum est, ostendunt, nec
a divexatione, nisi post longum tempus, cessant. Hujus rei testis
sum oculatus, et historiam recito quæ reipsa humanam fidem superat:
sed testis mihi sit Deus quod puram veritatem multorum testimonio
comprobatam describo.


27. A most marvellous and well nigh incomprehensible fact: the Incubi
whom the Italians call _Folletti_, the Spaniards _Duendes_, the French
_Follets_, do not obey the Exorcists, have no dread of exorcisms, no
reverence for holy things, at the approach of which they are not in the
least overawed; very different in that respect from the Demons who vex
those whom they possess; for, however obstinate those evil Spirits may
be, however restive to the injunctions of the Exorcist who bids them
leave the body they possess, yet, at the mere utterance of the most
holy name of Jesus or Mary, or of some verses of Holy Writ, at the mere
imposition of relics, especially of a piece of the wood of the Holy
Cross, or the sight of the holy images, they roar at the mouth of the
possessed person, they gnash, shake, quiver, and display fright and
awe. But the Folletti show none of those signs, and leave off their
vexations but after a long space of time. Of this I was an eye-witness,
and shall relate a story which verily passes human belief: but I take
God to witness that I tell the precise truth, corroborated by the
testimony of numerous persons.


28. Viginti quinque abhinc annis, plus minusve, dum essem Lector
Sacræ Theologiæ in Conventu Sanctæ Crucis Papiæ, reperiebatur in illa
civitate honesta quædam fœmina maritata optimæ conscientiæ, et bonum
habens ab omnibus eam agnoscentibus, maxime Religiosis, testimonium,
quæ vocabatur Hieronyma; et habitabat in parochia Sancti Michaelis. Hæc
quadam die domi suæ panem pinserat, et per furnarium miserat ad illum
decoquendum. Reportat panes coctos furnarius, et cum illis grandem
quamdam placentam curiose elaboratam, conditam butyro, et pastulis
Venetis, ut in ea civitate solent fieri placentæ hujusmodi. Renuit illa
placentam recipere, dicens se talem nullam fecisse. Replicat furnarius,
se illa die alium panem coquendum non habuisse, nisi illum quem ab ea
habuerat; oportere proinde, etiam placentam a se fuisse factam, licet
minime de illa recordaretur. Acquievit fœmina, et placentam cum viro
suo, filia quam habebat triennem, et famula comedit. Sequenti nocte
dum cubaret mulier cum viro suo, et ambo dormirent, expergefacta est
a quadam tenuissima voce, velut acutissimi sibili ad ipsius aures
susurrante, verbis tamen distinctis: interrogavit autem fœminam, =num
placenta illi placuisset?= Pavens fœmina cœpit se munire signo Crucis,
et invocare sæpius nomina Jesu et Mariæ. Replicabat vox, ne paveret,
se nolle illi nocere, immo quæcumque illi placerent paratum exsequi,
esse filo captum pulchritudinis suæ, et nil amplius desiderare, quam
ejus amplexu frui. Tum fœmina sensit aliquem suaviantem ipsius genas,
sed tactus ita levis, ac mollis, ac si esset gossipium subtilissime
carminatum id a quo tacta fuit. Respuit illa invitantem, nec ullum
responsum illi dedit: sed jugiter nomen Jesu et Mariæ repetebat, et se
Crucis signo muniebat; et sic per spatium quasi horæ dimidiæ tentata
fuit, et postea abscessit tentator.

Sequenti mane fuit mulier ad confessarium virum prudentem ac doctum,
a quo fuit in fide confirmata et exhortata, ut viriliter, sicut
fecerat, resisteret, et sacris Reliquiis se muniret. Sequentibus
noctibus par priori fuit tentatio, et verbis, et osculis, et par etiam
in muliere constantia. Hæc pertæsa talem ac tantam molestiam, ad
Confessarii consultationem, et aliorum gravium virorum, per Exorcistas
peritos fecit se exorcizare ad sciendum num esset obsessa; et cum
invenissent a nullo malo spiritu possideri, benedixerunt domui,
cubiculo, lecto, et præceptum Incubo fecerunt, ne auderet molestiam
amplius mulieri inferre. Sed omnia incassum: siquidem tentationem
inceptam prosequebatur, ac si præ amore langueret, ploratus et ejulatus
emittebat ad mulierem demulcendam, quæ tamen gratia Die adjuta semper
viriliter restitit. Renovavit Incubus tentationem, ipsi apparens
interdiu in forma pusionis, seu parvi homunculi pulcherrimi, cæsariem
habens rutilam et crispam, barbamque fulvam ac splendentem velut
aurum, glaucosque oculos, ut flos lini, incedebatque indutus habitu
Hispanico. Apparebat autem illi quamvis cum ea alii morarentur; et
questus, prout faciunt amantes, exercens, et jactando basia, solitasque
preces repetendo tentabat mulierem, ut ad illius amplexus admitteretur.
Videbatque, et audiebat illa sola præsentem ac loquentem, minime autem
cæteri adstantes.

Perseverabat in illa constantia mulier, donec contra eam iratus
Incubus, post aliquos menses blanditiarum novum persecutionis genus
adortus est. Primo abstulit ab ea crucem argenteam plenam Reliquiis
Sanctorum, et ceram benedictam, sive Agnum papalem B. Pontificis Pii
V, quæ secum semper portabat; mox etiam annulos et alia jocalia aura
et argentea ipsius, intactis seris sub quibus custodiebantur, in arca
suffuratus est. Exinde cœpit illam acriter percutere, et apparebant
post verbera contusiones, et livores in facie, brachiis, aliisque
corporis partibus, quæ per diem unum vel alterum perdurabant, mox in
momento disparebant contra ordinem contusionis naturalis, quæ sensim
paulatimque decrescit. Aliquoties ipsius infantulam lactentem cunis
eripiebat, et illam, nunc super tecta in limine præcipitii locabat,
nunc occultabat, nihil tamen mali in illa apparuit. Aliquoties totam
domus supellectilem evertebat; aliquoties ollas, paropsides, et alia
vasa testea minutatim frangebat, subinde fracta restituebat integra.
Semel dum ipsa cum viro cubaret, apparens Incubus in forma solita
enixe deprecabatur ab ea concubitum, et dum ipsa de more constans
resisteret, in furorem actus Incubus abscessit, et infra breve temporis
spatium reversus est, secum ferens magnam copiam laminarum saxearum,
quibus Genuenses in civitate sua et universa Liguria domos tegunt,
et ex ipsis fabricavit murum circa lectum tantæ altitudinis, ut ejus
conopeum adæquaret, unde necesse fuit scalis uti, si debuerunt de
cubili surgere. Murus autem fuit absque calce, et ipso destructo, saxa
in angulo seposita, quæ ibi per duos dies remanserunt visa a multis,
qui ad spectaculum convenerant; et post biduum disparuerunt.

Invitaverat maritus ejus in die S. Stephani quosdam amicos viros
militares ad prandium, et pro hospitum dignitate dapes paraverat; dum
de more lavantur manus ante accubitum, disparet in momento mensa parata
in triclinio; disparent obsonia cuncta, olla, caldaria, patinæ, ac
omnia vasa in coquina; disparent amphoræ, canthari, calices parati ad
potum. Attoniti ad hoc stupent commensales, qui erant octo, inter quos
Dux peditum Hispanus ad alios conversus ait: “Ne paveatis, ista est
illusio, sed pro certo mensa in loco in quo erat, adhuc est, et modo
modo eam tactu percipiam.” Hisque dictis circuibat cœnaculum manibus
extentis, tentans mensam deprehendere, sed cum post multos circuitus
incassum laborasset, et nil præter aerem tangeret, irrisus fuit a
cæteris; cumque jam grandis esset prandii hora, pallium proprium eorum
unusquisque sumpsit propriam domum petiturus. Jam erant omnes prope
januam domus in procinctu eundi, associati a marito vexatæ mulieris,
urbanitatis causa, cum grandem quendam strepitum in cœnaculo audiunt.
Subsistunt parumper ad cognoscendum causam strepitus, et accurrens
famula nuntiat in coquina vasa nova obsoniis plena apparuisse,
mensamque in cœnaculo jam paratam esse restitutam. Revertuntur in
cœnaculum, et stupent mensam mappis et manutergiis insolitis, salino,
et lancibus insolitis argenteis, salsamentis, ac obsoniis, quæ domi
parata non fuerant, instructam. A latere magna erecta erat credentia,
supra quam optimo ordine stabant calices crystallinis, argentini et
aurei, cum variis amphoris, lagenis, cantharis plenis vinis exteris,
puta Cretensi, Campano, Canariensi, Rhenano, etc. In coquina pariter
in ollis, et vasis itidem in ea domo nunquam visis, varia obsonia.
Dubitarunt prius nonnulli ex iis eas dapes gustare, sed confirmati
ab aliis accubuerunt, et exquisitissime omnia condita repererunt;
ac immediate a prandio, dum omnes pro usu illius tempores ad ignem
sedent, omnia ustensilia cum reliquiis ciborum disparuere, et repertæ
sunt antiquæ domus supellectiles simul cum dapibus, quæ prius paratæ
fuerant; et quod mirum est, convivæ omnes saturati sunt, ita ut nullus
eorum cœnam sumpserit præ prandii lautitia. Quo convincitur cibos
appositos reales fuisse, et non ex præstigio repræsentatos.

Interea effluxerant multi menses, ex quos cœperat hujusmodi persecutio:
et mulier votum fecit B. Bernardino Feltrensi, cujus sacrum corpus
veneratur in Ecclesia S. Jacobi prope murum illius urbis, incedendi
per annum integrum indutam panno griseo, et chordulato, quo utuntur
Fratres Minores, de quorum ordine fuit B. Bernardinus, ut per ipsius
patrocinium a tanta Incubi vexatione liberaretur. Et de facto die 28
Septembris, qui est pervigilium Dedicationis S. Michaelis Archangeli,
et festum B. Bernardini, ipsa veste votiva induta est. Mane sequenti,
quod est festum S. Michaelis, ibat vexata ad ecclesiam S. Michaelis,
quæ ut diximus erat parochialis ipsius, circa medium mane, dum frequens
populus ad illam confluebat; et cum pervenisset ad medium plateæ
ecclesiæ, omnia ipsius indumenta et ornamenta ceciderunt in terram et
rapta vento statim disparuerunt, ipsa relicta nuda. Adfuerunt sorte
inter alios duo equites viri longævi, qui factum videntes, dejectis ab
humero propriis palliis mulieris nuditatem, ut potuerunt, velarunt,
et rhedæ impositam ad propriam domum duxerunt. Vestes et jocalia quæ
rapuerat Incubus, non restituit nisi post sex menses.

Multa alia, et quidem stupenda operatus est contra eam Incubus, quæ
tædet exscribere, et per multos annos in ea tentatione permansit;
tandemque Incubus videns operam in ea perdere, destitit a tam importuna
et insolita vexatione.


28. About twenty five years ago, when I was a lecturer on Sacred
Theology in the convent of the Holy Cross, in Pavia, there was living
in that city a married woman of unimpeachable morality, and who was
most highly spoken of by all such as knew her, especially by the
Friars; her name was Hieronyma, and she lived in the parish of S.
Michael. One day, this woman had kneaded bread at home and given it out
to bake. The oven-man brought her back her loaves when baked, and with
them a large cake of a peculiar shape, and made of butter and Venetian
paste, as is usual in that city. She declined to take it in, saying
she had not made any thing of the kind.--“But”, said the oven-man, “I
had no other bread but yours to bake to-day, therefore this cake also
must have come from your house; your memory is at fault”. The good
lady allowed herself to be persuaded, and partook of the cake with
her husband, her little girl three years old, and the house servant.
The next night, whilst in bed with her husband, and both asleep, she
suddenly woke up at the sound of a very slender voice, something like
a shrill hissing, whispering in her ears, yet with great distinctness,
and inquiring whether “the cake had been to her taste?” The good lady,
frightened, set about guarding herself with a sign of the cross and
repeatedly calling the names of Jesus and Mary. “Be not afraid,” said
the voice, “I mean you no harm; quite, the reverse: I am prepared to
do any thing to please you; I am captivated by your beauty, and desire
nothing more than to enjoy your embraces”. And she felt somebody
kissing her cheeks, so lightly, so softly, that she might have fancied
being grazed by the finest down. She resisted without giving any
answer, merely repeating over and over again the names of Jesus and
Mary, and crossing herself; the tempter kept on thus for nearly half an
hour, when he withdrew.

The next morning the dame called on her Confessor, a discreet and
learned man, who confirmed her in her faith, exhorted her to maintain
her energetic resistance and to provide herself with some holy relics.
On the ensuing nights, like temptation with the same language and
kisses, like constancy also on the part of the woman. Weary however
of such painful and persistent molestation, taking the advice of
her Confessor and other grave men, she had herself exorcised by
experienced Exorcists, in order to ascertain whether perchance she was
not possessed. Having found in her no trace of the evil Spirit, they
blessed the house, the bed-room, the bed, and enjoined on the Incubus
to discontinue his molestations. All to no purpose: he kept on worse
than ever, pretending to be love-sick, weeping and moaning in order to
melt the heart of the lady, who however, by the grace of God, remained
unconquered. The Incubus then went another way to work: he appeared in
the shape of a lad or little man of great beauty, with golden locks, a
flaxen beard that shone like gold, sea-green eyes calling to mind the
flax-flower, and arrayed in a fancy Spanish dress. Besides he appeared
to her even when in company, whimpering, after the fashion of lovers,
kissing his hand to her, and endeavouring by every means to obtain her
embraces. She alone saw and heard him: for every body else, he was not
to be seen.

The good lady kept persevering in her admirable constancy till, at
last, after some months of courting, the Incubus, incensed at her
disdain, had recourse to a new kind of persecution. First, he took away
from her a silver cross filled with holy relics, and a holy wax or
papal lamb of the blessed Pontiff Pius V, which she always carried on
her person; then, leaving the locks untouched, he purloined her rings
and other gold and silver jewelry from the casket wherein they were
put away. Next, he began to strike her cruelly, and after each beating
bruises and marks were to be seen on her face, her arms or other parts
of her body, which lasted a day or two, then suddenly disappeared,
the reverse of natural bruises which decrease slowly and by degrees.
Sometimes, while she was nursing her little girl, he would snatch the
child away from on her breast and lay it upon the roof, on the edge
of the gutter, or hide it, but without ever harming it. Sometimes he
would upset all the furniture, or smash to pieces saucepans, plates
and other earthenware which, in the twinkling of an eye, he restored
to their former state. One night that she was lying with her husband,
the Incubus, appearing in his customary shape, vehemently urged his
demand which she resisted as usual. The Incubus withdrew in a rage,
and shortly came back with a large load of those flag stones which the
Genoese, and the inhabitants of Liguria in general, use for roofing
their houses. With those stones he built around the bed a wall so high
that it reached the tester, and that the couple could not leave their
bed without using a ladder. This wall however was built up without
lime; when pulled down, the flags were laid by in a corner where,
during two days, they were seen by many who came to look at them; they
then disappeared.

On S. Stephen’s day, the husband had asked some military friends to
dinner, and, to do honour to his guests, had provided a substantial
repast. Whilst they were, as customary, washing their hands before
taking their seats, suddenly vanished the table dressed in the
dining-room; all the dishes, saucepans, kettles, plates and crockery
in the kitchen vanished likewise, as well as the jugs, bottles and
glasses. You may imagine the surprise, the stupor of the guests, eight
in number; amongst them was a Spanish Captain of infantry, who,
addressing the company, said to them: “Do not be frightened, it is but
a trick: the table is certainly still where it stood, and I shall soon
find it by feeling for it”. Having thus spoken, he paced round the room
with outstretched arms, endeavouring to lay hold of the table; but
when, after many circuitous perambulations, it was apparent that he
laboured in vain and grasped at nought but thin air, he was laughed at
by his friends; and it being already high time for having dinner, each
guest took up his cloak and set about to return home. They had already
reached the street-door with the husband, who, out of politeness, was
attending them, when they heard a great noise in the dining-room: they
stood to ascertain the cause thereof, and presently the servant came up
to announce that the kitchen was stocked with new vessels filled with
food, and that the table was standing again in its former place. Having
gone back to the dining-room, they were stupefied to see the table
was laid, with cloths, napkins, salt-cellars, and trays that did not
belong to the house, and with food which had not been cooked there. On
a large sideboard all were arrayed in perfect order crystal, silver and
gold chalices, with all kind of amphoras, decanters and cups filled
with foreign wines, from the Isle of Crete, Campania, the Canaries,
the Rhine, etc. In the kitchen there was also an abundant variety of
meats in saucepans and dishes that had never been seen there before. At
first, some of the guests hesitated whether they should taste of that
food; however, encouraged by others, they sat down, and soon partook of
the meal, which was found exquisite. Immediately afterwards, as they
were sitting before a seasonable fire, every thing vanished at once,
the dishes and the leavings, and in their stead reappeared the cloth of
the house and the victual which had been previously cooked; but, for a
wonder, all the guests were satisfied, so that no one thought of supper
after such a magnificent dinner. A clear proof that the substituted
viands were real and nowise fictitious.

This kind of persecution had been going on some months, when the
lady betook herself to the blessed Bernardine of Feltri, whose body
is worshipped in the church of St James, a short distance from the
walls of the city. She made a vow to him that she would wear, during a
whole twelve-month, a grey frock, tied round her waist with a piece of
cord, and such as is worn by the Minor Brethren, the order to which
had belonged the blessed Bernardine; this she vowed, in the hope of
being, through his intercession, at last rid of the persecution of the
Incubus. And accordingly, on the 28^{th} of September, the vigil of the
Dedication of the Archangel S. Michael, and the festival of the blessed
Bernardine, she assumed the votive robe. The next morning, which was S.
Michael’s festival, the afflicted woman proceeded to the church of St
Michael, her own parish, already mentioned; it was about ten o’clock, a
time when a crowd of people were going to mass. She had no sooner set
foot on the threshold of the church, than her clothes and ornaments
fell off to the ground, and disappeared in a gust of wind, leaving
her stark naked. There happened fortunately to be among the crowd two
cavaliers of mature age, who, seeing what had taken place, hastened to
divest themselves of their cloaks with which they concealed, as well
as they could, the woman’s nudity, and having put her into a vehicle,
accompanied her home. The clothes and trinkets taken by the Incubus
were not restored by him before six months had elapsed.

I might relate many other most surprising tricks which that Incubus
played on her, were it not wearisome. Suffice it to say that, for
a number of years he persevered in his temptation of her, but that
finding at last that he was losing his pains, he desisted from his
vexatious importunities.


29. In hoc casu, et similibus qui passim audiuntur et leguntur,
Incubus ad nullum actum contra Religionem tentat, sed solum contra
castitatem. Hinc fit quod ipsi consentiens non peccat irreligiositate,
sed incontinentia.


29. In the above case, as well as in others that may be heard or read
of occasionally, the Incubus attempts no act against Religion; he
merely assails chastity. In consequence, consent is not a sin through
ungodliness, but through incontinence.


30. In confesso autem est apud Theologos et Philosophos, quod ex
commixtione hominis cum Dæmone aliquoties nascuntur homines, et
tali modo nasciturum esse Antichristum opinantur nonnulli Doctores:
Bellarm. lib. 1, de Rom. Pont., cap. 12; Suarez, tom. 2, disp. 54,
sec. 1.; Maluend., de =Antichr.=, l. 2., c. 8. Immo observant, quod,
qui gignuntur ab hujusmodi Incubis, naturali causa etiam evenit,
ut nascantur grandes, robustissimi, ferocissimi, superbissimi, ac
nequissimi, ut scripsit Maluenda, =loc. cit.=, =§ Ad illud=; et hujus
rationem recitat ex Vallesio Archia. Reggio. =Sac. Philosoph.=,
c. 8., dicente quod Incubi =summittant in uteros non qualecumque,
neque quantumcumque semen, sed plurimum, crassissimum, calidissimum,
spiritibus affluens et seri expers. Id vero est eis facile conquirere,
deligendo homines calidos, robustos, et abondantes multo semine, quibus
succumbant, deinde et mulieres tales, quibus incumbant, atque utrisque
voluptatem solito majorem afferendo, tanto enim abundantius emittitur
semen, quanto cum majori voluptate excernitur.= Hæc Vallesius.
Confirmat vero Maluenda supradicta, probando, ex variis et classicis
Auctoribus, ex hujusmodi concubitu natos: Romulum ac Remum, Liv. decad.
1; Plutarch., =in Vit. Romul. et Parallel.=; Servium Tullium, sextum
regem Romanorum, Dionys. Halicar., lib. 4, Plin., lib. 36., c. 27;
Platonem Philosophum, Laer. l. 9. =de Vit. Philos.=; D. Hyeron., =l. 1.
Controvers. Jovinian.=; Alexandrum Magnum, Plutarch., =in Vit. Alex.
M.=; Quint. Curt., l. 4, =de Gest. Alex. M.=; Seleucum, regem Syriæ,
Just., =Hist.=, l. 15; Appian., =in Syriac.=; Scipionem Africanum
Majorem, Liv., decad. 3, lib. 6; Cæsarem Augustum Imperatorem, Sueton.,
=in Octa.=, c. 94; Aristomenem Messenium, strenuissimum ducem Græcorum,
Strabo, =de Sit. Orb.=, lib. 8; Pausan., =de Rebus Græcor.=, lib. 3;
et Merlinum, seu Melchinum Anglicum ex Incubo et Filia Caroli Magni
Moniali, Hauller, volum. 2, Generat. 7, quod etiam de Martino Luthero,
perditissimo Heresiarcha scribit Cochlæus apud Maluendam, =de Antich.=,
lib. 2, c. 6, =§ Cæterum=.


30. Now, it is undoubted by Theologians and philosophers that carnal
intercourse between mankind and the Demon sometimes gives birth to
human beings; that is how is to be born the Antichrist, according to
some Doctors, such as Bellarmin, Suarez, Maluenda, etc. They further
observe that, from a natural cause, the children thus begotten by
Incubi are tall, very hardy and bold, very proud and wicked. Thus
writes Maluenda; as for the cause, he gives it from Vallesius,
Archphysician in Reggio: “What Incubi introduce _in uteros_, is not
_qualecumque neque quantumcumque semen_, but abundant, very thick,
very warm, rich in spirits and free from serosity. This moreover is
an easy thing for them, since they have but to choose ardent, robust
men, _et abundantes multo semine, quibus succumbant_, and then women of
a like constitution, _quibus incumbant_, taking care that both shall
enjoy _voluptatem solito majorem, tanto enim abundantius emittitur
semen, quanto cum majori voluptate excernitur_.” Those are the words
of Vallesius, confirmed by Maluenda who shows, from the testimony
of various Authors, mostly classical, that such associations gave
birth to: Romulus and Remus, according to _Livy_ and _Plutarch_;
Servius-Tullius, the sixth king of Rome, according to _Dyonisius of
Halicarnassus_ and _Pliny the Elder_; Plato the Philosopher, according
to _Diogenes Laertius_ and _Saint Hieronymus_; Alexander the Great,
according to _Plutarch_ and _Quintus-Curtius_; Seleucus, king of
Syria, according to _Justinus_ and _Appianus_; Scipio Africanus the
Elder, according to _Livy_; the emperor Cæsar Augustus, according
to _Suetonius_; Aristomenes the Messenian, an illustrious Greek
commander, according to _Strabo_ and _Pausanias_; as also Merlin or
Melchin the Englishman, born from an Incubus and a nun, the daughter of
Charlemagne; and, lastly, as shown by the writings of _Cochlæus_ quoted
by _Maluenda_, that damned Heresiarch ycleped Martin Luther.


31. Salva tamen tot, et tantorum Doctorum, qui in ea opinione
conveniunt, reverentia, non video, quomodo ipsorum sententia possit
subsistere; tum quia, ut optime opinatur Pererius, tom. 2, in =Genes.=,
cap. 6, disp. 5, tota vis et efficacia humani seminis consistit
in spiritibus, qui difflantur, et evanescunt statim ac sunt extra
genitalia vasa, a quibus foventur et conservantur, ut scribunt Medici.
Nequit proinde Dæmon semen acceptum conservare, ita ut aptum sit
generationi, quia vas, quodcumque sit illud, in quo semen conservare
tentaret, oporteret quod caleret calore assimetro a nativo organorum
humanæ generationis; similarem enim a nullo alio præterquam ab organis
ipsis habere potest generatio. Tum quia generatio actus vitalis est,
per quem homo generans de propria substantia semen defert per organa
naturalia ad locum generationi congruentem. In casu autem delatio
seminis non potest esse actus vitalis hominis generantis, quia ab eo
non infertur in matricem; proinde nec dici potest, quod homo eujus
est semen, generet fœtum, qui ex eo nascitur. Neque Incubus ipsius
pater dici potest; quia de ipsius substantia semen non est. Hinc
fiet, quod nascetur homo, cujus nemo pater sit, quod est incongruum.
Tum quia in patre naturaliter generante duplex causalitas concurrit,
nempe materialis, quia semen, quod materia generationis, ministrat,
et efficiens, quia agens principale est in generatione, ut communiter
statuunt Philosophi. In casu autem nostro homo ministrando solum semen,
puram materiam exhiberet absque ulla actione in ordine ad generationem;
proinde non posset dici pater filii qui nasceretur: et hoc est contra
id, quod homo genitus ab Incubo non est illius filius, sed est filius
ejus viri, a quo Incubus semen sumpsit.


31. However, with due deference to so many and such learned Doctors,
I hardly see how their opinion can bear examination. For, as Pererius
truly observes in his _Commentary on the Genesis_, chapt. 6, the whole
strength and efficiency of the human sperm reside in the spirits which
evaporate and vanish as soon as issued from the genital vessels wherein
they were warmly stored: all medical men agree on that point. It is
consequently not possible that the Demon should preserve in a fit state
for generation the sperm he has received; for it were necessary that
whatever vessel he endeavoured to keep it in should be equally warm
with the human genital organs, the warmth of which is nowhere to be
met with but in those organs themselves. Now, in a vessel where that
warmth is not intrinsical but extraneous, the spirits get altered,
and no generation can take place. There is this other objection,
that generation is a vital act by which man, begetting from his own
substance, carries the sperm through natural organs to the spot which
is appropriate to generation. On the contrary, in this particular case,
the introduction of sperm cannot be a vital act of the man who begets,
since it is not carried into the womb by his agency; and, for the same
cause, it cannot be said that the man, whose sperm it was, has begotten
the fetus which proceeds from it. Nor can the Incubus be deemed
its father, since the sperm does not issue from his own substance.
Consequentially, a child would be born without a father, which is
absurd. Third objection: when the father begets in the course of
nature, there is a concurrence of two causalities: the one, material,
for he provides the sperm which is the matter of generation; the other,
efficient, for he is the principal agent of generation, as Philosophers
agree in declaring. But, in this case, the man who only provided the
sperm would contribute but a mere material, without any action tending
to generation; he could therefore not be regarded as the father of the
child begotten under those circumstances; and this is opposed to the
notion that the child begotten by an Incubus is not his son, but the
son of the man whose sperm the Incubus has taken.


32. Præterea omni probabilitate caret quod scribit Vallesius, et ex
eo recitavimus supra nº 30; mirorque a doctissimi viri calamo talia
excidisse. Notissimum enim est apud Physicos, quod magnitudo fœtus
non est a quantitate molis, sed est a quantitate virtutis, hoc est
spirituum in semine: ab ea enim tota generationis ratio dependet, ut
optime testatur Michael Ettmullerus, =Instit. Medic. Physiolog.=, car.
22, thes. 1, fol. m., 39, scribens: =Tota generationis ratio dependet
a spiritu genitali sub crassioris materiæ involucro excreto; ista
materia seminis crassa nullo modo, vel in utero subsistente, vel seu
materia fœtum constituente: sed solus spiritus genitalis maris unitus
cum spiritu genitali mulieris in poros uteri, seu, quod rarius fit, in
tubos uteri se insinuat, indeque uterum fecundum reddit=. Quid ergo
facere potest magna quantitas seminis ad fœtus magnitudinem? Præterea
nec semper verum est, quod tales geniti ab Incubis magnitudine molis
corporeæ insignes sint: Alexander enim Magnus, qui, ut diximus, natus
taliter scribitur, statura pusillus erat; unde carmen,

 =Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat.=

Item quamvis taliter concepti supra cæteros homines excellant, non
tamen hoc semper est in vitiis, sed aliquando in virtutibus etiam in
moralibus, ut patet in Scipione Africano, Cæsare Augusto, et Platone
Philosopho, de quibus Livius, Suetonius et Laertius respective
scribunt, quod optimi in moribus fuere; ut proinde arguere possimus,
quod si alii eodem modo geniti pessimi fuere, hoc non fuerit ex hoc,
quod fuerint ab Incubo geniti, sed quia tales ex proprio arbitrio
exstitere.

Pariter ex textu Sacræ Scripturæ, =Gen.=, c. 6, v. 4, habemus quod
gigantes nati sunt ex concubitu filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum, et
hoc ad litteram sacri textus. Gigantes autem homines erant =statura
magna=, ut eos vocat Baruch, c. 3, v. 26, et excedente communem hominum
proceritatem. Monstruosa statura, robore, latrociniis, et tyrannide
insignes: unde Gigantes per sua scelera fuerunt maxima, et potissima
causa Diluvii, ait Cornelius a Lapid. =in Gen.=, c. 6, v. 4, =§
Burgensis=. Non quadrat autem quorumdam expositio, quod nomine filiorum
Dei veniant filii Seth, et vocabulo filiarum hominum filiæ Cain, eo
quod illi erant pietati, Religioni, et cæteris virtutibus addicti,
descendentes autem a Cain vice versa: nam salva opinantium, Chrysost.,
Cyrill., Theodor. Rupert. Ab. et Hilar. in Psalm. 132, apud Cornel.,
a Lap., c. 6; G., v. 2, =§ Verum dies=, reverentia, talis expositio
non cohæret sensui patenti litteræ; ait enim Scriptura, quod ex
conjunctione talium nati sunt homines monstruosæ proceritatis corporeæ:
ante illam ergo tales gigantes non extiterunt: quod si ex ea orti sunt,
hoc non potuit esse ex eo, quod filii Seth coivissent cum filiabus
Cain, quia illi erant staturæ ordinariæ, prout etiam filiæ Cain, unde
oriri ex his naturaliter non potuerunt nisi filii staturæ ordinariæ: si
ergo monstruosa statura filii nati sunt ex tali conjunctione, hoc fuit,
quia non fuerunt prognati ex ordinaria conjunctione viri cum muliere,
sed ex Incubis dæmonibus qui ratione naturæ ipsorum optime possunt
vocari filii Dei, et in hac sententia sunt Philosophi Platonici, et
Franciscus Georgius Venetus, tom. 1, problem. 74: nec dissentiunt
ab eadem Joseph. Hebræus, Philo Judæus, S. Justinus Martyr, Clemens
Alexandrinus, et Tertullianus, Joseph. Hebræus, =Antiq.=, l. 1.; Philo,
l. =de Gigant.=; S. Justinus M., Apolog. 1.; Clemens Alex., lib. 3;
Tertull., lib. =de Habit. Mul.=, apud Cornel., loc. cit.; Hugo de S.
Victor., =Annot. in Gen.=, c. 6, qui opinantur illos fuisse Angelos
quosnam corporeos qui in luxuriam cum mulieribus delapsi sunt: ut enim
infra ostendemus, istæ duæ sententiæ in unam et eamdem conveniunt.


32. Besides, there is not a shadow of probability in what written by
Vallesius and quoted from him by us (_Vide supra nº 30_); and I wonder
that any thing so extravagant should have fallen from the pen of such
a learned man. Medical men are well aware that the size of the fetus
depends, not indeed on the quantity of matter, but on the quantity of
virtue, that is to say of spirits held by the sperm; there lies the
whole secret of generation, as is well observed by Michael Ettmuller,
_Institut. Medic. Physiolog._: “Generation”, says he, “entirely depends
upon the genital spirit contained within an envelope of thicker matter;
that spermatic matter does not remain in the uterus, and has no share
in the formation of the fetus; it is but the genital spirit of the
male, combined with the genital spirit of the female, that permeates
the pores, or, less frequently, the tubes of the uterus, which it
fecundates by that means.” Of what moment can therefore the quantity
of sperm be for the size of the fetus? Besides, it is not always a
fact that men thus begotten by Incubi are remarkable for the huge
proportions of their body: Alexander the Great, for instance, who is
said to have been thus born, as we have mentioned, was very short; as
the poet said of him:

  _Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat._

Besides, although it is generally a fact that those who are thus
begotten excel other men, yet such superiority is not always shown
by their vices, but sometimes by their virtues and even their
morals; Scipio Africanus, for instance, Cæsar Augustus and Plato the
Philosopher, as is recorded of each of them respectively by Livy,
Suetonius and Diogenes Laertius, had excellent morals. Whence may be
inferred that, if other individuals begotten in the same way have been
downright villains, it was not owing to their being born of an Incubus,
but to their having, of their own free will, chosen to be such.

We also read in the Testament, _Genesis_, chap. 6, verse 4, that giants
were born when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men: that
is the very letter of the sacred text. Now, those giants were men of
_great stature_, says _Baruch_, chap. 3, verse 26, and far superior
to other men. Not only were they distinguished by their huge size,
but also by their physical power, their plundering habits and their
tyranny. Through their criminal excesses the Giants were the primary
and principal cause of the Flood, according to Cornelius a Lapide,
in his _Commentary on Genesis_. Some contend that by Sons of God are
meant the sons of Seth, and by Daughters of men the daughters of
Cain, because the former practiced piety, religion and every other
virtue, whilst the descendants of Cain were quite the reverse; but,
with all due deference to Chrysostom, Cyrillus, Hilarius and others
who are of that opinion, it must be conceded that it clashes with the
obvious meaning of the text. Scripture says, in fact, that of the
conjunction of the above mentioned were born men of huge bodily size:
consequently, those giants were not previously in existence, and if
their birth was the result of that conjunction, it cannot be ascribed
to the intercourse of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain, who
being themselves of ordinary stature, could but procreate children of
ordinary stature. Therefore, if the intercourse in question gave birth
to beings of huge stature, the reason is that it was not the common
connection between man and woman, but the performance of Incubi Demons
who, from their nature, may very well be styled sons of God. Such is
the opinion of the Platonist Philosophers and of Francis Georges the
Venetian; nor is it discrepant from that of Josephus the Historian,
Philo the Jew, S. Justinus the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and
Tertullian, who look upon Incubi as corporeal Angels who have allowed
themselves to fall into the sin of lewdness with women. Indeed, as
shall be shown hereafter, though seemingly distinct, those two opinions
are but one and the same.


33. Si ergo Incubi tales, ut fert communis sententia, Gigantes
genuerunt, accepto semine ab homine, juxta id, quod supra dictum est,
non potuerunt ex illo semine nasci nisi homines ejusdem staturæ plus
minusve, cum eo a quo semen acceptum est: nec enim facit ad altiorem
corporis staturam major seminis quantitas, ita ut attracta insolite a
Dæmone, dum Succubus fit homini, augeat ultra illius staturam enormiter
corpus ab eo geniti; quia, ut supra diximus, hoc residet in spiritu, et
non in mole seminis: ut proinde necesse sit concludere, quod ab alio
semine, quam humano, hujusmodi gigantes nati sint, et proinde Dæmon
Incubus non humano, sed alio semine utatur ad generationem. Quid igitur
dicendum?


33. If therefore these Incubi, in conformity with general belief, have
begotten Giants by means of sperm taken from man, it is impossible,
as aforesaid, that of that sperm should have been born any but men of
approximately the same size as he from whom it came; for it would be
in vain for the Demon, when acting the part of a Succubus, to draw
from man an unwonted quantity of prolific liquor in order to procreate
therefrom children of higher stature; quantity has nothing to do here,
since all depends, as we have said, upon the vitality of that liquor,
not its quantity. We are therefore bound to infer that Giants are born
of another sperm than man’s, and that, consequently, the Incubus Demon,
for the purpose of generation, uses a sperm which is not man’s. But
then, what is to be said?


34. Quantum ad hoc, sub correctione Sanctæ Matris Ecclesiæ, et mere
opinative dico, Incubum Dæmonem, dum mulieribus commiscetur, ex proprio
ipsius semine hominem generare.


34. Subject to correction by our Holy Mother Church, and as a mere
expression of opinion, I say that the Incubus Demon, when having
intercourse with women, begets the human fetus from his own sperm.


35. Paradoxa in fide, et parum sana nonnullis videbitur hæc opinio;
sed lectorem meum deprecor, ut judicium non præcipitet de ea: ut enim
incivile est nondum tota lege perspecta judicare, ut Celsus, lib. 24.
ff. de legib. et S. C., ait, ita neque damnanda est opinio, nisi prius
examinatis, ac solutis argumentis, quibus innititur. Ad probandam
igitur supradatam conclusionem, nonnulla sunt necessario præmittenda.


35. To many that proposition will seem heterodox and hardly sensible;
but I beg of my reader not to condemn it precipitately; for if,
as Celsus says, it is improper to deliver judgment without having
thoroughly inquired into the law, no less unfair is the rejection of
an opinion, before the arguments upon which it rests have been weighed
and confuted. I have therefore to prove the above conclusion, and must
necessarily premise with some statements.


36. Præmittendum primo de fide est, quod dentur Creaturæ pure
spirituales nullo modo de materia corporea participantes, prout
habetur ex Concilio Lateranensi, sub Innocentio Tertio, c. Firm. de
Sum. Trin. et Fid. Cath. Conc. Eph. in Epist. Cyrill. ad Reggia, et
alibi. Hujusmodi autem sunt Angeli beati, et Dæmones damnati ad ignem
perpetuum. Quamvis vero nonnulli Doctores, Bann. par. 1. q. 5. ar.
1. Can. =de Loc. Theol.= l. 5. c. 5. Sixt. seu =Bibliot. San.= l. 5.
annot. 8., Mirand. =Sum. Concil.= vº. =Angelus=, Molina, p. 1. q.
50., a. 1., Carranz., =Annot. ad Synod.= 7., etiam post Concilium illud
docuerint spiritualitatem Angelorum et Dæmonum non esse de fide, ita
ut nonnulli alii, Bonav. in lib. 2. sent. dist. 3. q. 1., Scot. =de
Anim.= q. 15., Cajet. =in Gen.= c. 4., Franc. Georg. =Problem.= l. 2.
c. 57., August. Hyph., =de Dæmon.=, l. 3. c. 3., scripserint illos esse
corporeos, et proinde Angelos Dæmonesque corpore et spiritu constare
non esse propositionem hæreticam, neque erroneam, probet Bonaventura
Baro, =Scot. Defens.= tom. 9. apolog. 2., act. 1., p. § 7.: tamen quia
Concilium ipsum statuit de fide tenendum, =Deum esse Creatorem omnium
visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium, qui utramque
de nihilo condidit creaturam spiritualem et corporalem Angelicam,
videlicet ut mundanam=: ideo dico de fide esse quasdam creaturas dari
mere spirituales, et tales esse Angelos, non quidem omnes, sed quosdam.


36. Firstly, I premise, as an article of belief, that there are purely
spiritual creatures, not in any way partaking of corporeal matter,
as was ruled by the Council of Lateran, under the pontificate of
Innocent III. Such are the blessed Angels, and the Demons condemned
to ever-lasting fire. Some Doctors, it is true, have professed,
subsequently even to this Council, that the spirituality of Angels and
Demons is not an article of belief; others even have asserted that
they are corporeal, whence Bonaventure Baron has drawn the conclusion
that it is neither heretical nor erroneous to ascribe to Angels and
Demons a twofold substance, corporeal and spiritual. Yet, the Council
having formally declared it to be an article of belief that _God is the
maker of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who
has raised from nothing every creature spiritual or corporeal. Angelic
or terrestrial_, I contend it is an article of belief that there are
certain merely spiritual creatures, and that such are Angels; not all
of them, but a certain number.


37. Inaudita forsan erit sententia hæc, sed non destituta erit
probabilitate. Si enim a Theologis tanta inter Angelos diversitas
specifica, et proinde essentialis statuitur, ut in via D. Thomæ,
p. p. 50, ar. 4, plures Angeli nequeant esse in eadem specie, sed
quilibet Angelus propriam speciem constituat, profecto nulla invenitur
repugnantia, quod Angelorum nonnulli sint purissimi spiritus, et
proinde excellentissimæ naturæ, alii autem corporei, et minus
excellentes, et eorum differentia petatur per corporeum et incorporeum.
Accedit quod hac sententia facile solvitur alias insolubilis
contradictio inter duo Concilia Œcumenica, nempe Septimam Synodum
generalem, et dictum Concilium Lateranense: siquidem in illa Synodo,
quæ est secunda Nicæna, actione quinta, productus est liber Joannis
Thessalonicensis scriptus contra quemdam Philosophum gentilem, in quo
ita habetur: =De Angelis et Archangelis, atque eorum Potestatibus,
quibus nostras Animas adjungo, ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentit,
esse quidem intelligibiles, sed non omnino corporis expertes, et
insensibiles, ut vos Gentiles dicitis, verum tenui corpore præditos, et
aereo, sive igneo, sicut scriptum est: qui facit Angelos suos spiritus,
et ministros suos ignem urentem=. Et infra: =Quamquam autem non sint ut
nos, corporei, utpote ex quatuor elementis, nemo tamen vel Angelos,
vel Dæmones, vel Animas dixerit incorporeas: multoties enim in proprio
corpore visi sunt ab illis, quibus Dominus oculos aperuit=. Et cum
omnia lecta fuissent coram Patribus synodaliter congregatis, Tharasius,
Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, poposcit adprobationem Sanctæ Synodi
his verbis: =Ostendit Pater, quod Angelos pingi oporteat, quoniam
circumscribi possunt, et ut homines apparuerunt. Synodus autem uno ore
respondit: Etiam, Domine=.


37. It may seem strange, yet it must be admitted not to be unlikely.
If, in fact, Theologians concur in establishing amongst Angels a
specific, and therefore essential, diversity so considerable that,
according to St. Thomas, there are not two Angels of the same species,
but that each of them is a species by himself, why should not certain
Angels be most pure spirits, of a consequently very superior nature,
and others corporeal, therefore of a less perfect nature, differing
thus from each other in their corporeal or incorporeal substance?
This doctrine has the advantage of solving the otherwise insoluble
contradiction between two Œcumenical Councils, namely the Seventh
General Synod and the above-mentioned Council of Lateran. For, during
the fifth sitting of that Synod, the second of Nicea, a book was
introduced written by John of Thessalonica against a pagan Philosopher,
wherein occur the following propositions: “_Respecting Angels,
Archangels and their Powers, to which I adjoin our own Souls, the
Catholic Church is really of opinion that they are intelligences, but
not entirely bodyless and senseless, as you Gentiles aver; she on the
contrary ascribes to them a subtile body, aerial or igneous, according
to what is written: He makes the spirits His Angels, and the burning
fire His Minister_”. And further on: “_Although not corporeal in the
same way as ourselves, made of the four elements, yet it is impossible
to say that Angels, Demons and Souls are incorporeal; for they have
been seen many a time, invested with their own body, by those whose
eyes the Lord had opened_”. And after that book had been read through
before all the Fathers in Council assembled, Tharasius, the Patriarch
of Constantinople, submitted it to the approval of the Council, with
these words: “_The Father showeth that Angels should be pictured, since
their form can be defined, and they have been seen in the shape of
men_”. Without a dissentient, the Synod answered: “_Yes, my Lord_”.


38. Hanc autem Conciliarem adprobationem de materia ad longum
pertractata a D. Joanne in libro coram Patribus lecto, statuere
articulum fidei circa corporeitatem Angelorum, perspicuum est:
unde ad tollendam contradictionem hujus, cum allata definitione
Concilii Lateranensis, multum desudant Theologi. Unus enim, Suarez,
=de Angelis=, ait, quod Patres non contradixerunt tali asserto de
corporeitate Angelorum, quia non de illa re agebatur. Alius, Bann.,
in p. p. q. 10, ait, quod Synodus adprobavit conclusionem, nempe
Angelos pingi posse, non tamen adprobavit rationem, =quia corporei
sunt=. Alius, Molin., in p. p., q. 50. a. 1, ait, quod definitiones
Conciliares in illa Synodo factæ sunt solum =actione septima=, proinde
ea quæ habentur in actionibus præcedentibus non esse definitiones de
fide. Alii, Joverc. et Mirand., =Sum. Conc.=, scribunt nec Nicænum,
nec Lateranense Concilium intendisse definere de fide quæstionem; et
Nicænum quidem locutum fuisse juxta opinionem Platonicorum, quæ ponit
Angelos corporeos, et tunc prævalebat; Lateranense autem locutum esse
juxta mentem Aristotelis, qui, l. 12. =Metaphys.=, tex. 49, ponit
intelligentias incorporeas, quæ sententia contra Platonicos apud
plerosque Doctores invaluit expost.


38. That this approbation by a Council of the doctrine set forth at
length in the book of John establishes an article of belief with
regard to the corporeity of Angels, there is not a shadow of doubt: so
Theologians toil and moil in order to remove the contradiction apparent
between that decision and the definition, above quoted, by the Council
of Lateran. One of them, Suarez, says that if the Fathers did not
disprove such an assertion of the corporeity of Angels, it is because
that was not the question. Another contends that the Synod did approve
the conclusion, namely that Angels might be pictured, but not the
motive given, _their corporeity_. A third, Molina, observes that the
definitions issued in Council by the Synod were thus issued only at the
_seventh sitting_, whence he argues that those of the previous sittings
are not definitions of belief. Others, lastly, write that neither the
Council of Nicea nor that of Lateran intended defining a question of
belief, the Council of Nicea having spoken according to the opinion of
the Platonists, which describes Angels as corporeal beings and was then
prevailing, whilst that of Lateran went with Aristoteles, who, in his
12th. book of _Metaphysics_, lays down the existence of incorporeal
intelligences, a doctrine which has since carried the day with most
Doctors over the Platonists.


39. Sed quam frigidæ sint istæ responsiones nemo non videt, ac eas
minime satisfacere oppositioni palmariter demonstrat Bonaventura Baro,
=Scot. Defens.=, tom. 9, apolog. 2, actio 1, § 2 per totum.
Proinde ad tollendam contradictionem Conciliorum dicendum est, Nicænum
locutum esse de una, Lateranense autem de alia specie Angelorum,
et illam quidem corpoream, hanc vero penitus incorpoream; et sic
conciliantur aliter irreconciliabilia Concilia.


39. But any one can discern the invalidity of those answers, and
Bonaventure Baro (_Scot. Defens._, tome 9) proves to evidence that
they do not bear. In consequence, in order to agree the two Councils,
we must say that the Council of Nicea meant one species of Angels,
and that of Lateran another: the former, corporeal, the latter on the
contrary absolutely incorporeal; and thus are reconciled two otherwise
irreconcilable Councils.


40. Præmittendum 2º, nomen Angeli esse nomen officii, non naturæ, ut
concorditer scribunt S. S. Patres: Ambros. in c. 1 =epist. ad Hebr.=,
Hilaris, l. 5 de Trin., Augustinus, lib. 15 =de Civit. Dei= c. 23,
Gregorius, =Hom. 34 in Evang.=, Isidorus, l. =de Sum. Bonit.=, c. 12;
unde præclare ait D. Ambrosius: Angelus non ex eo quod est spiritus, ex
eo quod agit, Angelus, quia =Angelus= Græce, Latine =Nuntius= dicitur;
sequitur igitur ex hoc, quod illi, qui ad aliquod ministerium a Deo
mittuntur, sive spiritus sint, sive homines, Angeli vocari possunt;
et de facto ita vocantur in Scripturis Sacris: nam de Sacerdotibus,
Concionatoribus ac Doctoribus, qui tanquam Nuntii Dei explicant
hominibus divinam voluntatem, dicitur, =Malach.= c. 2. v. 7: =Labia
Sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem requirent ex ore ejus, quia
Angelus Domini exercituum est=. D. Joannes Baptista ab eodem Propheta,
c. 3 v. 1, vocatur Angelus, dum ait: =Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, et
præparabit viam ante faciem meam=. Et hanc prophetiam esse ad litteram
de S. Joanne Baptista testatur Christus Dominus in =Evangelio Matthæi=,
11, v. 10. Immo et ipse Deus, quia fuit missus a Patre in mundum ad
evangelizandum legem gratiæ, vocatur Angelus. Ita in prophetia Isaiæ,
c. 9 v. 6, juxta versionem Septuaginta: =Vocabitur nomen ejus magni
consilii Angelus=, et clarius in Malachiæ c. 3 v. 1: =Veniet ad templum
sanctum suum Dominator quem vos quæritis, et Angelus testamenti quem
vos vultis=. Quæ prophetia ad litteram est de Christo Domino. Sequitur
igitur nullum absurdum sequi ex hoc, quod dicimus Angelos quosdam
esse corporeos, nam et homines, qui corpore constant, Angeli vocabulo
efferuntur.


40. Secondly, I premise that the word Angel applies, not indeed to
the kind, but to the office: the Holy Fathers are agreed thereupon
(St. Ambrose, on the _Epistle to the Hebrews_; St. Austin, _City of
God_; St. Gregory, _Homily 34 on Scripture_; St. Isidorus, _Supreme
Goodness_). An Angel, very truly says St. Ambrose, is thus styled,
not because he is a spirit, but on account of his office; Ἁγγελος in
Greek, _Nuntius_ in Latin, that is to say _Messenger_; it follows that
whoever is entrusted by God with a mission, be he spirit or man, may be
called an Angel, and is thus called in the Holy Scriptures, where the
following words are applied to Priests, Preachers and Doctors, who, as
Messengers of God, explain to men the divine will (Malachi, chapt. 2,
v. 7). “_The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek
the law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts._” The
same prophet, chapt. 3, v. 1, bestows the name of Angel on St. John
the Baptist, when saying: “_Behold, I will send my Angel and he shall
prepare the way before me._” That this prophecy literally applies to
St. John the Baptist is testified by our Lord Jesus-Christ, in the
Gospel, according to St. Matthew, chapt. 11, v. 10. Still more: God
himself is called an Angel, because he has been sent by His Father to
herald the law of mercy. To witness, the prophecy of Isaiah, chapt.
9, v. 6, according to Septuagint: “_He shall be called an Angel of
Wonderful Counsel._” And more plainly still in Malachi, chapt. 3, v.
1; “_The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the
Angel of the covenant whom ye delight in_”, a prophecy which literally
applies to our Lord Jesus-Christ. There is consequently nothing absurd
in the contention that some Angels are corporeal, since men, who
assuredly have a body, are called Angels.


41. Præmittendum 3º, nondum rerum naturalium, quæ sunt in mundo, satis
perspectam esse existentiam, aut naturam, ut proinde aliquid negandum
sit ex eo, quod de illo nunquam alias dictum, aut scriptum fuerit.
Patet enim tractu temporis detectas esse novas terras, quas Antiqui
nostri ignorarunt, novaque animalia, herbas, plantas, fructus, semina
nunquam alias visa; et si pervia esset Terra Australis incognita,
cujus indagatio, et lustratio a multis hucusque incassum tentata est,
adhuc nova nobis alia panderentur. Patet adhuc, quod per inventionem
microscopii, et alias machinas, et organa Philosophiæ experimentalis
modernæ, sicut etiam per exactiorem indaginem Anatomistarum, multarum
rerum naturalium existentiam, vires, naturamque tum innotuisse, tum
dietim innotescere, quæ præcedentes Philosophi ignorarunt, ut patet
in auro fulminante, phosphoro, et centum aliis chymicis experimentis,
circulatione sanguinis, venis lacteis, vasis lymphaticis, et aliis
hujusmodi quæ nuper Anatomistæ adinvenerunt. Proinde ineptum erit
aliquod exsibillare ex hoc quod de eo nullus Antiquorum scripserit,
attento maxime Logicorum axiomate, quod locus ab auctoritate negativa
non tenet.


41. Thirdly, I premise that neither the existence nor the nature of
the natural things in this world has been sufficiently investigated to
allow of denying a fact, merely because it has never been previously
spoken of or written about. In the course of time have not new lands
been discovered which the Ancients knew not of? New animals, herbs,
plants, fruits and seeds, never seen elsewhere? And if that mysterious
Austral land came at last to be explored, as has been to this day
vainly tried by so many travellers, what unforeseen disclosures would
be the result! Through the invention of the microscope and other
instruments used by modern experimental Philosophy, combined with the
more exact methods of investigation of Anatomists, have there not been,
and are there not, every day, brought to light the existence, qualities
and characteristics of a number of natural things unknown to ancient
Philosophers, such as fulminating gold, phosphorus, and a hundred other
chemical compounds, the circulation of the blood, the lacteal vessels,
the lymph-ducts and other recent anatomical discoveries? To deride a
doctrine because it does not happen to be mentioned in any ancient
author would therefore be absurd, especially bearing in mind this axiom
of Logic: _locus ab auctoritate negativa non tenet_.


42. Præmittendum 4º, quod in Sacra Scriptura, et Ecclesiasticis
traditionibus non traditur nisi id, quod ad animæ salutem necessarium
est, quoad credendum, sperandum et amandum; unde inferre non licet
ex eo, quod nec ex Scriptura, nec ex traditione aliquod habetur,
proinde negandum sit, quod illud tale existat: aut nos quidem Fides
docet, Deum per Verbum suum omnia creasse visibilia, et invisibilia;
pariterque ex Jesu Christi Domini nostri meritis tum gratiam, tum
gloriam omni, et cuivis rationali creaturæ conferri. Num autem alius
Mundus a nostro, quem incolimus, sit, et in eo alii homines non ab
Adam prognati, sed alio modo a Deo creati existant (sicut ponunt illi
qui lunarem globum habitatum opinantur); pariterque num in hoc Mundo,
quem incolimus, aliæ existant creaturæ rationales ultra homines, et
Spiritus Angelicos, quæ regulariter hominibus sint invisibiles, et
per accidens, et earum executiva potentia fiant visibiles: hoc nullo
modo spectat ad fidem, et hoc scire, aut ignorare non est ad salutem
hominis necessarium, sicut nec scire rerum omnium physicarum numerum
aut naturam.


42. Fourthly, I premise that Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical
tradition do not teach us any thing beyond what is requisite for the
salvation of the soul, namely Faith, Hope and Charity. Consequently,
from a thing not being stated either by Scripture or tradition it must
not be inferred that that thing is not in existence. For instance,
Faith teaches us that God, by His Word, made things visible, and
invisible, and also that, through the merits of our Lord Jesus-Christ,
grace and glory are conferred on every rational creature. Now, that
there be another World than the one we live in, and that it be peopled
by men not born of Adam but made by God, in some other way, as is
implied by those who believe the lunar globe to be inhabited; or
further, that in the very World we dwell in, there be other rational
creatures besides man and the Angelic Spirits, creatures generally
invisible to us and whose being is disclosed but accidentally, through
the instrumentality of their own power; all that has nothing to do with
Faith, and the knowledge or ignorance thereof is no more necessary to
the salvation of man than knowing the number or nature of all physical
things.


43. Præmittendum 5º, nullam inveniri repugnantiam, nec in Philosophia,
nec in Theologia; quod dari possint creaturæ rationales constantes
spiritu et corpore, aliæ ab homine, quia si esset repugnantia, hoc
esset vel ex parte Dei (et hoc non quia ipse omnipotens est), vel
ex parte rei creabilis; et neque hoc, quia sicut creatura mere
spiritualis, ut Angeli, creata est, et mere materialis, ut Mundus, et
partim spiritualis, partim corporea, corporeitate terrestri, et crassa,
ut homo, ita creabilis est creatura constans spiritu rationali, et
corporeitate minus crassa, sed subtiliore, quam sit homo. Et profecto
post Resurrectionem anima Beatorum erit unita corpori glorioso dote
subtilitatis donato: ut proinde concludi posset, potuisse Deum creare
creaturam rationalem corpoream, cui naturaliter indita sit corporis
subtilitas, sicut per gratiam corpori glorioso confertur.


43. Fifthly, I premise that neither Philosophy nor Theology is
repugnant to the possible existence of rational creatures having spirit
and body and distinct from man. Such repugnance could be supported only
on God, and that is inadmissible, since he is all-mighty, or on the
thing to be made, and that likewise cannot be supported; for, as there
are purely spiritual creatures, such as Angels, or merely material,
such as the World, or lastly semi-spiritual and semi-corporeal, of an
earthly and gross corporeity, such as man, so there may well be in
existence a creature endowed with a rational spirit and a corporeity
less gross, more subtile than man’s. No doubt, moreover, but that after
Resurrection, the souls of the blessed will be united with a glorious
and subtile body; from which may be inferred that God may well have
made a rational and corporeal creature whose body naturally enjoys the
subtilty which will be conferred by the grace on the glorious body.


44. Astruitur autem magis talium creaturarum possibilitas ex solutione
argumentorum, quæ contra positam conclusionem fieri possunt, pariterque
ex responsione ad interrogationes, quæ possunt circa eam formari.


44. But, the possible existence of such creatures will be still better
set forth by solving the arguments which can be adduced against our
conclusion, and replying to the questions it may raise.


45. Prima interrogatio est, an tales creaturæ dicendæ essent animalia
rationalia? Quod si sic, quomodo different ab homine, cum quo communem
haberent definitionem?


45. First question: should such creatures be styled rational animals?
And if so, in what do they differ from man, with whom they would have
that definition in common?


46. Respondeo quod essent animalia rationalia sensibus et organis
corporis prædita, sicut homo: differrent autem ab homine non solum
ratione corporis tenuioris, sed etiam materiæ. Homo siquidem ex
crassiore elementorum omnium parte, puta ex luto, nempe aqua et terra
crassa formatus est, ut constat ex Scriptura, =Gen.= 2. v. 7.; ista
vero formata essent ex subtiliore parte omnium, aut unius, seu alterius
elementorum; ut proinde alia essent terrea, alia aquea, alia aerea,
et alia ignea; et ut eorum definitio cum hominis definitione non
conveniret, addendum esset definitioni hominis crassa materialitas sui
corporis, per quam a dictis animalibus differret.


46. I reply: Yes, they would be rational animals, provided with senses
and organs even as man; they would, however, differ from man not only
in the more subtile nature, but also in the matter of their body. In
fact, as is shown by Scripture, man has been made from the grossest
of all elements, namely clay, a gross mixture of water and earth:
but those creatures would be made from the most subtile part of all
elements, or of one or other of them; thus, some would proceed from
earth, others from water, or air, or fire; and, in order that they
should not be defined in the same terms as man, to the definition of
the latter should be added the mention of the gross materiality of his
body, wherein he would differ from said animals.


47. Secunda interrogatio est, quandonam hujus modi animalia fuissent
condita, et num cum brutis producta a terra, aut ab aqua, ut
quadrupedia, et aves respective; an vero a Domino Deo formata, ut fuit
homo?


47. Second question: At what period would those animals have been
originated, and wherefrom? From earth, like the beasts, or from water,
like quadrupeds, birds, etc.? Or, on the contrary, would they have been
made, like man, by our Lord God?


48. Respondeo quod de fide est, quod posito, quod existant de
facto, creata sint a principio Mundi: sic enim definitur a Concilio
Lateranensi (Firm. de sum. Trinit. et fide cathol.); nempe quod
Deus sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de
nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem. Sub illa etenim
Creaturarum generalitate etiam illa animalia essent comprehensa. Quo
vero ad eorum formationem, decuisse ipsorum corpus a Deo ministerio
Angelorum formatum fuisse, sicut a Deo formatum legimus corpus hominis,
quia ipsi copulandus erat spiritus immortalis, quandoquidem spiritus
incorporeus et proinde nobilissimus corpori pariter originaliter
nobiliori cæteris brutis jungendus erat.


48. I reply: It is an article of belief, expressly laid down by the
Council of Lateran, that whatever is in fact and at present, was
made in the origin of the world. By His all-mighty virtue, God, from
the beginning of time, raised together from nothing both orders of
creatures, spiritual and corporeal. Now, those animals also would be
included in the generality of creatures. As to their formation, it
might be said that God Himself, through the medium of Angels, made
their body as he did man’s, to which an immortal spirit was to be
united. That body being of a nobler nature than that of other animals,
it was meet that it should be united to an incorporeal and highly noble
spirit.


49. Tertia interrogatio, an talia animalia habuissent originem ab uno
solo, velut omnes homines ab Adam, an vero plura simul formata essent
sicut fuit de cæteris animantibus a terra et aqua productis, in quibus
fuerunt mares et fœminæ quæ speciem per generationem conservant? Et
si hoc oporteret inter talia animalia esse distinctionem sexus; ipsa
nasci, et interire; passionibus sensus affici, nutriri, crescere; et
tunc quo alimento vescerentur, esset quærendum; præterea an vitam
socialem ducerent, ut homines; qua politica regerentur; num urbes ad
habitandum struxissent; num artes, studia, possessiones, et bella
inter ea essent, sicut est in hominibus.


49. Third question: Would those animals descend from one individual, as
all men descend from Adam, or, on the contrary, would many have been
made at the same time, as was the case for the other living things
issued from earth and water, wherein were males and females for the
preservation of the kind by generation? Would there be amongst them
a distinction between the sexes? Would they be subject to birth and
death, to senses, passions, want of food, power of growth? If so, what
their nutrition? Would they lead a social life, as men do? By what
laws ruled? Would they build up cities for their dwellings, cultivate
the arts and sciences, hold property, and wage war between themselves,
as men are wont to?


50. Respondeo: potuit esse quod omnia ab uno, velut homines ab Adam,
sint progenita; potuit pariter esse, quod ex iis multi mares, et plures
fœminæ fuissent formatæ, a quibus per generationem eorum species essent
propagatæ. Ultro admitteremus talia animalia oriri et mori; mares
alios, alias fœminas inter ea esse; passionibus, sensibus agitari velut
homines; nutriri et crescere secundum molem sui corporis; cibum autem
ipsorum non crassum qualem requirit crassities corporis humani, sed
substantiam tenuem et vaporosam emanantem per effluvia spirituosa a
rebus physicis pollentibus corpusculis maxime volatilibus, ut nidor
carnium maxime assatarum, vapor vini, fructuum, florum, aromatum, a
quibus copiosa hujusmodi effluvia usque ad totalem partium subtiliorum
ac volatilium evaporationem scaturiunt. Talia autem animalia civilem
vitam ducere posse, et inter ea distinctos esse gradus dominantium
ac servientium pro conditione naturæ ipsorum, artesque, scientias,
ministeria, exercitia, loca, mansiones, ac alia necessaria ad eorum
conservationem, nullam penitus importat repugnantiam.


50. I reply: It may be that all descend from one individual, as men
descend from Adam; it may be also that a number of males and females
were made initially, who preserved their kind by generation. We will
further admit that they are born and die; that they are divided into
males and females, and are moved by senses and passions, as men are;
that they feed and grow according to the size of their body; their
food, however, instead of being gross like that required by the human
body, must be delicate and vapoury, emanating through spirituous
effluvia from whatever in the physical world abounds with highly
volatile corpuscles, such as the flavour of meats, especially of
roasts, the fume of wine, the fragrancy of fruit, flowers, aromatics,
which evolve an abundance of those effluvia until all their subtile
and volatile parts have completely evaporated. To their being able to
lead a social life, with distinctions of rank and precedence; to their
cultivating the arts and sciences, exercising functions, maintaining
armies, building up cities, doing in short whatever is requisite for
their preservation, I have in the main no objection.


51. Quarta interrogatio est, qualis esset eorum corporis figuratio,
an humanam, an aliam formam, et qualem haberent, et an partes
corporis ipsorum haberent ordinem essentialem inter se, ut corpora
cæterorum animalium, an vero accidentalem tantum, ut corpora fluidarum
substantiarum, ut olei, aquæ, nubis, fumi, etc.; et num substantiæ
suarum partium organicarum diversimode constarent, ut organa hominum,
in quibus sunt aliæ partes crassissimæ, ut ossa, aliæ minus crassæ, ut
cartilagines, aliæ tenues, ut membranæ.


51. Fourth question: What would their figure be, human or otherwise?
Would the ordering of the divers parts of their body be essential, as
with other animals, or merely accidental, as with fluid substances,
such as oil, water, clouds, smoke, etc.? Would those organic parts
consist of various substances, as is the case with the organs of the
human body, wherein are to be found very gross parts, such as the
bones, others less gross, such as the cartilages, and others slender,
such as the membranes?


52. Respondeo, quod quantum ad figuram corpoream nihil certi
affirmare debemus, aut possumus, cum talis figura non sit exacte
nobis sensibilis, nec quoad visum, nec quoad tactum, præ sui corporis
tenuitate, ac perspicacitate; qualis proinde vere sit, noverent ipsi,
aliique, qui substantias immateriales intuitive cognoscere possunt.
Quoad congruentiam et probabilitatem dico, illa referre speciem
corporis humani, cum aliquo distinctivo a corpore humano, nisi forte
ad hoc sufficiat sua ipsorum tenuitas. Ducor, quia corpus humanum
plasmatum a Deo perfectissimum est, inter animalia quæque, et cum
cætera bruta in terram sint prona, eo quia anima eorum mortalis est,
Deus, ut ait poeta Ovid., =Metamorphos.=:

    =Os homini sublime dedit, cœlumque tueri
    Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus=;

quia anima hominis immortalis ordinata est ad cœlestem mansionem. Cum
igitur animalia, de quibus loquimur, spiritum haberent immaterialem,
rationalem, ac immortalem, et proinde capacem beatitudinis ac
damnationis, congruum est, quod corpus, cui talis spiritus copulatur,
simile sit omnium animalium nobilissimo, corpori humano. Ex hac
positione sequitur, quod ejus corporis partes ordinem inter se
essentialem habere deberent; nec enim pes capiti, aut ventri manus
conjungi deberet: sed congrua membrorum essentiali dispositione
ordinata, ut essent idonea ministeriis propriis perficiendis. Quo autem
ad partes componentes ipsarum organa, dico quod necessarium esset, ut
nonnullæ ipsarum essent solidiores, aliæ minus solidæ, aliæ tenues,
aliæ tenuissimæ pro necessitate operationis organicæ. Nec contra hanc
positionem facile potest asseri tenuitas ipsorum corporum: quippe
soliditas aut crassities organicarum partium, de qua dicimus, non
esset talis simpliciter, sed comparative ad alias partes tenuiores. Et
hoc patere potest in omnibus corporibus fluidis naturalibus, ut vino,
oleo, lacte, etc.; quantumvis enim omnes partes in ipsis videantur
homogeneæ ac similares, non tamen ita est: nam in ipsis est pars
terrea, pars aquea, sal fixum, sal volatile, et pars sulfurea, quæ
omnia manipulatione spargirica oculis subjici possunt. Ita esset in
casu nostro: posito enim quod talium animalium corpora subtilia et
tenuia, ut corpora naturalia fluida, velut aqua et aer, essent, non
tamen tolleretur, quin in ipsorum partibus diversæ inter se essent
qualitates, et aliquæ ipsarum comparative ad alias essent solidæ, et
aliæ tenuiores, quamvis totum corpus ex ipsis compositum tenue dici
posset.


52. I reply: As regards their figure, we neither can nor should be
affirmative, since it escapes our senses, being too delicate for
our sight or our touch. That we must leave to themselves, and to
such as have the privilege of intuitive acquaintance with immaterial
substances. But, so far as probability goes, I say that their figure
tallies with the human body, save some distinctive peculiarity, should
the very tenuity of their body not be deemed sufficient. I am led to
that by the consideration that of all the works of God the human frame
is the most perfect, and that whilst all other animals stoop to the
ground, because their soul is mortal, God, as Ovid, the poet, says, in
his _Metamorphoses_,

    _Gave man an erect figure, bidding him behold the heavens
    And raise his face towards the stars_,

man’s soul having been made immortal for the heavenly abode.
Considering that the animals we are speaking of would be gifted with
a spirit immaterial, rational and immortal, capable therefore of
beatitude and damnation, it is proper to admit that the body to which
that spirit is united may be like unto the most noble animal frame,
that is to say to the human frame. Whence it follows that in the
divers parts of that body there must be an essential order; that the
foot, for instance, cannot be an appendage to the head, nor the hand
to the belly, but that each organ is in its right place, according
to the functions it has to perform. As to the constitutive parts of
those organs, it is, in my opinion, necessary that there should be
some more or less strong, others more or less slender, in order to
meet the requirements of the organic working. Nor can this be fairly
objected to on the ground of the slenderness of the bodies themselves;
for the strength or thickness of the organic parts alluded to would
not be absolute, but merely in comparison with the more slender ones.
That, moreover, may be observed in all natural fluids, such as wine,
oil, milk, etc.; however homogeneous and similar to each other their
component parts may look, yet they are not so: for some are clayish,
others aqueous; there are fixed salts, volatile salts, brimstone, all
of which are made obvious by a chemical analysis. So it would be in
our case: for, supposing the bodies of those animals to be as subtile
and slender as the natural fluids, air, water, etc., there would
nevertheless be discrepancies in the quality of their constitutive
parts, some of which would be strong when compared with others more
slender, although the whole body which they compose might be called
slender.


53. Quod si dicatur, quod hæc repugnant positioni supra firmatæ, circa
partium essentialem ordinationem inter se: quandoquidem videmus,
quod in corporibus fluidis ac tenuibus una pars non servat ordinem
essentialem ad aliam, sed accidentalem tantum, ita ut hæc pars vini,
quæ modo alteri parti contigua est, mox inverso vase, aut moto vino,
alteri parti unitur, et sic omnes partes diversam positionem habent
quantumvis semper idem vinum sit, et ex hoc sequeretur, quod talium
animalium corpora figurata stabiliter non essent, et consequenter, nec
organica.


53. It may be objected that this is repugnant to what was said above
concerning the essential ordering of the parts among themselves;
that it is seen that, in fluid and subtile bodies, one part is not
essentially but only accidentally connected with another; that a part
of wine, for instance, just now contiguous with some other, soon
comes in contact with a third, if the vessel be turned upside down or
the wine shaken, and that all the parts together exchange positions
at the same time, though it be still the same wine. Whence it should
be inferred that, the bodies of those animals would have no permanent
figure, and would consequently not be organic.


54. Respondeo negando assumptum; etenim in corporibus fluidis, quamvis
non appareat, manet tamen essentialis partium ordinatio, qua stante
stat in suo esse compositum, et hoc patet manifeste in vino: expressum
enim ab uvis videtur liquor totaliter homogeneus, non tamen ita est;
in eo enim sunt partes crassæ, quæ tractu temporis subsident in
doliis: sunt etiam partes tenues, quæ evaporant: sunt partes fixæ, ut
tartarus, sunt partes volatiles, ut sulphur, sive spiritus ardens; sunt
partes mediæ inter volatile ac fixum, ut phlegma. Partes istæ ordinem
essentialem inter se mutant; nam statim ac expressum est ab uvis, et
mustum dicitur sulphur, sive spiritus volatilis, ita implicatum manet
particulis tartari, qui fixus est, ut nullo modo avolare valeat.


54. I reply that I deny the assumption. In fact, if in fluid bodies
the essential ordering of the parts is not apparent, it subsists none
the less, and causes a compound to preserve its own state. Wine,
for instance, when expressed from the grapes, seems a thoroughly
homogeneous liquor, and yet is not so; for there are gross parts which,
in the long run, subside in the casks; there are also slender parts
which evaporate; fixed parts, such as tartar; volatile parts, such as
brimstone and alcohol; others again, half volatile and half fixed, such
as phlegm. Those divers parts do not respectively maintain an essential
order; for no sooner has the must been expressed from the grapes, and
been styled brimstone or volatile spirits, than it continues so closely
involved with the particles of tartar, which is fixed, as not to be in
any way able to escape.


55. Hinc est, quod a musto recenter ab uvis expresso nullo modo potest
distillari spiritus sulphureus, qui communiter vocatur =aqua vitæ=: sed
post quadraginta dies fermentationis particulæ vini ordinem mutant,
ita ut spiritus, qui alligati erant particulis tartareis, et propria
volatilitate eas suspensas tenebant, et vicissim ab eis ne possent
avolare detinebantur, ac tartareis particulis separantur, et divulsi
ac confusi remanent cum partibus phlegmaticis, a quibus per actionem
ignis faciliter separantur, et avolant; sicque per distillationem fit
aqua vitæ, quæ aliud non est quam sulphur vini volatile cum tenuiore
parte phlegmatis simul cum dicto sulphure vi ignis elevata. Post
quadraginta dies, alia incipit vini fermentatio, quæ longiori, aut
minus longo tempore perficitur, pro vini perfectiori aut imperfectiori
maturitate, et alio atque alio modo terminatur, pro minore aut majore
spiritus sulphurei abundantia. Si enim abundat in vino sulphur, acescit
fermentatione, et evadit acetum; si autem parum sulphuris continet,
lentescit vinum, et Italice dicitur =vino molle=, aut =vino guasto=.
Quod si vinum maturum sit, ut cæteris paribus est, vinum dulce breviori
tempore, aut acescit, aut lentescit, ut quotidiana constat experientia.
In dicta autem fermentatione ordo essentialis partium vini mutatur;
non enim ipsius quantitas, aut materia imminuitur, aut mutatur:
videmus enim lagenam vino plenam tractu temporis evadere plenam aceto,
nullatenus mutatam circa quantitatem materiæ, quæ prius ibi extabat,
sed tantum mutato partium essentiali ordine: nam sulphur, quod, ut
diximus, erat phlegmati unitum, ac a tartaro separatum, iterum tartaro
implicatur, et cum eo fixatur, et proinde si distilletur acetum, primo
prodit phlegma insipidum, et post spiritus aceti, qui est sulphur vini
illaqueatum particulis tartari minus fixi. Mutatio autem essentialis
partium supradictarum variat substantiam liquoris expressi ab uva,
quod manifeste patet ex variis et contrariis effectibus, quos causant
mustum, vinum, et acetum, et vinum lentum, quod vocatur corruptum, ut
proinde duo prima apta materia sint ad consecrationem, secus alia duo.
Hanc porro vini economiam hausimus ab erudito opere Nicolai Lemerii,
Regis Galliarum aromatarii, =Curs. de Chimi.=, p. 2. c. 9.


55. That is the reason why must recently expressed from the grapes
is of no use for the distillation of the sulfurous spirits, commonly
called _brandy_; but, after forty days fermentation, the particles of
the wine change places: the spirits, no longer bound with the tartaric
particles which they kept in suspension through their own volatility,
whilst they were, in return, kept down by them and prevented from
escaping, sever from those particles, and continue confused with
the phlegmatic parts from which they become easily released by the
operation of fire, and evaporate: thus, by means of distillation,
brandy is made, which is nothing but the brimstone of wine volatilized
by heat with the most slender part of phlegm. At the end of forty days
another fermentation begins, which extends more or less, according as
the maturity of the wine is more or less perfect, and the termination
of which is dependent on the greater or lesser abundance of sulphurous
spirits. If abounding with brimstone, the wine sours and turns to
vinegar; if, on the contrary, it holds but little brimstone, it ropes,
and becomes what the Italians call _vino molle_ or _vino guasto_.
If the wine is at once ripe, as happens in other cases, it sours or
ropes in less time, as is shown by every day experience. Now, in said
fermentation the essential order of the parts of wine is altered,
but not so its quantity nor its matter, which neither changes nor
decreases: a bottle that had been filled with wine is, after a certain
time, found to be filled with vinegar, without any alteration in its
quantity of matter; the essential order of its parts has alone been
modified: the brimstone, which, as we have said, was united to the
phlegm and separated from the tartar, becomes again involved and fixed
with the tartar; so that, on distilling the vinegar, there issues from
it first an insipid phlegm, and then spirits of vinegar, which are the
brimstone of wine intermixed with particles of tartar that is less
fixed. Now, the essential shifting of the aforesaid parts alters the
substance of the juice of the grapes, as is clearly shown by the varied
and contrary effects of must, wine, vinegar, and ropy or spoiled wine;
for which cause the two first are fit, but the two last unfit materials
for consecration. We have borrowed the above exposition of the economy
of wine from the able work of Nicholas Lemery, perfumer to the King of
France, _Course of Chemistry_, p. 2. c. q.


56. Datam ergo naturalem doctrinam applicando consequenter dico, quod
data dictorum animalium corporeitate subtili et tenui, sicut corpora
liquidorum, et data pariter eorumdem organizatione et figuratione,
quæ partium essentialem ordinationem exigunt, non sequerentur
inconvenientia ex adverso illata: nam sicut (quemadmodum dicebamus) ex
confusione partium vini, et diversa ipsarum accidentali positione non
variatur ordinatio earumdem essentialis, ita esset in corpore tenui
dictorum animalium.


56. If now we apply that natural doctrine to our subject, I say
that, being given the corporeity of the animals in question, subtile
and slender like the substance of liquids; being given also their
organisation and figure, which demand an essential order of the various
parts, an adverse supposition could raise no argument contrary to their
existence; for, just as the jumbling together of the parts of wine
and the diversity of their accidental dispositions do not alter their
essential order, even so it would be with the slender frame of our
animals.


57. Quinta interrogatio est, an talia obnoxia essent ægritudinibus,
ac aliis imperfectionibus, quibus homines laborant, ut ignorantia,
metu, segnitie, sensuum impedimentis, etc.? An laborando lassarentur,
et ad virium reparationem egerent somno, cibo, ac potu, et quo? et
consequenter an interirent, et subinde, an a cæteris animalibus casu,
aut ruina possent occidi?


57. Fifth question: Would those animals be subject to diseases and
other infirmities under which mankind lies, such as ignorance, fear,
idleness, sensual paralysis, etc? Would they be wearied through labour,
and require, for recruiting their strength, sleep, food, drink? And
what food, what drink? Would they be fated to die, and might they be
killed casually, or by the instrumentality of other animals?


58. Respondeo, quod ex quo corpora ipsorum, quamvis tenuia, essent
materiata, essent quidem corruptioni obnoxia; et ex consequenti possent
pati ab agentibus contrariis, et ita ægrotare, puta, aut simpliciter,
aut nisi ægre, perverse, aut vitiose præstare non posse munera, ad
quæ eorum organa essent ordinata; in hoc siquidem consistit animalium
quorumdam ægritudo quævis: ut resolutive docet præstantissimus Michael
Ettmullerus, =Physiol.= c. 5., thes. 1. Verum est, quod ex eo, quod
tantam materiæ crassitatem non haberent, et forte ex tot elementorum
mixtione eorum corpus non constaret, et minus compositum esset quam
humanum, non tam facile paterentur a contrariis, et consequenter non
tot ægritudinibus velut homines essent obnoxia, et longiorem, etiam
homine, vitam ducerent: quo enim perfectius est animal, a tota specie,
etiam cæteris diutius vivit, ut patet de specie humana, cujus vita
longior cæteris animalibus est. Nec enim admitto sæcularem vitam
cornicum, cervorum, corvorum et similium, de quibus more suo fabulatur
Plinius, et ejus somnia sine prævia discussione secuti sunt cæteri:
quandoquidem nullus est, qui talium animalium natale et interitum
fideliter adnotaverit, ut pari modo de eo scripserit; sed insolitam
diu fabulam quisque secutus est; sicut etiam illud, quod de phœnice
dicitur, quod ut quid fabulosum, circa ejus vitæ spatium recenset
Tacitus, l. 6. =Annal.= Inferendum subinde esset quod illorum animalium
vita etiam humana deberet esse diuturnior: ut enim infra dicemus, illa
essent homine nobiliora; consequenter dicendum esset, quod essent
obnoxia cæteris corporeis pathematis, et quiete, et cibo indigerent,
quale diximus supra, nº 50. Quia vero rationalia, et proinde
disciplinabilia essent, ex consequenti etiam capacia ignorantiæ, si
eorum ingenia non essent exculta studiis, et disciplina, et inter ea
pro intellectus eorum majori, et minori acumine essent aliqua magis,
aliqua minus in scientiis excellentia: universaliter vero, et a tota
specie essent homine doctiora, non ob eorum corpoream subtilitatem,
tum forte, ob majorem spirituum activitatem, tum ob diuturniorem vitæ
durationem, in qua plura, quam homines discere possent, quas causas
assignat D. Augustinus, lib. de =Divin. Dæm.= c. 3. init. tom. 3.,
et lib. de =Spir. et Anima=, c. 37., pro futurorum prænotione in
Dæmonibus. Ab agentibus autem naturalibus pati quidem possent, ac
difficulter occidi ratione velocitatis, qua possunt se subtrahere a
nocentibus; quapropter, nec a brutis, nec ab homine armis naturalibus,
seu artificialibus nisi maxima difficultate possent occidi, aut
mutilari, et maxima eorumdem velocitate in declinando contrarium
impetum. Possent vero in somno aut in non advertentia occidi, et
mutilari a corpore solido, ut ense vibrato ab homine, aut lapide
delapso per ruinam, quia eorum corpus licet tenue, tamen et quantum,
et divisibile esset, velut aer qui ferro, fuste, aut alio corpore
solido dividitur quamvis tenuis sit. Eorum autem spiritus impartibilis
esset, et ceu anima hominis totus in toto, et totus in quavis corporis
parte. Hinc fieret quod diviso corpore ipsorum, ut præfertur, per aliud
corpus, sequi posset mutilatio, et proinde etiam mors: non enim fieri
posset ut diviso corpore idem spiritus utramque partem informaret, cum
ipse indivisibilis esset. Verum est quod sicut partes aeris divisæ, per
intermedium corpus, hoc sublato iterum uniuntur, et evadit idem aer,
possent pariter partes corporis divisæ, ut supra ponitur, reuniri, et
ab eodem spiritu revivificari. Sed hoc modo nequirent talia animalia
ab agentibus naturalibus aut artificialibus occidi: sed rationabilior
esset prima positio; ex hoc enim, quod communicarent cum cæteris in
materia, æquum est, ut a cæteris etiam usque ad eorum interitum pati
possent, ut fit cum cæteris.


58. I reply: Their bodies, though subtile, being material, they would
of course be liable to decay: they might therefore suffer from adverse
agencies, and consequently be diseased; that is, their organs might
not perform, or painfully and imperfectly perform the office assigned
to them, for therein consist all diseases whatever with certain
animals, as has been distinctly explained by the most illustrious
Michael Ettmuller, _Physiology_, c. v. thesis 1. In sooth, their body
being less gross than the human frame, comprising less elements mixed
together, and being therefore less composite, they would not so easily
suffer from adverse influences, and would therefore be less liable
to disease than man; their life would also exceed his; for, the more
perfect an animal, as a species, the longer its days; thus mankind,
whose existence extends beyond that of other animals. For I do not
believe in the centenary existence of crows, stags, ravens and the
like, of which Pliny tells his customary stories; and although his
dreams have been reechoed by others without previous inquiry, it is
no less clear that before writing thus, not one has faithfully noted
the birth nor the death of those animals: they have been content with
taking up the strange fable, as has been the case with the Phenix,
whose longevity is discarded as a story by Tacitus, _Annals_, b. 6.
It were therefore to be inferred that the animals we are speaking
of would live longer still than man; for, as shall be said below,
they would be more noble than he; consequently also, they would be
subject to the other bodily affections, and require rest and food, as
mentioned, number 50. Now, as rational beings amenable to discipline,
they might also continue ignorant, if their minds did not receive
the culture of study and instruction, and some amongst them would be
more or less versed in science, more or less clever, according as
their intelligence had been more or less trained. However, generally
speaking, and considering the whole of the species, they would be more
learned than men, not from the subtilty of their body, but perhaps
because of the greater activity of their mind or the longer space of
their life, which would enable them to learn more things than men: such
are indeed the motives assigned by S. Austin (_Divin. Demon._ ch.
3. and _Spirit and Soul_, ch. 37), to the prescience of the future in
Demons. They might indeed suffer from natural agencies; but they could
hardly be killed, on account of the speed with which they could escape
from danger; it is therefore most unlikely that they could, without
the greatest difficulty, be put to death or mutilated by beast or by
man, with natural or artificial weapons, so quick would they be at
avoiding the impending blow. Yet, they might be killed or mutilated in
their sleep, or in a moment of inadvertence, by means of a solid body,
such as a sword brandished by a man, or the fall of a heavy stone; for,
although subtile, their body would be divisible, just like air which,
though vaporous, is yet divided by a sword, a club, or any other solid
body. Their spirit, however, would be indivisible, and like the human
soul, entire in the whole and in each and every part of the body.
Consequently, the division of their body by another body, as aforesaid,
might occasion mutilation and even death, for the spirit, itself
indivisible, could not animate both parts of a divided body. True, just
as the parts of air, separated by the agency of a body, unite again as
soon as that body is withdrawn, and constitute the same air as before,
even so the parts of the body divided, as above-mentioned, might unite
and be revived by the same spirit. But then, it must be inferred that
those animals could not be slain by natural or artificial agencies: and
it were more rational to keep to our first position; for, if sharing
matter with other creatures, it is natural that they should be liable
to suffer through those creatures, according to the common rule, and
even unto death.


59. Sexta interrogatio est, an ipsorum corpora possent alia corpora
penetrare, ut parietes, ligna, metalla, vitrum, etc., et an multa
ipsorum possent in eodem loco materiali consistere, et ad quantum
spatium extenderetur, seu restringeretur eorum corpus?


59. Sixth question: Could their bodies penetrate other bodies, such as
walls, wood, metals, glass, etc? Could many of them abide together on
the same material spot, and to what space would their body extend or be
restrained?


60. Respondeo, quod cum in omnibus corporibus quantumvis compactis
dentur pori, ut ad sensum patet in metallis, de quibus major esset
ratio, quod in ipsis non darentur pori: microscopio perfecte elaborato
discernuntur pori metallorum, cum suis diversis figuris, utique
possent per poros insinuari quibusvis corporibus, et hoc modo ista
penetrare, quantumvis tales pori penetrari non possent ab alio liquore,
aut spiritu materiali, aut vini, salis ammoniaci, aut similium, quia
longe tenuiora essent istis liquoribus illorum corpora. Quamvis
autem plures Angeli possint esse in eodem loco materiali, et etiam
restringi ad locum minorem minore non tamen in infinitum, ut probat
Scotus in 2. dist. 2. q. 6. =§ Ad proposi.= et quæst. 8., per totum,
hoc tamen concedendum non esset de corporibus talium animalium; tum
quia corpora ipsa essent quanta, et eorum dimensio non esset reciproce
penetrabilis; tum quia si duo corpora gloriosa non possunt esse in
eodem loco, quamvis possent simul esse gloriosum, et non gloriosum, ut
voluit Gotofredus de Fontibus, quodlibet 6. q. 5., a quo non discordat
Scotus in 2. distinct. 2. q. 8. in fine; multo minus possent simul esse
istorum corpora, quæ, licet subtilia, non tamen æquarent subtilitatem
corporis gloriosi. Quo autem ad extensionem et restrictionem dicendum
esset, quod sicut ex rarefactione, et condensatione, majus aut
minus spatium occupatur ab aere, qui etiam arte potest constringi,
ut in minori loco contineatur, quam sit suæ quantitati naturaliter
debitus, ut patet in magnis pilis lusoriis, quæ per fistulam seu tubum
inflatorium inflantur: in his siquidem aer violenter immittitur, et
constringitur, et ejus major ibi continetur quantitas, quam naturalis
pilæ capacitas exigat; ita pariformiter talia corpora ex ipsorum
naturali virtute possent ad majus spatium, non tamen excedens eorum
quantitatem, extendi: ut pariter etiam restringi, non tamen circa
determinatum locum suæ quantitati debitum. Et quia ipsorum nonnulla,
prout etiam in hominibus est, essent magna, et nonnulla parva, congruum
esset, ut magna possent plus extendi, quam parva, et hæc ad minorem
locum restringi, quam magna.


60. I reply: In all bodies, however compact, there are pores, as is
apparent in metals where, more than in other bodies, it would seem
there should be none; through a perfect microscope the pores of metals
are discerned, with their different shapes. Now, those animals might,
through the pores, creep into, and thus penetrate any other bodies,
although such pores were impervious to other liquors or material
spirits, of wine, ammoniacal salt, or the like, because their bodies
would be much more subtle than those liquors. However, notwithstanding
many Angels may abide together on the same material spot, and even
confine themselves in a lesser and lesser space, though not infinitely,
as is shown by Scott, yet it were rash to ascribe the same power to
those animals; for, their bodies are determined in substance and
impervious to each other; and if two glorious bodies cannot abide
together on the same spot, though a glorious and a non glorious one
may do so, according to some Doctors, much less would it be possible
for the bodies of those animals, which are indeed subtile, yet do not
attain to the subtility of the glorious body. As regards their power
of extension or compression, we may instance the case of air, which,
rarefied and condensed, occupies more or less room, and may even, by
artificial means, be compressed into a narrower space than would be
naturally due to its volume; as is seen with those large balls which,
for amusement, one inflates by means of a blow-pipe or tube: air, being
forced into them and compressed, is held in larger quantity than is
warranted by the capacity of the ball. Similarly the bodies of the
animals we are speaking of might, by their natural virtue, extend to
a larger space, not exceeding however their own substance; they might
also contract, but not beyond the determined space due to that same
substance. And, considering that of their number, as with men, some
would be tall and some short, it were proper that the tall should be
able to extend more than the short, and the short to contract more than
the tall.


61. Septima interrogatio est, an hujusmodi animalia in peccato
originali nascerentur, et a Christo Domino fuissent redempta; an ipsis
conferretur gratia, et per quæ sacramenta; sub qua lege viverent, et an
beatitudinis et damnationis essent capacia?


61. Seventh question: Would those animals be born in original sin,
and have been redeemed by the Lord Christ? Would the grace have been
conferred upon them and through what sacraments? Under what law would
they live, and would they be capable of beatitude and damnation?


62. Respondeo, quod articulus Fidei est, quod Christus Dominus pro
universa creatura rationali gratiam et gloriam meruit. Pariter
articulus Fidei est, quod Creaturæ rationali gloria non confertur nisi
præcedat in ea gratia, quæ est dispositio ad gloriam. Similis articulus
est quod gloria non confertur nisi per merita. Hæc vero fundantur in
observantia perfecta mandatorum Dei adimpleta per gratiam. Ex his
satis fit positis interrogationibus. Incertum est an tales Creaturæ
originaliter peccavissent, necne. Certum tamen est, quod si ipsarum
Prothoparens peccasset, sicut peccavit Adam, ipsius descendentes in
peccato originali nascerentur, quemadmodum nascuntur homines. Et
quia Deus nunquam reliquit Creaturam rationalem sine remedio, dum
ipsa est in via; si hujusmodi creaturæ in peccato originali, aut
actuali inficerentur, Deus providisset illis de remedio, sed quale
sit, an fecisset, noverit Deus, noverint ipsæ. Hoc certum est, si
inter ipsas essent eadem, aut alia sacramenta, ac sunt in Ecclesia
humana militanti, ipsa habuissent, et institutionem, et efficaciam a
meritis Jesu Christi, qui omnium creaturarum rationalium Redemptor
et Satisfactor universalis est. Convenientissimum pariter, immo
necessarium esset quod sub aliqua lege a Deo sibi data viverent, ut per
ipsius observantiam possent sibi beatitudinem mereri; quænam autem lex
fuisset, an naturalis tantum, aut scripta, Mosaica, aut Evangelica,
aut alia ab his omnibus differens, prout Deo placuisset, hoc nobis
incognitum. Quoquomodo autem fuisset, nulla resultaret repugnantia
possibilitatem talium creaturarum excludens.


62. I reply: It is an article of belief that Christ has merited grace
and glory for all rational creatures without exception. It is also an
article of belief that glory is not conferred on a rational creature
until such creature has been previously endowed with grace, which
is the disposition to glory. According to a like article, glory is
conferred but by merits. Now, those merits are grounded on the perfect
observance of the commands of God, which is accomplished through grace.
The above questions are thus solved. Whether those creatures did or did
not sin originally is uncertain. It is clear, however, that if their
first Parent had sinned as Adam sinned, his descent would be born in
original sin, as men are born. And, as God never leaves a rational
creature without a remedy, so long as it treads the way, if those
creatures were infected with original or with actual sin, God would
have provided them with a remedy; but whether it is the case, and of
what kind is the remedy, is a secret between God and them. Surely, if
they had sacraments identical with or different from those in use in
the human Church militant, for the institution and efficacy thereof
they would be indebted to the merits of Jesus-Christ, the Redeemer and
universal Atoner of all rational creatures. It would likewise be highly
proper, nay necessary, that they should live under some law given them
by God, and through the observance of which they might merit beatitude;
but what would be that law, whether merely natural or written, Mosaic
or Evangelical, or different from all these and specially instituted
by God, that we are ignorant of. Whatever it might be though, there
would follow no objection exclusive of the possible existence of such
creatures.


63. Unicum porro argumentum, et quidem satis debile post longam
meditationem mihi subit contra talium creaturarum possibilitatem:
et est quod si tales creaturæ in Mundo existerent, de ipsis notitia
aliqua tradita fuisset a Philosophis, Sacra Scriptura, Traditione
Ecclesiastica, aut Sanctis Patribus; quod cum non fuerit, tales
creaturas minime possibiles esse concludendum est.


63. The only argument, and that a rather lame one, which long
meditations has suggested to me against the possibility of such
creatures, is that, if they really existed in the World, we should
find them mentioned somewhere by Philosophers, Holy Scripture,
Ecclesiastical Tradition, or the Holy Fathers; such not being the case,
their utter impossibility should be inferred.


64. Sed hoc argumentum, quod revera magis pulsat existentiam, quam
possibilitatem illarum, facili negotio solvitur ex iis quæ præmissimus
supra nº 41. et 42. Argumentum enim ab auctoritate negativa non tenet.
Præterquam quod falsum est, quod de illis notitiam non tradiderint
tum Philosophi, tum Scriptura, tum Patres. Plato siquidem, ut refert
Apuleius =de Deo Socratis= et Plutarchus =de Isid.= apud Baronem,
=Scot. Defens.=, tom. 9. =Apparat.= p. 1. fol. 2., voluit Dæmones
esse animalia genere, animo passiva, mente rationalia, corpore aerea,
tempore æterna: creaturasque istas nomine =Dæmonum= intitulavit; quod
tamen nomen non male sonat ex se: importat enim =plenum sapientia=;
unde cum Diabolum (Angelum nempe malum) volunt auctores exprimere,
non simpliciter Dæmonem sed =Cacodæmonem= vocant: sicut =Eudæmonem=,
quando bonum Angelum volunt intelligi. Similiter in Scriptura Sacra et
Patribus, de dictis creaturis habetur mentio, et de hoc infra dicemus.


64. But that argument which, in fact, calls in question their existence
rather than their possibility, is easily disposed of by our premises,
Nrs 41 and 42; for no argument can stand in virtue of a negative
authority. Besides, it is not correct to assert that neither the
Philosophers, nor the Scriptures, nor the Fathers have handed down
any notion of them. Plato, as is reported by Apuleius (_The Demon of
Socrates_) and Plutarch (_Isis and Osiris_), declared that Demons were
beings of the animal kind, passive souls, rational intelligences,
aerial bodies, everlasting; and he gave them the name of _Demons_,
which of itself is nowise offensive, since it means _replete with
wisdom_; so that, when authors allude to the Devil (or Evil Angel),
they do not merely call him Demon, but _Cacodemon_, and say likewise
_Eudemon_, when speaking of a good Angel. Those creatures are also
mentioned in Scripture and by the Fathers, as shall be said hereafter.


65. Stabilita huc usque talium creaturarum possibilitate, ad
earumdem existentiam probandam descendamus. Supposita tot historiarum
veritate de coitu hujusmodi Incuborum et Succuborum cum hominibus et
brutis, ita ut hoc negare impudentia videatur, ut ait D. Augustinus
quem dedimus supra nº 10., ita arguo: Ubi reperitur propria passio
sensus, ibidem necessario reperitur sensus ipse, cum juxta principia
philosophica propria passio fluat a natura, sive ubi reperiuntur
actiones, seu operationes sensus, ibidem reperitur sensus ipse, cum
operationes et actiones sint a forma. Atqui in hujusmodi Incubis aut
Succubis, sunt actiones, operationes, ac propriæ passiones, quæ sunt a
sensibus; ergo in iisdem reperitur sensus: sed sensus reperiri nequit
nisi adsint organa composita, nempe ex potentia animæ et determinata
parte corporis: ergo in iisdem reperiuntur corpus et anima; erunt
igitur animalia: sed etiam in ipsis et ab ipsis sunt actiones, et
operationes animæ rationalis: ergo eorum anima erit rationalis: et ita
de primo ad ultimum tales Incubi sunt animalia rationalia.


65. Now that we have proved that those creatures are possible, let us
go a step further, and show that they exist. Taking for granted the
truth of the recitals concerning the intercourse of Incubi and Succubi
with men and beasts, recitals so numerous that it would look like
impudence to deny the fact, as is said by St Austin, whose testimony
is given above (Nr 10), I argue: Where the peculiar passion of the
sense is found, there also, of necessity, is the sense itself; for,
according to the principles of philosophy, the peculiar passion flows
from nature, that is to say; that, where the acts and operations of
the sense are found, there also is the sense, the operations and acts
being but its external form. Now, those Incubi and Succubi present
acts, operations, peculiar passions, which spring from the senses; they
are therefore endowed with senses. But senses cannot exist without
concomitant composite organs, without a combination of soul and body.
Incubi and Succubi have therefore body and soul, and, consequentially,
are animals; but their acts and operations are also those of a rational
soul; their soul is therefore rational; and thus, from first to last,
they are rational animals.


66. Minor probatur quoad singulas ejus partes. Passio siquidem
appetitiva coitus est passio sensus; mœror, ac tristitia, ac iracundia
et furor ex coitu denegato passiones sensus sunt, ut patet in quibusvis
animalibus; generatio per coitum est operatio sensus, ut notum est.
Hæc porro omnia in Incubis sunt: ut enim probavimus supra a nº 25. et
seq., ipsi coitum muliebrem, et quandoque virilem appetunt, tristantur,
et furunt, ut amantes, amentes, si ipsis denegetur; coeunt perfecte et
quandoque generant. Concludendum ergo quod polleant sensu, et proinde
corpore; unde inferendum etiam perfecta animalia esse. Pariter clausis
ostiis ac fenestris intrant ubivis locorum: igitur ipsorum corpus
tenue est; item futura prænoscunt, annuntiant, componunt, ac dividunt;
quæ operationes sunt propriæ animæ rationalis: ergo anima rationali
pollent; et ita sunt vera animalia rationalia.

Respondent communiter Doctores, quod malus Dæmon est ille qui tales
impudicitias operatur, quod passiones, nempe amorem, tristitiamque
simulat ex coitu denegato, ut animas ad peccandum alliciat, et eas
perdat; et si coit, et generat, hoc est ex semine, et in corpore
alieno, ut dictum fuit supra nº 24.


66. Our minor is easy of demonstration in each of its parts. And
indeed, the appetitive passion of coition is a sensual passion; the
grief, sadness, wrath, rage, occasioned by the denial of coition, are
sensual passions, as is seen with all animals; generation through
coition is evidently a sensual operation. Now, all that happens with
Incubi, as has been shown above: they incite women, sometimes even men;
if denied, they sadden and storm, like lovers: _amantes, amentes_; they
perfectly practice coition, and sometimes beget. It must therefore be
inferred that they have senses, and consequently a body; consequently
also, that they are perfect animals. More than that: with closed doors
and windows they enter wherever they please: their body is therefore
slender; they foreknow and foretell the future, compose and divide, all
which operations are proper to a rational soul; they therefore possess
a rational soul and are, in sooth, rational animals.

Doctors generally retort that it is the Evil Spirit that perpetrates
those impure acts, simulates passions, love, grief at the denial of
coition, in order to entice souls to sin and to undo them; and that,
if he copulates and begets, it is with assumed sperm and body, as
aforesaid (Nr 24).


67. Sed contra Incubi nonnulli rem habent cum equis, equabus,
aliisque etiam brutis, quæ si coitum adversentur, male ab ipsis
tractantur, ut quotidiana constat experientia; sed in istis cessat
ratio adducta, nempe quod fingat appetitum coitus, ut animas perdat,
cum anima brutorum damnationis æternæ sit incapax. Præterea amoris et
iræ passiones in ipso contrarios effectus reales producunt. Si enim
aut mulier aut brutum amatum illis morem gerant, optime ab Incubis
tractantur; viceversa pessime habentur, si ex denegato coitu irascantur
et furant; et hoc firmatur quotidiana experientia; ergo in ipsis sunt
veræ passiones sensus. Insuper mali Dæmones, ac incorporei, qui rem
habent cum Sagis et Maleficis, ipsas cogunt ad eorum adorationem,
ad denegandam Fidem Orthodoxam, ad maleficia et scelera enormia
perpetranda tanquam pensum infamis coitus, ut supra nº 11. dictum
fuit: nihil horum prætendunt Incubi, ergo mali Dæmones non sunt.
Ulterius malus Dæmon, ut ex Peltano et Thyreo scribit Guaccius,
=Compend. Malef.= lib. 1. c. 19. fol. 128., ad prolationem nominis Jesu
aut Mariæ, ad formationem signi Crucis, ad approximationem sacrarum
Reliquiarum, sive rerum benedictarum, et ad exorcismos, adjurationes,
aut præcepta sacerdotum, aut fugit aut pavet, concutiturque, et
stridet, ut conspicitur quotidie in energumenis, et constat ex
tot historiis, quas recitat Guaccius, ex quibus habetur, quod in
nocturnis ludis Sagarum facto ab aliquo assistentium signo Crucis, aut
pronuntiato nomine Jesu, Diaboli et secum Sagæ omnes disparuerunt.
Sed Incubi ad supradicta nec fugiunt, nec pavent, quandoque cachinnis
exorcismos excipiunt, et quandoque ipsos Exorcistas cædunt, et sacras
vestes discerpunt. Quod si mali Dæmones, utpote a D. N. J. C. domiti,
ad ipsius nomen, Crucem, et res sacras pavent: boni autem Angeli
eisdem rebus gaudent, non tamen homines ad peccata et Dei offensam
sollicitant: Incubi vero sacra non timent, et ad peccata provocant,
convincitur ipsos nec malos Dæmones, nec bonos Angelos esse; sed patet,
quod nec homines sunt, cum tamen ratione utantur. Quid ergo erunt? Si
in termino sunt, et simplices spiritus sunt, erunt aut damnati aut
beati: non enim in bona Theologia dantur puri spiritus viatores. Si
damnati, nomen et Crucem Christi revererentur; si beati, homines ad
peccandum non provocarent; ergo aliud erunt a puris spiritus; et sic
erunt corporati, et viatores.


67. But then, there are Incubi that have to do with horses, mares and
other beasts, and, as shown by every day experience, ill-treat them if
rebel to coition; yet, in those cases, it can no longer be adduced
that the Demon simulates the appetite for coition in order to bring
about the ruin of souls, since those of beasts are not capable of
everlasting damnation. Besides, love and wrath with them are productive
of quite opposite effects. For, if the loved woman or beast humours
them, those Incubi behave very well; on the contrary, they use them
most savagely when irritated and enraged by a denial of coition: this
is amply proved by daily experience: those Incubi therefore have
truly sexual passions. Besides, the Evil Spirits, the incorporeal
Demons which have to do with Sorceresses and Witches, constrain them
to Demon-Worship, to the abjuration of the Orthodox Faith, to the
commission of enchantments and foul crimes, as preliminary conditions
to the infamous intercourse, as has been above-stated (Nr 11); now,
Incubi pretend to nothing of the kind: they are therefore no Evil
Spirits. Lastly, as written by Guaccius, at the mere utterance of the
name of Jesus or Mary, at the sign of the Cross, the approach of Holy
Relics or consecrated objects, at exorcisms, adjurations or priestly
injunctions, the Evil Demon either shudders and takes to flight, or
is agitated and howls, as is daily seen with energumens and is shown
by numerous narratives of Guaccius concerning the nightly revels of
Witches, where, at a sign of the Cross or the name of Jesus said by
one of the assistants, Devils and Witches all vanish together. Incubi,
on the contrary, stand all those ordeals without taking to flight or
showing the least fear; sometimes even they laugh at exorcisms, strike
the Exorcists themselves, and rend the sacred vestments. Now, if the
evil Demons, subdued by our Lord Jesus-Christ, are stricken with fear
by his name, the Cross and the holy things; if, on the other hand, the
good Angels rejoice at those same things, without however inciting men
to sin nor to give offense to God, whilst the Incubi, without having
any dread of the holy things, provoke to sin, it is clear that they are
neither evil Demons nor good Angels; but it is clear also that they
are not men, though endowed with reason. What then should they be?
Supposing them to have reached the goal, and to be pure spirits, they
would be damned or blessed, for correct Theology does not admit of pure
spirits on the way to salvation. If damned, they would revere the name
and the Cross of Christ; if blessed, they would not incite men to sin;
they would therefore be different from pure spirits, and thus, have a
body and be on the way to salvation.


68. Præterea agens materiale non potest agere nisi in passum similiter
materiale; tritum siquidem est axioma philosophorum, quod agens et
patiens debent communicare in subjecto; nec id quod materiatum est,
potest agere in rem pure spiritualem. Dantur autem agentia naturalia,
quæ agunt contra hujusmodi Dæmones Incubos, sequitur igitur quod isti
materiati, seu corporei sunt. Minor probatur ex iis quæ scribunt
Dioscorides, l. 2. c. 168. et l. 1. c. 100., Plinius, lib. 15. c. 4.,
Aristoteles, =Probl. 34.=, et Apuleius, =l. De Virtute Herbarum=,
apud Guaccium, =Comp. Malef.=, l. 3. c. 13. fol. 316., et confirmatur
experientia, nempe de pluribus herbis, lapidibus ac animalibus, quæ
Dæmones depellunt, ut ruta, hypericon, verbena, scordium, palma
Christi, centaureum, adamas, corallium, gagates, jaspis, pellis capitis
lupi aut asini, menstruum muliebre, et centum alia; unde habetur 26, q.
7. cap. final.: =Dæmonium sustinenti liceat petras, vel herbas habere
sine incantatione=. Ex quo habetur, petras aut herbas posse sua vi
naturali Dæmonis vires compescere, aliter Canon hoc non permitteret,
sed ut superstitiosum vetaret. Et de hoc luculentum exemplum habemus in
Sacra Scriptura, ubi Angelus Raphael dixit Tobiæ, c. 6, v. 8.: =Cordis
ejus= (nempe piscis, quem a Tigri attraxerat) =particulam, si super
carbones ponas, fumus ejus extricat omne genus Dæmoniorum=. Et ejus
virtutem experientia comprobavit: nam incenso jecore piscis, fugatus
est Incubus, qui Saram deperiebat.


68. Besides, a material agent cannot act but on an equally material
passive. It is indeed a trite philosophical axiom, that agent and
patient must have a common subject: pure matter cannot act on any
purely spiritual thing. Now, there are natural agents which act on
those Incubi Demons: these are therefore material or corporeal. Our
minor is proved by the testimony of Dioscorides, Pliny, Aristoteles and
Apuleius, quoted by Guaccius, _Comp. Malef._ b. 3, ch. 13, fol. 316;
it is confirmed by our knowledge of numerous herbs, stones and animal
substances which have the virtue of driving away Demons, such as rue,
St-John’s wort, verbena, germander, palma Christi, centaury, diamonds,
coral, jet, jasper, the skin of the head of a wolf or an ass, women’s
catamenia, and a hundred others: wherefore it is written: _For such as
are assaulted by the Demon it is lawful to have stones or herbs, but
without recourse to incantations_. It follows that, by their own native
virtue, stones or herbs can bridle the Demon: else the above mentioned
Canon would not permit their use, but would on the contrary forbid
it as superstitious. We have a striking instance thereof in Holy
Scripture, where the Angel Raphael says to Tobit, ch. 6, v. 8, speaking
of the fish which he had drawn from the Tigris: “_If thou puttest on
coals a particle of its liver, the smoke thereof will drive away all
kinds of Demons._” Experience demonstrated the truth of those
words; for, no sooner was the liver of the fish set on fire, than the
Incubus who was in love with Sarah was put to flight.


69. Respondent ad hæc communiter Theologi, quod talia agentia naturalia
inchoative tantum fugant Dæmonem, completive autem vis supernaturalis
Dei aut Angeli, ita ut virtus supernaturalis sit causa primaria,
directa, et principalis, naturalis autem secondaria, indirecta,
et minus principalis. Unde ad probationem, quæ supra adducta est
de Dæmone fugato a fumo jecoris piscis incensi a Tobia, respondet
Vallesius, =De Sac. Philosoph.=, c. 28., quod tali fumo indita fuit a
Deo vis supernaturalis fugandi Incubum, sicut igni materiali Inferni
data est virtus torquendi Dæmones et animas Damnatorum. Ad eamdem
autem probationem respondet Lyranus, et Cornelius ad c. 6. Tob. v.
8., Abulentis in 1. Reg. c. 16. q. 46., Pererius in =Daniel.=, pag.
272., apud Cornel. =loc. cit.=, fumum cordis piscis expulisse Dæmonem
inchoate vi naturali, sed complete vi angelica et cœlesti: naturali
autem impediendo actionem Dæmonis per dispositionem contrariam, quia
hic agit per naturales causas et humores, quorum qualitates expugnantur
a qualitatibus contrariis rerum naturalium, quæ dicuntur Dæmones
fugare; et in eadem sententia sunt omnes loquentes de arte exorcista.


69. To this Theologians usually retort that such natural agents merely
initiate the ejection of the Demon, and that the completive effect
is due to the supernatural force of God or of the Angel; so that the
supernatural force is the primary, direct and principal cause, the
natural force being but secondary, indirect and subordinate. Thus, in
order to explain how the liver of the fish burnt by Tobit drove away
the Demon, Vallesius asserts that the smoke thereof had been endowed by
God with the supernatural power of expelling the Incubus, in the same
manner as the material fire of Hell has the virtue of tormenting Demons
and the souls of the Damned. Others, such as Lyranus and Cornelius,
profess that the smoke of the heart of the fish initiated the ejection
of the Demon by native virtue, but completed it by angelical and
heavenly virtue: by native virtue, insomuch that it opposed a contrary
action to that of the Demon; for the Evil Spirit applies native causes
and humours, the native qualities of which are combated by the contrary
qualities of natural things known to be capable of driving away Demons;
that opinion is shared by all those who treat of the art of exorcisms.


70. Sed hæc responsio, que tamen validas habet instantias, ad plus
quadrare potest contra malos Dæmones obsidentes corpora, aut per
maleficia inferentes ipsis ægritudines, aut alia incommoda, sed
nullo modo facit ad propositum de Incubis: siquidem isti nec corpora
obsident, nec ipsis officiunt per ægritudines habituales, sed ad plus
ictibus et percussionibus torquent. Quod si equas coitum adversantes
macras reddunt, hoc faciunt subducendo illis cibum, et hoc modo
macrescere, et tandem interire eas faciunt. Ad hæc autem patranda
non eget Incubus alicujus rei naturalis applicatione (qua tamen eget
malus Dæmon inferens agritudinem habitualem), ea enim potest ex sua
vi organica naturali. Pariter Dæmon malus plerumque obsidet corpora,
et infert ægritudines ad signa cum ipso conventa et posita a Saga aut
Malefico, quæ signa multoties res naturales sunt præditæ vi nativa
nocendi, quibus naturaliter resistunt alia pariter naturalia contrariæ
virtutis. Incubus vero non sic; quia ex se, et nulla concurrente aut
Saga, aut Malefico, suas vexationes infert. Præterea res naturales
fugantes Incubos suam virtutem exercent, ac effectum sortiuntur absque
interventu alicujus exorcismi aut sacræ benedictionis; ut proinde
dici non possit, quod fuga Incubi inchoative sit a virtute naturali,
completive autem a vi divina, quia ibi nulla particularis intervenit
divini nominis invocatio, sed est purus effectus rei naturalis, ad quem
non concurrit Deus, nisi concursu universali, tanquam auctor naturæ, et
causa universalis, et prima in ordine efficientium.


70. But that explanation, however plausible the facts upon which it
rests, can at most be received as regards the Evil Spirits which
possess bodies or, through malefice, infect them with diseases or other
infirmities; it does not at all meet the case of Incubi. For, these
neither possess bodies nor infect them with diseases; they, at most,
molest them by blows and ill-treatment. If they cause the mares to grow
lean because of their not yielding to coition, it is merely by taking
away their provender, in consequence of which they fall off and finally
die. To that purpose the Incubus need not use a natural agent, as the
Evil Spirit does when imparting a disease: it is enough that it should
exert its own native organic force. Likewise, when the Evil Spirit
possesses bodies and infects them with diseases, it is most frequently
through signs agreed upon with himself, and arranged by a witch or a
wizard, which signs are usually natural objects, indued with their own
noxious virtue, and of course opposed by other equally natural objects
endowed with a contrary virtue. But not so the Incubus: it is of his
own accord, and without the cooperation of either witch or wizard, that
he inflicts his molestations. Besides, the natural things which put the
Incubi to flight exert their virtue and bring about a result without
the intervention of any exorcism or blessing; it cannot therefore be
said that the ejection of the Incubus is initiated by natural, and
completed by divine virtue, since there is in this case no particular
invocation of the divine name, but the mere effect of a natural object,
in which God cooperates only as the universal agent, the author of
nature, the first of efficient causes.


71. Duas circa hoc historias do, quarum primam habui a Confessario
Monialium, viro gravi, ac fide dignissimo. Alterius vero sum testis
oculatus.

In quodam Sanctimonalium monasterio degebat ad educationem Virgo
quædam nobilis tentata ab Incubo, qui diu noctuque ipsi apparebat,
ipsam ad coitum sollicitando eniximis precibus, tamquam amasius præ
amore dementatus; ipsa tamen semper restitit tentanti gratia Dei, ac
sacramentorum frequentia roborata. Incassum abiere plures devotiones,
jejunia et vota facta a puella vexata, exorcismi, benedictiones, et
præecepta ab exorcistis facta Incubo, ut desisteret a molestia illa;
nec quidquam proficiebatur multitudo reliquiarum, aliarumque rerum
benedictarum disposita in camera virginis tentatæ, nec benedictæ
candelæ noctu ibidem ardentes impediebant, quominus juxta consuetum
appareret ad tentandum in forma speciosissimi juvenis. Consultus
inter alios viros doctos fuit quidam Theologus magnæ eruditionis:
iste advertens virginem tentatam esse temperamenti phlegmatici
a toto, conjectavit Incubum esse dæmonem aqueum (dantur enim ut
scribit Guaccius, =Comp. Malefic.= l. 1. c. 19. fol. 129., Dæmones
ignei, aerei, phlegmatici, terrei, subterranei, et lucifugi), et
consului, quod in camera virginis tentatæ continue fieret suffimentum
vaporosum sequens. Requirunt ollam novam figulinam vitreatam; in hac
ponitur calami aromatici, cubebarum seminis, aristolochiæ utriusque
radicum, cardamomi majoris et minoris, gingiberis, piperis longi,
caryophyllorum, cinnamomi, canellæ caryophyllatæ, macis, nucum
myristicarum, styracis calamitæ, benzoini, ligni ac radicis rodiæ,
ligni aloes, triasantalorum una uncia, semiaquæ vitæ libræ tres;
ponitur olla supra cineres calidas ut vapor suffimenti ascendat, et
cella clausa tenetur. Facto suffimento advenit denuo Incubus, sed
ingredi cellam nunquam ausus est: sed si tentata extra eam ibat, et
per viridarium ac claustra spatiabatur, aliis invisibilis sibi visus
apparebat Incubus, et puellæ collo injectis brachiis violenter, ac
quasi furtive oscula rapiebat: quod molestissimum honestæ virgini erat.
Consultus denuo Theologus ille ordinavit puellæ, ut deferret pixidulas
unguentarias exquisitorum odorum, ut moschi, ambræ, zibetti, balsami
Peruviani, ac aliorum compositorum; quod cum fecisset, deambulanti per
viridarium puellæ apparuit Incubus faci minaci, ac furenti; non tamen
ad illam approximavit, sed digitum sibi momordit tanquam meditans
vindictam; tandem disparuit, nec amplius ab ea visus fuit.


71. To illustrate this subject, I give two stories, the first of which
I have from a Confessor of Nuns, a man of weight, and most worthy of
credit; the second I was eye-witness to.

In a certain monastery of holy Nuns there lived, as a boarder, a young
maiden of noble birth, who was tempted by an Incubus that appeared to
her by day and by night, and with the most earnest entreaties, the
manners of a most passionate lover, incessantly incited her to sin;
but she, supported by the grace of God and the frequent use of the
sacraments, stoutly resisted the temptation. But, all her devotions,
fasts and vows notwithstanding, despite the exorcisms, the blessings,
the injunctions showered by exorcists on the Incubus that he should
desist from molesting her; in spite of the crowd of relics and other
holy objects collected in the maiden’s room, of the lighted candles
kept burning there all night, the Incubus none the less persisted in
appearing to her as usual, in the shape of a very handsome young man.
At last, among other learned men, whose advice had been taken on the
subject, was a very erudite Theologian who, observing that the maiden
was of a thoroughly phlegmatic temperament, surmised that that Incubus
was an aqueous Demon (there are in fact, as is testified by Guaccius,
igneous, aerial, phlegmatic, earthly, subterranean demons who avoid the
light of day), and prescribed an uninterrupted fumigation in the room.
A new vessel, made of glass-like earth, was accordingly brought in,
and filled with sweet cane, cubeb seed, roots of both aristolochies,
great and small cardamon, ginger, long-pepper, caryophylleæ, cinnamon,
cloves, mace, nutmegs, calamite storax, benzoin, aloes-wood and
roots, one ounce of triasandalis, and three pounds of half brandy
and water; the vessel was then set on hot ashes in order to force up
the fumigating vapour, and the cell was kept closed. As soon as the
fumigation was done, the Incubus came, but never dared enter the cell;
only, if the maiden left it for a walk in the garden or the cloister,
he appeared to her, though invisible to others and throwing his arms
round her neck, stole or rather snatched kisses from her, to her
intense disgust. At last, after a new consultation, the Theologian
prescribed that she should carry about her person pills made of the
most exquisite perfumes, such as musk, amber, chive, Peruvian balsam,
and others. Thus provided, she went for a walk in the garden, where
the Incubus suddenly appeared to her with a threatening face, and in a
rage. He did not approach her, however, but, after biting his finger as
if meditating revenge, disappeared and was never more seen by her.


72. Alia historia est, quod in Conventu Magnæ Cartusiæ Ticinensis,
fuit quidam Diaconus, nomine dictus Augustinus, maximas, ac inauditas,
et pene incredibiles sustinens a quodam Dæmone vexationes; quæ tolli
nullo remedio spirituali (quamvis plura juxta plures exorcistas, qui
liberationem, sed incassum tentarunt, fuissent adhibita) potuerunt.
Me consuluit illius Conventus vicarius, qui curam divexati, utpote
Clerici, ex officio habebat. Ego videns frustranea fuisse consueta
exorcismorum remedia, exemplo historiæ suprarecensitæ consului
suffimentum simile superiori, utque divexatus pixidulas odoramentorum
supradictas deferret; et quia tabacchi usum habebat, et aqua vitæ
delectabatur, suasi ut et tabaccho et aqua vitæ moschata uteretur.
Dæmon illi apparebat diu noctuque ultra alias species, puta scheleti,
suis, asini, Angeli, avis, modo in forma unius, modo alterius ex suis
Religiosis, et semel in forma sui Prælati, nempe Prioris, qui hortatus
est vexatum ad puritatem conscientiæ, ad confidentiam in Deum, et ad
frequentiam confessionis; suasit ut sibi sacramentalem confessionem
faceret, quod etiam fecit; et expost Psalmos =Exsurgat Deus= et =Qui
habitat=, et mox Evangelium S. Joannis simul cum vexato recitavit, et
ad ea verba =Verbum caro factum est= genuflexit, et accepta stola,
quæ in cella erat, et aspergillo aquæ benedictæ benedixit cellæ, ac
lecto vexati, et ac si revera fuisset ipsius Prior præceptum fecit
Dæmoni, ne auderet illum suum subditum amplius divexare, et post hæc
disparuit, sicque prodidit quisnam esset: aliter vexatus illum suum
Prælatum esse reputaverat. Postquam igitur suffimentum, ac odores,
ut supra dictum est, consulueram, non destitit Dæmon juxta solitum
apparere; imo assumpta figura vexati fuit ad cameram Vicarii, et ab
eo petiit aquam vitæ, ac tabaccum moschatum, dicens sibi talia valde
placere. Vicarius utrumque illi dedit: quibus acceptis disparuit in
momento, quo facto cognovit Vicarius se fuisse illusum a Dæmone tali
pacto: quod magis confirmavit assertum vexati, qui cum juramento
affirmavit, se illa die nullo modo fuisse in cella Vicarii. Iste mihi
totum retulit, et ex tali facto conjeci Dæmonem illum non fuisse
aqueum, ut erat Incubus, qui virginem ad coitum sollicitabat, ut
dictum supra est, sed igneum, vel ad minus aereum, ex quo gaudebat
vaporibus, ac odoribus, tabacco, et aqua vitæ, quæ calida sunt. Et
conjecturæ vim addidit temperamentum divexati, quod erat colericum quo
ad prædominium cum subdominio, tamen sanguineo. Dæmones enim tales non
accedunt nisi ad eos, qui secum in temperamento symbolizant; ex quo
validatur opinio mea de illorum corporeitate. Unde suasi Vicario, ut
acciperet herbas natura frigidas, ut nymphæam, hepaticam, portulacam,
mandragoram, sempervivam, plantaginem, hyoscyamum, et alias similes, et
ex iis compositum fasciculum fenestræ, alium ostio cellæ suspenderet;
similibusque herbis, tum cameram, tum lectum divexati sterneret. Mirum
dictu! comparuit denuo Dæmon, manens tamen extra cameram, nec ingredi
voluit, et cum divexatus illum interrogasset, quare de more intrare
non auderet, multis verbis injuriosis jactatis contra me, qui talia
consulueram, disparuit, nec amplius reversus est.


72. Here is the other story. In the great Carthusian Friary of Pavia
there lived a Deacon, Austin by name, who was subjected by a certain
Demon to excessive, unheard of and scarcely credible vexations;
although many exorcists had made repeated endeavours to secure his
riddance, all spiritual remedies had proved unavailing. I was consulted
by the Vicar of the convent, who had the cure of the poor clerk.
Seeing the inefficacy of all customary exorcisms, and remembering the
above-related instance, I advised a fumigation like unto the one that
has been detailed, and prescribed that the Deacon should carry about
his person fragrant pills of the same kind; moreover, as he was in the
habit of using tobacco, and was very fond of brandy, I advised tobacco
and brandy perfumed with musk. The Demon appeared to him by day and by
night, under various shapes, as a skeleton, a pig, an ass, an Angel,
a bird; with the figure of one or other of the Friars, once even with
that of his own Abbot or Prior, exhorting him to keep his conscience
clean, to trust in God, to confess frequently; he persuaded him to
let him hear his sacramental confession, recited with him the psalms
_Exsurgat Deus_ and _Qui habitat_, and the Gospel according to St John:
and when they came to the words _Verbum caro factum est_, he bent his
knee, and taking hold of a stole which was in the cell, and of the
Holy-water sprinkle, he blessed the cell and the bed, and, as if he had
really been the Prior, enjoined on the Demon not to venture in future
to molest his subordinate; he then disappeared, thus betraying what
he was, for otherwise the young deacon had taken him for his Prior.
Now, notwithstanding the fumigations and perfumes I had prescribed,
the Demon did not desist from his wonted apparitions; more than that,
assuming the features of his victim, he went to the Vicar’s room, and
asked for some tobacco and brandy perfumed with musk, of which, said
he, he was extremely fond. Having received both, he disappeared in the
twinkling of an eye, thus showing the Vicar that he had been played
with by the Demon; and this was amply confirmed by the Deacon, who
affirmed upon his oath that he had not gone that day to the Vicar’s
cell. All that having been related to me, I inferred that, far from
being aqueous like the Incubus who was in love with the maiden above
spoken of, this Demon was igneous, or, at the very least, aerial, since
he delighted in hot substances such as vapours, perfumes, tobacco
and brandy. Force was added to my surmises by the temperament of the
young deacon, which was choleric and sanguine, choler predominating
however; for, those Demons never approach but those whose temperament
tallies with their own: another confirmation of my sentiment regarding
their corporeity. I therefore advised the Vicar to let his penitent
take herbs that are cold by nature, such as water-lily, liver-wort,
spurge, mandrake, house-leek, plantain, henbane, and others similar,
make two little bundles of them and hang them up, one at his window,
the other at the door of his cell, taking care to strow some also on
the floor and on the bed. Marvellous to say! The Demon appeared again,
but remained outside the room, which he would not enter; and, on the
Deacon inquiring of him his motives for such unwonted reserve, he burst
out into invectives against me for giving such advice, disappeared, and
never came again.


73. Ex his duabus historiis apparet tales odores, et herbas respective
sua naturali virtute, nullaque interveniente vi supernaturali Dæmones
propulisse; unde convincitur quod Incubi patiuntur a qualitatibus
materialibus, ut proinde concludi debeat, quod communicant in materia
cum iis rebus naturalibus, a quibus fugantur, et ex consequenti corpore
sint præditi, quod est intentum.


73. The two stories I have related make it clear that, by their
native virtue alone, perfumes and herbs drove away Demons without the
intervention of any supernatural force; Incubi are therefore subject to
material conditions, and it must be inferred that they participate of
the matter of the natural objects which have the power of putting them
to flight, and consequently they have a body; that is what was to be
shown.


74. Et magis conclusio firmatur, si impugnetur sententia Doctorum
supracitatorum, dicentium, Incubum abactum a Sara fuisse vi Angeli
Raphaelis, non vero jecoris piscis callionymi, qualis fuit piscis a
Tobia apprehensus ad ripam Tigris, ut cum Vallesio, =Sacr. Philos.=, c.
42., scribit Cornelius a Lap. =in Tob.= c. 6. v. 2., =§ Quarto ergo=:
salva enim tantorum Doctorum reverentia, talis expositio manifeste
adversatur sensui patenti Textus, a quo nullo modo recedendum est
dummodo non sequantur absurda. En verba Angeli ad Tobiam: “=Cordis ejus
particulam, si super carbones ponas, fumus ejus extricat omne genus
Dæmoniorum, sive a viro, sive a muliere, ita ut ultra non accedant ad
eos, et fel valet ad unguendos oculos, in quibus fuerit albugo, et
sanabuntur=.” (=Tob.=, c. 6. v. 8. et 9.) Notetur, quæso, assertio
Angeli absoluta, et universalis de virtute cordis, seu jecoris, et
fellis illius piscis: non enim dicit: =Si pones particulas cordis
ejus super carbones, fugabis omne genus Dæmoniorum, et si felle unges
oculos, in quibus fuerit albugo, sanabuntur=: si enim ita dixisset,
congrua esset expositio, quod nempe Raphael supernaturali sua virtute
illos effectus patrasset, ad quos perficiendos inepta esset applicatio
fumi, et fellis: sed non ita loquitur, sed ait talem esse virtutem
fumi, et fellis absolute.


74. But, the better to establish our conclusion, it behoves to impugn
the mistake into which have fallen the Doctors above-quoted, such as
Vallesius and Cornelius a Lapide, when they say that Sarah was rid from
the Incubus by the virtue of the Angel Raphael, and not by that of the
callionymous fish caught by Tobit on the banks of the Tigris. Indeed,
saving the reverence due to such great doctors, such a construction
manifestly clashes with the clear meaning of the Text, from which it
is never justifiable to deviate, so long as it does not lead to absurd
consequences. Here are the words spoken by the Angel to Tobias: “_If
thou puttest on coals a particle of its heart, the smoke thereof will
expel all kinds of Demons, whether from man or woman, so that they
shall never return, and its gall is good for anointing eyes that have
whiteness, and healing them._” (Tobit, c. 6, v. 8 and 9). Pray notice
that the Angel’s assertion respecting the virtue of the heart or liver
and gall of that fish is absolute, universal; for, he does not say:
“_If thou puttest on coals particles of its heart, thou wilt put to
flight all kinds of Demons, and if thou anointest with its gall eyes
that have a whiteness, they shall be healed._” If he had thus spoken,
I could agree with the construction that Raphael had brought about, by
his own supernatural virtue, the effects which the mere application of
the smoke and the gall might not have sufficed to produce: but he does
not speak thus, and, on the contrary, says absolutely, that such is the
virtue of the smoke and the gall.


75. Quæro modo, an Angelus veritatem puram dixerit de virtute rerum, an
mentiri potuerit; pariter an albugo ab oculis Tobiæ senioris ablata sit
vi naturali fellis piscis, aut virtute supernaturali Angeli Raphaelis?
Angelum mentiri potuisse blasphemia hæreticalis est; sequitur igitur
puram veritatem fuisse ab eo assertam; talis autem non esset, si omne
genus Dæmoniorum non extricaretur a fumo jecoris piscis nisi addita
vi supernaturali Angeli, maxime, si hæc esset causa principalis talis
effectus, quemadmodum scribunt de hoc casu Doctores. Mentiretur absque
dubio medicus qui diceret: talis herba curat taliter pleuritidem,
sive epilepsiam, ut amplius non revertatur: si herba illa non curaret
illas ægritudines nisi inchoate, et perfecta illarum sanatio esset
ab alia herba conjuncta priori; sic pari modo mentitus fuisset
Raphael, asserens fumum jecoris extricare omne genus Dæmoniorum ita
ut ultra non accedant, si talis effectus esset a fumo solum inchoate,
principaliter vero, et perfecte a virtute Angeli. Præterea talis fuga
Dæmonis, vel secutura erat universaliter, et semper posito jecore
piscis super carbones a quoquam, vel debebat sequi in illo solummodo
casu particulari, jecore incusso a juniore Tobia. Si primum, ergo
oportet, quod cuicumque talem fumum per accensionem jecoris paranti,
assistat Angelus qui supernaturali virtute Dæmonem miraculose abigat
regulariter; et hoc est absurdum; ad positionem enim rei naturalis
deberet regulariter sequi miraculum, quod est incongruum, et si absque
Angeli operatione fuga Dæmonis non sequeretur, mentitus fuisset Raphael
asserens eam esse virtutem jecoris. Si autem effectus ille sequi
non debeat, nisi in illo casu particulari, mentitus fuisset Angelus
enuncians universaliter virtutem piscis, in fugando omni Dæmoniorum
genere, quod non est dicendum.


75. It may be asked whether the Angel spoke the precise truth regarding
the virtue of those things, or whether he might have lied; and
likewise, whether the whiteness was withdrawn from the eyes of the
elder Tobit by the native force of the gall of the fish, or by the
supernatural virtue of the Angel Raphael? To say that the Angel could
have lied would be an heretical blasphemy; he therefore spoke the
precise truth; but it would no longer be so if all kinds of Demons were
not expelled by the smoke of the liver of the fish, unless aided by the
supernatural force of the Angel, and especially, if such aid was the
principal cause of the effect produced, as the Doctors assert in the
present case. It would doubtless be a lie if a physician should say:
such an herb radically cures pleurisy or epilepsy, and if it should
only begin the cure, the completion of which required the addition of
another herb to the one first used; in the same manner, Raphael would
have lied when averring that the smoke of the liver expelled all kinds
of demons, so that they should not return, if that result had been only
begun by the smoke, and its completion had been principally due to the
virtue of the Angel. Besides, that flight of the demon was either to
take place universally and by any one whomsoever putting the liver of
the fish on the coals, or else it was only to occur in that particular
case, the younger Tobit putting the liver on. In the first hypothesis,
any person making that smoke by burning the liver should be assisted by
an Angel, who, through his supernatural virtue should expel the Demons
miraculously and regularly at the same time; which is absurd; for,
either words have no meaning, or a natural fact cannot be regularly
followed by a miracle; and, if the Demon was not put to flight without
the assistance of the Angel, Raphael would have lied when ascribing
that virtue to the liver. If, on the contrary, that effect was only to
be brought about in that particular case, Raphael would again have lied
when assigning to that fish, universally and absolutely, the virtue of
expelling the Demon: now, to say that the Angel lied is not possible.


76. Ulterius albugo oculorum detracta est ab oculis Tobiæ senioris,
et ipsius cæcitas sanata est a virtute naturali fellis piscis illius,
ut Doctores affirmant (Liran. Dyonisius; et Seraci. =apud Cornel. in
Tobi.=, c. 6. v. 9). Piscis enim Callionymus, qui vocatur Italice
=bocca in capo=, et quo usus est Tobias, fel habet pro celeberrimo
remedio ad detegendas albugines oculorum, ut scribunt concorditer
Dioscorides, l. 1. c. 96., Galenus, =De Simpl. Medicam.=, Plinius, l.
32. c. 7., Aclanius, =De Ver. Histor.=, l. 13. c. 14., et Vallesius,
=De Sacr. Philos.=, c. 47. Textus Græcus =Tobiæ=, c. 11. v. 13., habet:
“=Inspersit fel super oculos patris sui, dicens: Confide, Pater; ut
autem erosi sunt, detrivit oculos suos, et disquamatæ sunt ab angulis
oculorum albugines=.” Cum igitur eodem contextu Angelus aperuerit
Tobiæ virtutem jecoris, et fellis piscis, et hoc sua naturali virtute
cæcitatem Tobiæ senioris curaverit, concludendum est, quod etiam
fumus jecoris sua naturali vi Incubum fugaverit: quod concludenter
confirmatur a Textu Græco, qui ad =Tobiæ= c. 8. v. 2., ubi Vulgata
habet: “=Partem jecoris posuit super carbones vivos=”, sic habet:
“=Accepit cinerem, sive prunam thimiamatum, et imposuit cor piscis, et
hepar, fumumque fecit, et quando odoratus est Dæmon odores, fugit=.” Et
Textus Hebraicus ita cantat: “=Percepit Asmodeus odorem, et fugit=.” Ex
quibus textibus apparet, quod Dæmon fugit ad perceptionem fumi, sibi
contrarii, ac nocentis, non autem a virtute Angeli supernaturali. Quod
si in tali liberatione Saræ ab impetitione Incubi Asmodei, ultra fumum
jecoris intervenit operatio Raphaelis, hoc fuit in alligatione Dæmonis
in deserto superioris Ægypti, ut dicitur c. 8. v. 3. =Tobiæ=; fumus
quippe jecoris nequibat in tanta distantia agere in Dæmonem, aut illum
alligare. Quod inservire potest pro concordia supracitatorum Doctorum
(qui voluerunt Saram perfecte liberatam a Dæmone virtute Raphaelis) cum
sententia, quam tuemur: dico enim, quod ipsi senserint quod perfecta
curatio Saræ a Dæmone fuerit in alligatione ejus in deserto, quæ fuit
ab Angelo, quod et nos concedimus; sed extricatio, sive fugatio ejusdem
a cubiculo Saræ fuerit a vi innativa jecoris piscis, quod nos tuemur.


76. The whiteness was withdrawn from the eyes of the elder Tobit, and
his blindness healed, through the native virtue of the gall of that
same fish, as Doctors aver. In fact, that the gall of the callionymous
fish, which the Italians call _bocca in capo_, and of which Tobias made
use, is a highly renowned remedy for removing the whiteness from the
eyes, all are agreed, Dioscorides, Galen, Pliny, Aclanius, Vallesius,
etc. The Greek Text of _Tobit_, c. 11, v. 13, says: “_He poured the
gall on his father’s eyes, saying: Have confidence, father; but, there
being erosion, the old man rubbed his eyes, and the scales of the
whiteness came out at the corners._” Now, since, according to the same
text, the Angel had disclosed to Tobias the virtue of the liver and
gall of the fish, and since, through its native virtue, the gall cured
the elder Tobit’s blindness, it must be inferred that it was likewise
through its native force that the smoke of the liver put the Incubus to
flight; which inference is conclusively confirmed by the Greek text,
which, _Tobit_, c. 8, v. 2, instead of the reading in the Vulgate: “_He
laid a part of the liver on burning coals_”, says explicitly: _“He took
the ashes of the perfumes, and put the heart and the liver of the fish
thereupon, and made a smoke therewith; the which smell when the evil
spirit had smelled, he fled._” The Hebrew text says: “_Asmodeus smelled
the smell, and fled._” From all those texts it appears that the Demon
took to flight on smelling a smoke which was prejudicial and hurtful
to himself, and nowise from the supernatural virtue of the Angel.
If, in ridding Sarah from the assaults of the Incubus Asmodeus, the
operation of the smoke of the liver was followed by the intervention
of Raphael, it was in order to bind the Demon in the wilderness of
High-Egypt, as related, _Tobit_, c. 8, v. 3; for, at such a distance,
the smoke of the liver could neither operate on the Demon, nor bind
him. And here we have the means of reconciling our opinion with that of
the above-mentioned Doctors, who ascribe to Raphael’s power Sarah’s
complete riddance from the Demon: for, I say with them, that the cure
of Sarah was completed by the binding of the Demon in the wilderness,
the deed of the Angel; which I concede; but I maintain that the
deliverance properly called, that is to say, the ejection from Sarah’s
bed-room, was the direct effect of the virtue of the liver of the fish.


77. Probatur tertio principaliter nostra conclusio de existentia
talium animalium, seu de Incuborum corporeitate, ex auctoritate D.
Hieronymi, =in vita S. Pauli primi Eremitæ=. Refert is D. Antonium
iter per desertum arripuisse, ut ad visendum D. Paulum perveniret, et
post nonnullas diætas itineris Centaurum reperiisse, a quo cum fuisset
percontatus mansionem D. Pauli, et ille barbarum quid infrendens
potius, quam proloquens, dextræ protensione manus iter D. Antonio
demonstrasset, in sylvam se abdidit cursu concitatissimo. Prosecutus
iter S. Abbas in quadam valle invenit haud grandem quemdam homunculum,
aduncis manibus, fronte cornibus asperata, cujus extrema pars corporis
in caprarum pedes desinebat. Ad ejus aspectum substitit Antonius, et
timens Diaboli artes signo Sanctæ Crucis se munivit. Ad tale signum
nec fugit, nec metuit homuncio ille, immo ad sanctum senem actu humili
appropinquans, palmarum fructus ad viaticum quasi pacis obsides illi
offerebat. Tum B. Antonius quisnam esset interrogans, hoc ab eo
responsum accepit: “=Mortalis ego sum, et unus ex accolis Eremi, quos
vario errore delusa Gentilitas Faunos, Satyros, et Incubos vocans
colit; legatione fungor gregis mei; precamur, ut pro nobis communem
Deum depreceris, quem pro salute mundi venisse cognovimus, et universam
terram exiit sonus ejus=.” Ad quæ gaudens D. Antonius de gloria
Christi, conversus ad Alexandriam, et baculo terram percutiens, ait:
“=Veh tibi, Civitas meretrix, quæ pro diis animalia veneraris!=” Hæc
D. Hieronymus, qui late prosequitur hoc factum, ipsius virtutem longo
comprobans sermone.


77. A third principal proof of our conclusion regarding the existence
of those animals, in other words, respecting the corporeity of Incubi,
is adduced by the testimony of St Hieronymus, in his _Life of St
Paul, the first Hermit_. St Anthony, says he, set on a journey to
visit St Paul. After travelling several days, he met a Centaur, of
whom he inquired the hermit’s abode; whereupon the Centaur, growling
some uncouth and scarcely intelligible answer, shew the way with his
out-stretched hand, and fled with the utmost speed into a wood. The
Holy Abbot kept on his way, and, in a dale, met a little man, almost
a dwarf, with crooked hands, horned brow, and his lower extremities
ending with goat’s feet. At the sight of him, St Anthony stood still,
and fearing the arts of the Devil, comforted himself with a sign of
the Cross. But, far from running away, or even seeming frightened
at it, the little fellow respectfully approached the old man, and
tendered him, as a peace offering, dates for his journey. The blessed
St Anthony having then inquired who he was: “_I am a mortal_,” replied
he, “_and one of the inhabitants of the Wilderness, whom Gentility,
under its varied delusions, worships under the names of Fauns, Satyrs
and Incubi; I am on a mission from my flock: we request thee to pray
for us unto the common God, whom we know to have come for the salvation
of the world, and whose praises are sounded all over the earth_.”
Rejoicing at the glory of Christ, St Anthony, turning his face towards
Alexandria, and striking the ground with his staff, cried out: “_Woe be
unto thee, thou harlot City, who worshipest animals as Gods!_” Such is
the narrative of St Hieronymus, who expatiates at length on the fact,
explaining its import in a long discourse.


78. De hujus historiæ veritate dubitare temerarium est, cum eam
constanter referat SS. Ecclesiæ Doctorum maximus D. Hieronymus, de
cujus auctoritate nullus Catholicus dubitabit. Addit =fol. 21.
25=. Notandæ proinde veniunt illius circumstantiæ, quæ sententiam
nostram evidentissime confirmant.


78. It were indeed rash to doubt the truth of the above recital,
constantly referred to by the greatest of the Doctors of the Holy
Church, St Hieronymus, whose authority no Catholic will ever deny. Let
us therefore investigate the circumstances thereof which most clearly
confirm our opinion.


79. Primo notandum est, quod si ullus Sanctorum artibus Dæmonis
impetitus fuit; si ullus diversas ejus artes nocendi calluit; si
ullus victorias, ac illustria de eodem trophea reportavit, is fuit D.
Antonius, ut constat ex ejus vita a D. Athanasio descripta. Dum igitur
D. Antonius homunculum illum non tanquam Diabolum agnovit, sed animal
intitulavit, dicens: =Veh tibi, Civitas meretrix, quæ pro Diis animalia
veneraris!= convincitur, quod ille nullo modo fuit Diabolus, seu purus
spiritus de cœlo dejectus, ac damnatus, sed aliquod aliud animal. Et
confirmatur, quia D. Antonius erudiens suos monachos, eosque animans
ad metuendas Dæmonis violentias, aiebat, prout habetur in lectionibus
Breviarii Romani in festo =S. Antonii Abb.= l. 1., quæ recitantur in
festo ipsius: “=Mihi credite, Fratres, pertimescit Satanas piorum
vigilias, orationes, jejunia, voluntariam paupertatem, misericordiam,
et humilitatem; maxime vero ardentem amorem in Christum Dominum,
cujus unico Sanctissimæ Crucis signo debilitatus fugit=.” Dum igitur
homunculus ille, contra quem D. Antonius Crucis signo se munivit, ad
ejus aspectum nec pavit, nec fugit, immo confidenter, humiliter que
accessit ad eum dactalos illi offerens, signum est, illum nullo modo
Diabolum fuisse.


79. Firstly, we must observe that if ever a Saint was assailed by the
arts of the Demon, saw through his infernal devices, and carried off
victories and trophies from the contest, that Saint was St Anthony,
as is shown by his life written by St Athanasius. Now, since in that
little man St Anthony did not recognize a devil but an animal, saying:
“_Woe be unto thee, thou harlot City, who worshipest animals as
Gods!_”, it is clear that it was no devil or pure spirit ejected from
heaven and damned, but some kind of animal. Still more: St Anthony,
when instructing his friars and cautioning them against the assaults of
the Demon, said to them, as related in the Roman Breviary (_Festival
of St Anthony, Abbot_, b. I): “_Believe me, my brethren, Satan dreads
the vigils of pious men, their prayers, fasts, voluntary poverty,
compassion and humility; but, above all, he dreads their burning love
of our Lord Christ, at the mere sign of whose most Holy Cross he flies
disabled._” As the little man, against whom St Anthony guarded himself
with a sign of the Cross, neither took fright nor fled, but approached
the Saint confidently and humbly, offering him some dates, it is a
sure sign that he was no Devil.


80. Secundo notandum, quod homunculus ille dixit: =Mortalis et ego
sum=; ex quibus verbis docemur, quod ille erat animal morti obnoxium,
et proinde, quod per generationem esse accepit: spiritus enim
immaterialis immortalis est, quia simplex, et ideo non accipit esse
per generationem ex præjacente materia, sed per creationem; unde nec
amittit esse per corruptionem, quæ dicitur mors, sed per annihilationem
tantum potest desinere esse. Quod si ille se mortalem esse dixit,
professus est se esse animal.


80. Secondly, we must observe that the little man said: “_I also am a
mortal_”, whence it follows that he was an animal subject to death, and
consequently called into being through generation; for, an immaterial
spirit is immortal, because simple, and consequently is not called into
being through generation from preexistent matter, but through creation,
and, consequently also, cannot lose it through the corruption called
death; its existence can only come to an end through annihilation.
Therefore, when saying he was mortal, he professed himself an animal.


81. Tertio notandum, quod ait se cognovisse communem Deum in carne
humana fuisse passum. Ex his verbis convincitur illud fuisse animal
rationale: siquidem bruta nihil agnoscunt, nisi sensibile et præsens,
unde ab ipsis Deus nullo modo cognosci potest. Quod si homunculus
ille ait, se cum aliis suis cognovisse Deum in carne humana passum,
hoc probat, quod aliquo revelante habuit notitiam de Deo, sicut
etiam nos habemus de illo fidem revelatam; pariter que Deum carnem
humanam assumpsisse, et in ea passum: quæ duo sunt articuli nostræ
Fidei principales, nempe Dei unius, et trini existentia, et ipsius
Incarnatio, Passio, et Resurrectio; ex quibus omnibus habetur, ut
dicebam, illud fuisse animal rationale capax divinæ cognitionis,
per revelationem, ut nos, et proinde pollens anima rationali, et ex
consequenti immortali.


81. Thirdly, we must observe that he said he knew that the common
God had suffered in human flesh. Those words show him to have been
a rational animal, for brutes know nothing but what is sensible and
present, and can therefore have no knowledge of God. If that little
man said that he and his fellows were aware of God having suffered
in human flesh, it shows that, by means of some revelation, he had
acquired the notion of God, as we have ourselves the revealed faith.
That God assumed human flesh and suffered in it, is the essence of
the two principal articles of our Faith: the existence of God one and
threefold, His Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection. All that shows,
as I said, that it was a rational animal, capable of the knowledge of
God through revelation, like ourselves, and endowed with a rational,
and consequently, immortal soul.


82. Quarto notandum, quod oraverit nomine omnium gregis sui, cujus
legatione fungi se profitebatur, D. Antonium, ut communem Deum pro
illis deprecaretur. Ex his deducitur, quod homunculus ille capax erat
beatitudinis, et damnationis, et quod non erat in termino, sed in via:
ex hoc enim, quod, ut supra probatum est, se prodidit rationalem,
et anima immortali consequenter donatum, consequens est, quod et
beatitudinis, et damnationis capax sit: hæc enim propria passio est
Creaturæ rationalis, ut constat ex natura angelica, et humana. Item
deducitur, quod ipse erat in via, et proinde capax meriti, et demeriti:
si enim fuisset in termino, fuisset vel beatus, vel damnatus; neutrum
autem potuit esse, quia orationes D. Antonii, quibus se commendabat,
ipsi nullo modo prodesse potuissent, si fuisset finaliter damnatus; et
si beatus fuisset, illis non eguisset. Quod ipsi se commendavit, signum
est eas sibi prodesse potuisse, et proinde ipsum fuisse in statu viæ,
et meriti.


82. Fourthly, we must observe that, in the name of his whole flock
whose delegate he professed to be, he besought St Anthony to pray for
them to the common God. Wherefrom I infer that that little man was
capable of beatitude and damnation, and that he was not _in termino_
but _in via_; for, from his being, as has been shown above, rational
and consequently endowed with an immortal soul, it flows that he was
capable of beatitude and damnation, the proper share of every rational
Creature, Angel or man. I likewise infer that he was on the way, _in
via_, that is, capable of merit and demerit; for, if he had been at the
goal, _in termino_, he would have been either blessed or damned. Now,
he could be neither the one nor the other; for, St Anthony’s prayers,
to which he commended himself, could have been of no assistance to him,
if finally damned, and, if blessed, he stood in no need of them. Since
he commended himself to those prayers, it shows they could be of avail
to him, and, consequently, that he was on the way to salvation, _in
statu viæ et meriti_.


83. Quinto notandum, quod homunculus ille professus est, se esse
legatum aliorum suæ speciei, dum dixit =legatione fungor gregis mei=,
ex quibus verbis plura deducuntur. Unum est, quod homunculus ille
non solus erat, unde potuisset credi monstrum raro contingens, sed
quod plures erant ejusdem speciei; tum quia simul congregati gregem
faciebant; tum quia nomine omnium veniebat: quod esse non posset si
multorum voluntates in illum non convenissent. Aliud est, quod isti
profitentur vitam socialem: ex quo nomine multorum unus ex ipsis missus
est. Aliud est, quod quamvis dicantur habitare in Eremo, non tamen in
eo fixa est eorum permanentia: siquidem cum D. Antonius in illa eremo
alias non fuisset (distabat enim illa per multas dietas ab eremo D.
Antonii), scire non potuerunt quisnam ille esset cujusve sanctitatis;
necessarium igitur fuit, quod alibi eum cognoverint, et ex consequenti
extra desertum illum vagaverint.


83. Fifthly, we must observe that the little man professed to be
delegated by others of his kind, when saying: “_I am on a mission
from my flock_”, words from which many inferences may be deduced. One
is, that the little man was not alone of his kind, an exceptional and
solitary monster, but that there were many of the same species, since
congregating they made up a flock, and that he came in the name of all;
which could not have been, had not the will of many centred in him.
Another is, that those animals lead a social life, since one of them
was sent in the name of many. Another again is, that, although living
in the Wilderness, it is not assigned to them as a permanent abode;
for St Anthony having never previously been in that desert, which was
far distant from his hermitage, they could not have known who he was
nor what his degree of sanctity; it was therefore necessary that they
should have become acquainted with him elsewhere, and, consequently,
that they should have travelled beyond that wilderness.


84. Ultimo notandum, quod homunculus ille ait esse ex iis, =quos
cæco errore delusa Gentilitas Faunos, Satyros et Incubos= appellant;
et ex his verbis convincitur nostrum intentum principale, Incubos nempe
esse animalia rationalia beatitatis, et damnationis capacia.


84. Lastly, we must observe that the little man said he was one of
those whom _the Gentiles, blinded by error, call Fauns, Satyrs and
Incubi_: and by these words is shown the truth of our principal
proposition: that Incubi are rational animals, capable of beatitude and
damnation.


85. Talium homuncionum frequens est apparitio in metallorum fodinis,
ut scribit Gregorius Agricola, lib. =De Animal. subterran.=, prope
finem. Isti nempe coram fossoribus minerarum comparent induti habitu,
qualem habent fossores ipsi, et jocantur inter se, tripudiantque, ac
rident et cachinnantur, parvosque lapides joco mittunt in metallarios,
et tunc signum est, ait Auctor prædictus, optimi proventus, ac
inventionis alicujus rami, aut trunci principalis arboris mineralis.


85. The apparition of such little men is of frequent occurrence in
metallic mines, as is written by Gregorius Agricola in his book _De
Animal. subterran._ They appear to the miners, clothed like themselves,
play and caper together, laugh and titter, and throw little stones at
them for the sake of amusement: a sign, says the above-named Author,
of excellent success, and of the finding of some branch or body of a
mineral tree.


86. Tales homunculos subterraneos negat Petrus Thyræus Novesianus,
lib. =De Terrificatio. Noctur.=, c. 2., =per totum=, nixus argumentis
sane puerilibus, quæ sunt hæc: si darentur hujusmodi homunciones,
ubinam degunt, et quænam, et ubi habent sua domicilia, qua ratione
genus suum conservant, si per generationem, aut quomodo? si oriantur,
et intereant, quo cibo vitam suam sustentent; si beatitudinis,
et damnationis capaces sint, et quibus mediis propriam salutem
consequantur? Hæc sunt argumenta Thyræi, quibus permotus negat talem
existentiam.


86. Peter Thyræus, of Neuss, in his book _De Terrification. nocturn._,
denies the existence of such little men, and supports his denial upon
the following truly puerile arguments: given such little men, says
he, where do they live, how and where do they dwell? How do they keep
up their kind, through generation or otherwise? Are they born, do
they die, with what food do they sustain themselves? Are they capable
of beatitude and damnation, and by what means do they procure their
salvation? Such are the arguments upon which Thyræus relies for denying
that existence.


87. Sed viri parum cordati est negare id, quod graves Auctores,
fideque digni scribunt, quodque quotidiana constat experientia.
Argumenta Thyræi nec minimum cogunt, ac ea solvimus supra a nº 45.
et seq. Remanet solum satisfacere quæstioni ubinam locorum habitent
hujusmodi homunculi, seu Incubi? Ad quod dico, quod ut supra dedimus
nº 71. ex Guaccio, istorum alii sunt terrei, alii aquei, alii aerei,
alii ignei, quorum nempe corpora, aut constant ex talium elementorum
subtiliori parte, sive licet ex pluribus constent elementis, prævalet
tamen in iis, aut aqua, aut aer pro ipsorum natura. Mansiones igitur,
et domicilia eorum erunt in elemento illo cujus natura in eorum
corporibus prævalet: ignei enim nisi violenter, et forte nullomodo in
aquis aut locis palustribus morabuntur, cum hæc sint sibi contraria,
nec aquei ad superiorem ætheris partem ascendere poterunt ob sibi
repugnantem regionis illius subtilitatem, quod etiam videmus accidere
hominibus, qui ad quorumdam Alpium summa juga pervenire nequeunt præ
summa aeris subtilitate, quæ homines crassiori aeri assuetos nutrire
nequit.


87. But it really shows little judgment in a man, to deny that which
has been written by grave and credible Authors, and confirmed by every
day experience. Thyræus’s arguments are worthless and have been already
refuted, N^{rs} 45 and following. The only question which remains to
be answered is this: where do those little men, or Incubi, dwell? To
that I reply: as has been shown above (N^r 71), according to Guaccius,
some are earthly, some aqueous, some aerial, some igneous, that is to
say, that their bodies are made of the most subtle part of one of the
elements, or, if of the combination of many elements, that yet there is
one which predominates, either water or air, according to their nature.
Their dwellings will consequently be found in that element which is
prevalent in their bodies: igneous Incubi, for instance, will only
stay forcibly, may be will not stay at all, in water or marshes, which
are adverse to them; and aqueous Incubi will not be able to rise into
the upper part of ether, the subtlety of which region is repugnant to
them. We see the like happen to men who, accustomed to thicker air,
cannot reach certain lofty ridges of the Alps where the air is too
subtle for their lungs.


88. Pluribus sanctorum Patrum auctoritatibus, quas congerit Molina in
p. p. D. Thom., q. 50., ar. 1. circa med., probare possemus Dæmonum
corporeitatem; quæ tamen stante determinatione Concilii Lateranensis de
incorporeitate Angelorum, ut dictum fuit supra nº 37., exponi debent
de Dæmonibus istis Incubis, ac viatoribus adhuc, non autem de Damnatis.
Tamen ne nimis longus sim, solius D. Augustini, summi Ecclesiæ
Doctoris, auctoritates damus, quibus evidenter convincitur illum fuisse
in sententia, quam nos docemus.


88. Many testimonies of Holy Fathers, gathered by Molina, in his
_Commentary of St Thomas_, would go to prove the corporeity of Demons;
but, taking into account the above-quoted decision of the Council
of Lateran (N^r 37), concerning the incorporeity of Angels, we must
understand that the Holy Fathers had in view those Incubi Demons which
are still on the way to salvation, and not those that are damned.
However, to make matters short, we merely give the authority of St
Austin, that eminent Doctor of the Church, and it will be clearly seen
how thoroughly his doctrine harmonizes with ours.


89. D. Augustinus igitur, lib. 2. =super Genesim= ad litteram c. 17.
=de Dæmonibus=, sic habet: “=Quædam vera nosse, partim quia subtiliore
sensus acumine, partim quia subtilioribus corporibus vigent=,” et lib.
3. c. 1., “=etsi Dæmones aerea sunt animalia, quoniam corporum aereorum
natura vigent=.” Et Epistola 115. ad Hebridium affirmat, eos esse
“=animantia aerea, seu ætherea acerrimi sensus=.” Et =de Civit. Dei=
lib. 11. c. 23., affirmat “=Dæmonem pessimum habere corpus aereum=.” Et
lib. 21. c. 10. scripsit: “=Sunt sua quædam etiam Dæmonibus corpora,
sicut doctis hominibus visum est, ex isto aere crasso et humido=.”
Et lib. 17. c. 23. ait “=se non audere definire, an Angeli corpore
aereo, ita corporati possint etiam hanc pati libidinem, ut quomodo
possint, sentientibus fœminis misceantur=.” Et in Enarrat. in Psal.
85. ait “=corpora beatorum futura post resurrectionem, qualia sunt
corpora Angelorum=;” et in Enarrat. in Psal. 45. ait “=corpus Angelicum
inferius esse anima=.” Et lib. =De Divinit. Dæmonum=, passim per totum,
maxime c. 23., docet “=Dæmones subtilia habere corpora=.”


89. St Austin, then, in his _Commentary on Genesis_, book 2, ch. 17,
writes as follows concerning Demons: “_They have the knowledge of some
truths, partly through the more subtle acumen of their senses, partly
through the greater subtilty of their bodies_”, and, book 3, ch. 1:
“_Demons are aerial animals, because they partake of the nature of
aerial bodies._” In his Epistle 115 to Hebridius, he affirms that they
are “_aerial or ethereal animals, endowed with very sharp senses_.”
In the _City of God_, book 11, ch. 13, he says that “_the worst Demon
has an aerial body_”. Book 21, ch. 10, he writes: “_The bodies of
certain Demons, as has been believed by some learned men, are even
made of the thick and damp air which we breathe._” Book 15, ch. 23:
_“He dares not define whether Angels, with an aerial body, could feel
the lust which would incite them to communicate with women._” In his
commentary on Psalm 85, he says that “_the bodies of the blessed will,
after resurrection, be like unto the bodies of Angels_;” Psalm 14, he
observes that “_the body of Angels is inferior to the soul_.” And, in
his book _De Divinit. Dæmonum_, he every-where, and especially ch. 23,
teaches that “_Demons have subtle bodies_”.


90. Potest etiam sententia nostra auctoritatibus Sacræ Scripturæ
comprobari, quæ licet ab Expositoribus aliter declarentur, non
incongrue tamen ad nostrum intentum possunt aptari. Prima est Psalmi
77., v. 24. et 25., ubi habetur: =panem Angelorum manducavit homo,
panem cœli dedit eis=. Hic loquitur David de Manna, qua cibatus fuit
Populus Israel toto tempore quo peregrinus fuit in deserto. Quærendum
ergo venit, quo sensu Manna dici possit =panis Angelorum=. Scio
quidem plerosque Doctores exponere hunc passum in sensu mystico,
aientes in Manna figuratam esse =Sacram Eucharistiam=, quæ vocatur
=panis Angelorum=, quia Angeli fruuntur visione Dei, qui per
concomitantiam in Eucharistia reperitur.


90. Our doctrine can also be confirmed by the testimony of the Holy
Scriptures, which, however diversely construed by commentators, are
yet capable of adaptation to our proposition. First, Psalm 77, v. 24
and 25, it is said: “_The Lord had given them of the bread of heaven;
man did eat angels’ food._” David here alludes to Manna, which fed
the People of Israel during the whole time that they wandered in the
wilderness. It will be asked in what sense it can be said of Manna that
it is the _Bread of Angels_. I am aware that most Doctors construe
this passage in a mystical sense, saying that Manna figures the Holy
Eucharist, which is styled the _bread of Angels_, because Angels enjoy
the sight of God who, by concomitance, is found in the Eucharist.


91. Sed hæc expositio aptissima est quidem, et quam amplectitur Ecclesia
in officio =Sanctissimi Corporis Christi=, sed in sensu spirituali
est. Ego autem quæro sensum litteralem: neque enim in illo Psalmo
David loquitur prophetice de futuris, sicut facit in aliis locis,
ut proinde facile non sit sensum litteralem habere; sed loquitur
historice de præteritis. Ille enim Psalmus, ut patet legenti, est pura
anacephalestis, seu compendium omnium beneficiorum, quæ contulit Deus
Populo Hebræo ab egressu ipsius de Ægypto, usque ad tempus Davidis, et
in eo versu loquitur de Manna Deserti, ut proinde quæratur quomodo, et
quo sensu Manna vocetur Panis Angelorum.


91. A most proper construction assuredly, and which is adopted by the
Church in the office of the _Most Holy Body of Jesus-Christ_; but it
is in a spiritual sense. Now, what I want, is the literal sense; for,
in that Psalm, David does not speak, as a prophet, of things to be,
as he does in other places where a literal sense is not easily to be
gathered; he speaks here as a historian, of things gone by. That Psalm,
as is evident to whoever reads it, is a pure anacephalæosis, or summing
up of all the benefits conferred by God on the Hebrew People from the
exodus from Egypt to the days of David, and the Manna of the Wilderness
is spoken of in it; how, and in what sense is it styled the Bread of
Angels? that is the question.


92. Scio alios, Lyran., Euthim., Bellarm., Titelman., Genebrard., in
Psal. 77. v. 24. et 25., interpretari Panem Angelorum Panem ab Angelis
paratum, seu Angelorum ministerio a Cœlo demissum; Hugonem autem
Cardinalem Panem Angelorum exponere: quia ille cibus hoc efficiebat
in Judæis, quod in Angelis efficit cibus illorum, pro parte: Angeli
enim non incurrunt infirmitatem. Voluerunt enim expositores Hebræi,
ut etiam asseverat Josephus, quod Judæi in Deserto vescentes manna,
nec senescerent, nec ægrotarent, nec lassarentur; proinde illa esset
tanquam panis, quo vescuntur Angeli, qui nec senio, nec ægritudine, nec
lassitudine unquam laborant.


92. I am aware that others look upon the Bread of Angels as bread
prepared by Angels, or sent down from Heaven by the ministry of Angels.
But Cardinal Hugo explains that qualification by saying that that
food partly produced the same effect upon the Jews, which the food of
Angels produces upon the latter. Angels, in fact, are not liable to
any infirmity; on the other hand Hebrew commentators, and Josephus
himself, assert that whilst in the Wilderness, living upon Manna, the
Jews neither grew old, nor sickened, nor tired; so that Manna was like
unto the bread that Angels feed upon, who know neither old age, nor
sickness, nor fatigue.


93. Istas quidem expositiones recipere æquum est, utpote tantorum
Doctorum aucthoritate suffultas. Facessit tamen difficultatem, quod
ministerio Angelorum Hebræis non minus parata fuere columna nubis,
et ignis, coturnices, et aqua de petra, quam manna; nec tamen ista
dicta fuere columna, aqua, aut potus Angelorum. Cur ergo potius vocari
deberet manna, quia parata ministerio Angelorum, =Panis Angelorum=,
quam =Potus Angelorum= aqua eorumdem ministerio saxo educta? Insuper
in sacra Scriptura panis dum dicitur =panis alicujus=, dicitur =panis
ejus= qui illo vescitur, non ejus qui illum parat, aut fabricat, et de
hoc infinita habemus exempla in sacra Scriptura: ut =Exod.= c. 23. v.
25. =Benedicam panibus tuis, et aquis=; lib. 2. =Reg.= c. 12. v. 3.
=De pane illius comedens=; =Tob.= c. 4, v. 17. =Panem tuum cum egenis
comede=; et v. 18. =Panem tuum super sepulturam Justi constitue=;
=Ecclesiast.= c. 11. v. 1. =Mitte panem tuum super transeuntes aquas=;
=Isai.= c. 58. v. 7. =Frange esurienti panem tuum=; =Jerem.= c.
11. v. 19. =Mittamus lignum in panem ejus=; =Matth.= c. 15. v. 26.
=Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum=; =Luc.= c. 11. v. 3. =Panem
nostrum quotidianum.= Ex quibus locis patenter habetur, quod panis
dicitur ejus qui eo vescitur, non vero, qui ipsum conficit, affert,
aut parat. Commode igitur in loco citato Psalmi accipi potest =Panis
Angelorum=, cibus quo vescuntur Angeli non quidem incorporei (isti
enim materiali cibo non egent), sed corporei, ista nempe rationalia
animalia, de quibus hucusque disseruimus, degentia in aere, et quæ
ratione tenuitatis suorum corporum, ac rationalis naturæ, quam maxime
ad Angelos immateriales accedunt, ut proinde nuncupentur.


93. These interpretations should indeed be received with the respect
due to the authority of such eminent Doctors. There is however one
difficulty in this: that, by the ministry of Angels, the pillars of
the cloud and fire, the quails, and the water from the rock were
provided for the Hebrews, no less than the Manna; and yet they were not
styled the pillar, the water or the beverage of Angels. Why therefore
should Manna be called _Bread of Angels_, because provided by their
ministry, when the qualification _Beverage of Angels_ is not given to
the water drawn from the rock likewise by their ministry? Besides,
in Holy Scripture, when it is said of bread that it is the _bread of
somebody_, it is always the _bread of him_ who feeds on it, not of him
who provides or makes it. Of this there are numberless instances: thus,
_Exodus_, ch. 23, v. 25: “_That I may bless thy bread and thy water_;”
_Kings_, book 2, ch. 12, v. 3: “_Eating of his bread_;” _Tobit_, ch.
4, v. 17: “_Give of thy bread to the hungry_,” and v. 18: “_Pour out
thy bread on the burial of the Just_;” _Ecclesiasticus_, ch. 11, v.
1: “_Scatter thy bread over the flowing waters_;” _Isaiah_, ch. 58,
v. 7: “_Deal thy bread to the hungry_;” _Jeremiah_, ch. 11, v. 19:
“_Let us put wood into his bread_;” _Matthew_, ch. 15, v. 26: “_It is
not meet to take the children’s bread_;” _Luke_, ch. 11, v. 3: “_Our
daily bread_.” All those passages clearly show that, in Scripture, the
bread of somebody is the bread of him who feeds upon it, not of him
who makes, brings or provides it. In the passage of the Psalm we have
quoted, _Bread of Angels_ may therefore easily be taken to mean the
food of Angels, not incorporeal indeed, since these require no material
food, but corporeal, that is to say of those rational animals we have
discoursed of, who live in the air, and, from the subtlety of their
bodies and their rationality, approximate so closely to immaterial
Angels as to fall under the same denomination.


94. Ducor, quia cum animalia sint, et ideo generabilia et
corruptibilia, egent cibo, ut restauretur substantia corporea, quæ
per effluvia deperditur; vita enim sentientis non consistit nisi in
motu partium corporearum quæ fluunt, ac refluunt, acquiruntur, ac
deperduntur, ac iterum reparantur; quæ reparatio fit per substantias
spirituosas, materiales tamen, attractas a vivente, tum per aeris
inspirationem, tum per fermentationem cibi, per quam substantia illius
spiritualizatur, ut rationatur doctissimus Ettmullerus, =Instit. Medic.
Physiolog.=, c. 2.


94. I deduce that, being animals, consequently reproducible through
generation and liable to corruption, they require food for the
restoration of their corporeal substance wasted by effluvia: for the
life of every sensible being consists in nothing else but the motion
of the corporeal elements which flow and ebb, are acquired, lost and
recruited by means of substances spirituous, yet material, assimilated
by the living thing, either through the inhalation of air, or by the
fermentation of food which spiritualizes its substance, as shown by the
most learned Ettmuller (_Instit. Medic. Physiolog._, ch. 2).


95. Quia autem eorum corpus tenue est, tenui pariter, et subtili eget
alimento. Hinc est quod sicut odoribus aliisque substantiis vaporosis,
ac volatilibus suæ naturæ contrariis læduntur ac fugantur, ut constat
ex historiis recitatis supra, nº 71. et 72., ita paribus rebus sibi
convenientibus delectantur, et aluntur. Porro “=manna non est aliud,
quam halitus aquæ, terræque, solis calore exacte attenuatus et coctus,
a frigore secutæ noctis in unum coactus, densatusque=,” ut scribit
Cornelius; manna dico, quam demissam de cœlo comederunt Hebræi, quæ
toto cœlo differt a manna nostrate, quæ in medicinis adhibetur; nam
hæc, ut scribit Ettmullerus Schroder. =Dilucid. Physiolog.=, c. 1. =de
Manna=, fol. m. 154., “=nihil aliud est, quam succus quarumdam arborum
tenuis, vel earum transsudatio, quæ nocturno tempore permixta cum rore,
matutino tempore superventu caloris solis coagulatur, et inspissatur=.”
Manna autem Hebræorum diversis orta principii calore solis non
coagulabatur, sed vice versa liquefiebat, ut patet ex Scriptura,
=Exod.= c. 16. v. 22. Manna ergo Hebræorum utpote constans ex halitibus
tenuibus terræ et aquæ, profecto tenuissimæ erat substantiæ, utpote,
quæ a sole solvebatur, et disparebat; optime ergo potuit esse talium
animalium cibus, ita ut diceretur a David =Panis Angelorum=.


95. But, their body being subtile, equally subtile and delicate must
be its food. And, just as perfumes and other vaporous and volatile
substances, when adverse to their nature, offend and put them to
flight, as testified by what we related above (N^{rs} 71 and 72), in
the like manner, when agreeable, they delight in and feed upon them.
Now, as is written by Cornelius, “_Manna is nothing but an emanation
of water and earth, refined and baked by the heat of the sun, and
then coagulated and condensed by the cold of the following night_;”
of course, I am speaking of the Manna sent down from Heaven for the
nourishment of the Hebrews, and which differs all in all from nostrate
or medicinal manna; the latter, in fact, according to Ettmuller
(_Dilucid. Physiol._, ch. 1), “_is merely the juice or transudation of
certain trees which, during the night, gets mixed up with dew, and, the
next morning, coagulates and thickens in the heat of the sun_.” The
manna of the Hebrews, on the contrary, derived from other principles,
far from coagulating, liquefied in the heat of the sun, as is shown
by Scripture, _Exodus_, ch. 16, v. 22. The manna of the Hebrews was
therefore undoubtedly of a most subtile substance, consisting as it did
of emanations of earth and water, and being dissolved by the sun and
made to disappear: consequently, it may very well have been the food
of the animals we are speaking of, and thus have been truly called by
David _Bread of Angels_.


96. Alia auctoritas habetur in Evangelio Joannis, in quo, =Johannes=,
c. 10. v. 16., ita dicitur: =Alias oves habeo, quæ non sunt ex hoc
ovili, et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet
unum ovile, et unus Pastor=. Si quæramus quænam sint oves, quæ non sunt
ex hoc ovili, et qualenam sit ovile de quo loquitur Christus Dominus,
respondent communiter Expositores unum ovile Christi esse Ecclesiam, ad
quam perducendi erant per prædicationem Evangelii Gentiles, qui erant
oves alterius ovilis, ab ovili Hebræorum: opinantur enim Synagogam esse
Christi ovile, quia dicebat David, =Psal. 94.= v. 9: =Nos populus ejus
et oves pascuæ ejus=; et quia Messias promissus fuerat Abraham et David
oriturus ex eorum semine, et a populo Hebræo expectatus, et a Prophetis
qui Hebræi erant vaticinatus, et ejus adventus, conversatio, passio,
mors et resurrectio in sacrificiis, cultu, et ceremoniis Hebræorum
legis erant præfigurata.


96. We have another authority in the Gospel according to St John, ch.
10, v. 16, where it is said; “_And other sheep I have, which are not
of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice,
and there shall be one fold and one shepherd._” If we inquire what are
those sheep which are not of that fold, and what the fold of which the
Lord Christ speaketh, we are answered by all Commentators that the
only fold of Christ is the Church to which the preaching of the Gospel
was to bring the Gentiles, sheep of another fold than that of the
Hebrews. They are, in fact, of opinion that the fold of Christ was the
Synagogue, because David had said, Psalm 95, v. 7: “_We are the people
of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand_”, and also because Abraham
and David had been promised that the Messiah should be born of their
race, because he was expected by the Hebrew people, foretold by the
Prophets who were Hebrews, and that his advent, his acts, his passion,
death and resurrection were prefigured in the sacrifices, worship and
ceremonials of the Hebrew law.


97. Sed salva semper Sanctorum Patrum, ac aliorum Doctorum reverentia,
non videtur talis expositio ad plenum satisfacere. Habemus enim quod
de fide est a principio mundi Ecclesiam Fidelium extitisse unam, usque
ad finem sæculi duraturam. Cujus Ecclesiæ caput est mediator Dei et
hominum Christus Jesus, cujus contemplatione creata sunt universa, et
omnia per ipsum facta. Fides enim unius Dei Trini (quamvis non ita
explicite), et Verbi Incarnatio revelata fuit primo homini, et ab
ipso edocti ejus filii, et ab iis descendentes. Hinc est quod quamvis
plerique homines ad idolatriam deflexerint, ac veram fidem deseruerint,
multi tamen veram fidem a patribus sibi traditam retinuerunt, et legem
naturæ servantes in vera Ecclesia Fidelium permanserunt, ut observat
Cardinalis Toletus in =Job=, c. 10. v. 16., et apparet in Job, qui
inter Gentiles Idolatras sanctus fuit. Quamvis autem Deus populo Hebræo
speciales favores contulerit, peculiaremque legem, ac ceremonias illi
præscripserit, ac a Gentilibus segregaverit, non tamen ad eam legem
Gentes tenebantur, nec fideles Hebræi aliam Ecclesiam constituebant ab
Ecclesia Gentilium, qui fidem unius Dei et Messiæ venturi profitebantur.


97. But, saving always the reverence due to the Holy Fathers and other
Doctors, that explanation does not seem quite satisfactory. For it
is an article of belief that the Church of the Faithful has been the
only one in existence from the beginning of the world, and will thus
endure to the end of time. The head of that Church is Jesus-Christ,
the mediator between God and men, by whose contemplation all things
were made and created. Indeed, the faith in the divine Trinity, though
less explicitly, and the Incarnation of the Word were revealed to the
first man, and by him taught his children, who, in their turn, taught
them their descendants. And thus, although most men had strayed into
idolatry and deserted the true faith, many kept the faith they had
received from their fathers, and observing the law of nature, stayed
in the true Church of the Faithful, as is noticed by Cardinal Tolet
in reference to Job, who was a saint among idolatrous Gentiles. And,
although God had conferred especial favours upon the Hebrew people,
prescribed for them peculiar laws and ceremonials, and separated them
from the Gentiles, yet those laws were not obligatory on the Gentiles,
and the faithful Hebrews did not constitute a Church different from
that of the Gentiles who professed their faith in one God and the
coming of the Messiah.


98. Hinc est, quod etiam ex Gentilibus fuere, qui Christi adventum,
et alia Christianæ fidei dogmata prophetarunt, ut patet de =Balaam=,
=Mercurio Trismegisto=, =Hydaspe=, ac =Sibyllis=, de quibus loquitur
Lactantius, lib. 1. c. 6., ut scribit Cardinalis Baronius in =Apparatu
Annal.= nº 18. Et quod Messias erat a Gentilibus expectatus habet
Isaias in pluribus locis, et luculentum testimonium de hoc est
prophetia Patriarchæ Jacob de Messia, quæ sic ait, =Gen.= c. 49. v. 10:
=Non auferetur sceptrum de Juda, et dux de femore ejus, donec veniat
qui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio Gentium=. Item Prophetia
Aggæi, c. 2. v. 8: =Movebo omnes Gentes, et veniet desideratus cunctis
gentibus=, quem locum explicans Cornelius a Lap. in Aggæ. c. 2. v.
8. § =Denique gentes=, ait: “=Gentes ante Christum credentes in Deum
lege naturæ, æque ac Judæi expectabant ac desiderabant Christum=.”
Pariter Christus ita se prodidit, et manifestavit Gentibus, sicut
Judæis: si enim in ipsius nativitate per Angelum ejus notitia data
fuit Pastoribus, per stellam miraculosam ad sui adorationem vocavit
Magos, qui cum essent Gentiles fuerunt primitiæ Gentium in Christo
agnoscendo, et adorando, ut ait S. Fulgentius, =Sermon. 6. de Epiph.=,
sicut Pastores fuerunt primitiæ Judæorum. Itidem manifestatio adventus
Christi per prædicationem (non quidem Apostolorum) prius facta est
Gentilibus, quam Judæis; siquidem ut scribit Ven. Mater Soror Maria
de Agreda, in =Vita J. C. et B. M. V.=, p. 1. l. 4. c. 26. n. 664:
“=Quando B. M. Virgo cum S. Joseph portavit Puerum Jesum in Ægyptum,
fugiendo Herodis persecutionem, mansit ibi per septennium: quo tempore
ipsa Beatissima Virgo prædicavit Ægyptiis veri Dei fidem, et Filii
Dei in carne humana adventum=.” Ulterius in Christi nativitate multa
fuere prodigia non solum in Judæa, sed in Ægypto, ubi corruerunt
idola, ac oracula conticuere; Romæ, ubi fons olei scaturiit; visus
globus aurei coloris de cœlo in terram descendere; apparuere tres
soles; ac contra naturam circulus variegatus ad modum iridis solis
discum circumscripsit; in Græcia, ubi oraculum Delphicum obmutuit,
et interrogatus Apollo ab Augusto ipsi sacrificante in proprio
palatio, ubi eidem aram extruxerat, de causa silentii sui, respondit,
ut referunt Nicephorus, l. 1 c. 17., Suidas, verbo =Augustus=, et
Cedrenus, =Compend. Histor.=:

    =Me puer Hebræus, Divos Deus ipse gubernans,
    Cedere sede jubet, tristemque redire sub orcum;
    Aris ergo dehinc tacitis abscedito nostris.=

Et multa alia acciderunt prodigia, quibus prænunciabatur Gentilibus
Filii Dei adventus, quæ ex variis Aucthoribus recitat Baronius,
=Apparat. Annal. Eccles.= nº 24. et seq., et Cornelius in =Aggæ.= c.
2. v. 8.


98. And thus it came to pass that even among the Gentiles there were
some who prophesied the advent of Christ and the other dogmas of the
Christian faith, to wit _Balaam_, _Mercurius Trismegistus_, _Hydaspes_,
and the _Sibyls_ mentioned by Lactantius, book 1, ch. 6, as written by
Baronius, _Apparat. Annal., nº 18_. That the Messiah was expected by
the Gentiles is shown by many passages of Isaiah, and plainly testified
by the prophecy of Jacob, the Patriarch, thus worded, Genesis, ch. 49,
v. 10: “_The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from
between his feet, until Shiloh (he who is to be sent) come, and unto
him shall the gathering of the people be._”--Likewise in the prophecy
of Haggai, ch. 2, v. 8: “_I will shake all Nations, and the desire of
all Nations shall come_”; which passage is thus commented by Cornelius
a Lapide: “_The Gentiles before the advent of Christ, who believed in
God and observed the law of nature, expected and desired Christ equally
with the Jews._” Christ himself disclosed and manifested himself to the
Gentiles as well as to the Jews; for, at the same time as the Angel
apprized the shepherds of his nativity, by means of the miraculous star
he called the Magi to worship him, who, being Gentiles, were the first
among the Nations, as the shepherds among the Jews, to acknowledge
and worship Christ (_Vide_ St Fulgentius, _Sermon 6, upon Epiphany_).
In like manner, the advent of Christ was made known by preaching (I
am not speaking of the Apostles) to the Gentiles before it was to the
Jews. As is written by the Venerable Mother, Sister Maria of Agreda,
in her _Life of Jesus-Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary_: “_When the
Blessed Virgin Mary, fleeing with St Joseph, from the persecution of
Herod, carried the Infant Jesus into Egypt, she tarried there seven
years; and, during that time, the Blessed Virgin herself preached to
the Egyptians the faith of the true God and the advent of the Son of
God in human flesh._” Besides, the nativity of Christ was attended by
numerous prodigies, not only in Judæa, but also in Egypt, where the
idols tumbled and the oracles were hushed; in Rome, where a spring
of oil gushed out, a gold-coloured globe was seen to descend from
the skies on earth, three suns appeared, and an extraordinary ring,
variegated like a rainbow, encircled the disc of the sun; in Greece,
where the oracle of Delphi was struck dumb, and Apollo, asked the
reason of his silence by Augustus, who was offering up a sacrifice in
his own palace where he had raised an altar to him, answered:

  “_A Hebrew child, who sways the Gods, and himself a God,
  Bids me quit my seat and return to the infernal regions;
  Depart therefore from our altars, henceforward mute._”

There were many more prodigies warning the Gentiles of the advent of
the Son of God: they have been collected from various Authors, by
Baronius, and are to be found in his _Apparat. Annal. Eccles._, and
Cornelius, _Commentary upon Haggai_.


99. Ex istis patet, quod etiam Gentiles pertinebant ad ovile Christi
idem, ad quod spectabant Judæi, puta ad Ecclesiam eamdem fidelem;
igitur non potest recte dici, quod illa verba Christi: =Alias oves
habeo, quæ non sunt ex hoc ovili=, accipienda sint de Gentilibus,
qui communem cum Hebræis habuerunt de Deo fidem, de Messia spem,
prophetiam, expectationem, et signa, et prædicationem.


99. From all this it is clear that the Gentiles also belonged, like
the Jews, to the fold of Christ, that is, to the same Church of
the Faithful; it cannot therefore be correctly said that the words
of Christ: “_Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold_”, are
applicable to the Gentiles, who had, in common with the Hebrews, the
faith in God, the hope, prophecy, expectation, prodigies and preaching
of the Messiah.


100. Dico igitur quod nomine =aliarum ovium= commode possunt
intelligi Creaturæ istæ rationales, sive animalia, de quibus hucusque
disseruimus. Cum enim, ut diximus, capaces sint beatitudinis, et
damnationis, et Christus Jesus sit mediator Dei, et hominum, immo
totius rationalis creaturæ (creaturæ enim rationales, quæ beatitudinem
consequuntur, hanc obtinent intuitu meritorum Christi per ab eo sibi
collatam gratiam, sine qua nequit beatitudo obtineri), debuit omnis
rationalis creatura de eo venturo spem habere, sicut de uno Deo
fidem, et de ipsius in carne nativitate, et de præceptis legis gratiæ
manifestationem. Istæ igitur erant oves, quæ non erant =ex hoc ovili
humano=, et quas adducere Christum oportebat, et quæ ejus vocem nempe
notitiam de ipsius adventu, et de evangelica doctrina, quantum per se,
tum per Apostolos Christus erat manifestaturus, audire debebant, et
ex iis ac hominibus in cœlo beatificatis fieri =unum ovile, et unus
Pastor=.


100. I therefore say that by the words _other sheep_ may very well be
understood those rational Creatures or animals of whom we have been
treating hitherto. They being, as we have said, capable of beatitude
and damnation, and Jesus-Christ being the mediator between God and
man, as also every rational Creature (for rational creatures attain
to beatitude in consideration of the merits of Christ, through the
grace he confers upon them, without which beatitude is impossible
of attainment), every rational creature must have cherished, at the
same time as the faith in one God, the hope of the advent of Christ,
and have had the revelation of his nativity in the flesh and of the
principles of the law of grace. Those were therefore the sheep which
were not _of that human fold_, and which Christ had to bring; the sheep
which were to hear His voice, that is, the announcement of His advent
and of the evangelical doctrine, either directly through Himself, or
through the Apostles; the sheep which, partaking with men of heavenly
beatitude, were to realize _one fold and one shepherd_.


101. Huic expositioni quam incongruam non puto, vim addit id quod
supra nº 77. ex D. Hieronymo retulimus de homunculo illo qui rogavit
D. Antonium, ut communem Deum, quem in carne humana esse passum
cognoverat, pro se et suis =deprecaretur=. Innuitur enim ex his, quod
illi notitiam habuerunt de adventu et morte Christi, quem tamquam Deum
optabant sibi propitium, ut proinde ad hoc intercessionem D. Antonii
expostularent.


101. To this interpretation, which I hold to be in no way improper,
force is added by what we related, according to St Hieronymus, of that
little man who requested St Anthony to _pray_, for him and his fellows,
unto the common God, whom he knew to have suffered in human flesh.
For, it implies that they were aware of the advent and of the death
of Christ, whom, as God, they were anxious to propitiate, since they
sought, to that effect, the intercession of St Anthony.


102. Facit ad idem id, quod ex Eusebio de =Præparat. Evang.= l. 5. c.
9., et Plutarcho l. de =Defectu Oracul.=, refert Cardinalis Baronius,
=Appar. Annal.= nº 129., et recenset inter prodigia, quæ tempore
mortis Christi evenere. Recitat igitur ex citatis Aucthoribus quod
Tiberii Imperatoris, sub quo passus est Christus, tempore, navigantibus
nonnullis a Græcia in Italiam, circa Insulas Echinades, cessatis
ventis, noctu navigium appulit prope terram. Audita fuit ab omnibus vox
magna quæ vocavit Tramnum. Erat is Nauclerus navigii, quo respondente
=Adsum=, replicavit vox: “=Quando perveneris prope quandam paludem,
annunciabis MAGNUM PANA MORTUUM ESSE=”: quod cum Tramnus fecisset,
auditi sunt repente multorum, imo multitudinis prope infinitæ gemitus,
et ululatus. Profecto isti fuerunt Dæmones, seu Angeli corporei, seu
animalia rationalia prope paludem degentia, utpote aquea, quæ audita
morte Christi, qui nomine magni Pan efferebatur, in lacrymas et
lamenta effusa sunt; prout etiam Hebræi nonnulli visa Christi morte
percutientes pectora sua revertebantur (=Luc.= c. 23. v. 48.). Ex
hucusque igitur deductis patet, quod dantur hujusmodi Dæmones, succubi
et incubi, constantes sensu, et ipsius passionibus obnoxii, ut probatum
est; qui generantur, corrumpuntur, et capaces sunt beatitudinis, et
damnationis, et ratione corporis subtilioris, nobiliores homine sunt,
et qui si cum hominibus, maribus aut fœminis, carnaliter commiscentur,
peccant, et eo peccato, quo peccat homo jungendo se cum bruto, quod
est homine ignobilius; proinde non raro hi Dæmones consuetudinem
habentes cum homine, aut equabus, post longam habitam communicationem
eos interficiunt. Causa porro hujus est, quod si inter tales datur
peccatum, cum sint in via, dari etiam debet pœnitentia; sicut ergo
homini peccanti consuetudinaliter cum bruto, ad tollendam occasionem
recidivandi, Confessarius injungit, ut brutum tollat de medio, ita
tali Dæmoni consuetudinario in peccato, et tandem pœœnitenti accidit,
ut animal cum quo peccavit, sive homo, sive brutum fuerit, occidat;
nec enim tali Dæmoni mors data homini peccatum erit, sicut mors data
bruto non imputatur tamquam peccatum homini: ratione enim essentialis
differentiæ inter Dæmonem hujusmodi, et hominem, idem erit homo Dæmoni,
quod est homini brutum.


102. Thereto tends also the fact mentioned by Cardinal Baronius
(_Appar. Annal._ nº 129), after Eusebius and Plutarch, as being one
of the prodigies which took place at the time of the death of Christ.
He relates that in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, when Christ
suffered, whilst mariners bound from Greece to Italy, were by night,
and during a calm, in the vicinity of the Echinade Isles, their ship
was brought close to land. All the crew heard a loud voice calling
Tramnus, the master of the ship. He having answered to his name, the
voice replied: “When near such a marsh, announce that _the great Pan
is dead_.” Which Tramnus having done, there arose suddenly, as from
a numberless multitude, groans and shrieks. Doubtless, they were
Demons, or corporeal Angels, or rational animals living near the marsh
on account of their aqueous nature, and who, hearing of the death
of Christ, described by the name of Great Pan, burst into tears and
bewailing, like some of the Jews who, after witnessing the death of
Christ, went home smiting their breasts (_Luke_, ch. 23, v. 48). From
all that has been deduced above, it is therefore clear that there are
such Demons, succubi and incubi, endowed with senses and subject to the
passions thereof, as has been shown; who are born through generation
and die through corruption, are capable of beatitude and damnation,
more noble than man, by reason of the greater subtilty of their bodies,
and who, when having intercourse with man, male or female, fall into
the same sin as man when copulating with a beast, which is inferior to
him. Also, it not unfrequently occurs that those Demons slay the men,
women or mares with whom they have had protracted intercourse; and the
reason is that, being liable to sin whilst on the way to salvation,
_in via_, they must likewise be open to repentance; and, in the same
manner as a man, who habitually sins with a beast, is enjoined by
his confessor to destroy that beast, with a view to suppressing the
occasion of relapsing, it may likewise happen that the penitent demon
should slay the animal with which it sinned, whether man or beast; nor
will death thus occasioned to a man be reckoned a sin to the Demon, any
more than death inflicted on a beast is imputed as a sin to man; for,
considering the essential difference between a Demon of that kind and
man, the man will be the same thing to the Demon as the beast is to man.


103. Scio multos, et forte plerosque, qui hæc legerent, dicturos de me,
quod Epicurei et Stoici Philosophi nonnulli dixerunt de Divo Paulo,
=Actor.= c. 17. v. 18.: =Novorum Dæmoniorum videtur annunciator=, et
datam doctrinam exsibillabunt. Sed isti tenebuntur solvere argumenta
supra posita, et dicere quinam sint Dæmones isti Incubi, vulgo
=Folletti=, qui exorcismos, res sacras, et Christi Crucem non pavent, ac
alios effectus istorum, ac phænomena salvare, quæ nos ex data doctrina
ostendimus.


103. I am aware that many, perhaps most of my readers, will say of me
what the Epicureans and some Stoic Philosophers said of St Paul (_Acts
of the Apostles_, ch. 17, v. 18). “_He seemeth to be a setter forth of
strange gods_”, and will deride my doctrine. But they will none the
less have to answer the foregoing arguments, to show what are those
Incubi Demons, commonly called _Goblins_, who dread neither exorcisms,
nor the holy things, nor the Cross of Christ, and to explain the
various effects and phenomena related when propounding that doctrine.


104. Solvitur ergo ex his, quæ hucusque deducta sunt, quæstio, quam
proposuimus supra nº 30 et nº 34: resolutive innuimus, quomodo
mulier potest ingravidari a dæmone Incubo. Non enim hoc præstare potest
ex semine sumpto ab homine, ut fert communis opinio, quam confutavimus
nº 31 et 32: sequitur ergo, quod ipsa imprægnatur a semine Incubi, cum
enim animal sit, et generet, proprio pollet semine: et hoc modo optime
salvatur generatio Gigantum secuta ex commixtione Filiorum Dei cum
Filiabus hominum; nati siquidem sunt ex tali concubitu Gigantes, qui
licet homini essent similes, corpore tamen erant majores: et quamvis a
Dæmonibus geniti, viribus proinde pollerent, non tamen Dæmonum vires
et potentiam æquabant, ut sequitur in mulis, hinnis et burdonibus, qui
medii quodammodo sunt inter eas species animalium, a quibus promiscue
generantur, et superant quidem imperfectiorem, non attingunt autem
perfectiorem speciem generantium: mulus enim superat asinum, sed non
æquat perfectionem equæ, a quibus generatur.


104. What we have hitherto deduced accordingly solves the question
laid down N^{rs} 30 and 34, to wit: how a woman can be got with
child by an Incubus Demon? In fact, it cannot be brought about by
sperm assumed from a man, agreeably to the common opinion which we
confuted, N^{rs} 31 and 32; it follows, therefore, that she is directly
impregnated by the sperm of the Incubus, which, being an animal and
capable of breeding, has sperm of its own. And thus is fully explained
the begetting of Giants from the intercourse of the Sons of God with
the Daughters of men: for that intercourse gave birth to Giants who,
although like unto men, were of higher stature, and, though begotten
by Demons, and consequently of great strength, yet equalled them
neither in might nor in power. It is the same with mules, which are
intermediate, as it were, between the kinds of animals from whose
promiscuousness they are sprung, and which excel indeed the most
imperfect, but never equal the most perfect: thus, the mule excels
the ass, but does not attain the perfection of the mare, which have
begotten it.


105. Confirmat autem hanc sententiam consideratio, quod animalia
genita ex commixtione diversarum specierum non generant; sed sunt
sterilia, ut patet in mulis. Gigantes autem non leguntur Gigantes
generasse, sed natos a Filiis Dei, puta Incubis, et Filiabus hominum:
cum enim concepti fuerint ex semine Dæmoniaco mixto cum humano, non
potuerunt, tamquam mediæ speciei inter Dæmonem et hominem, generare.


105. In confirmation of the above inference, we observe that animals
sprung from the mixing of different kinds do not breed, but are
barren, as is seen with mules. Now we do not read of Giants having been
begotten by other Giants, but of their having been born of the Sons
of God, that is Incubi, and the Daughters of men: being thus begotten
of the Demoniac sperm mixed with the human sperm, and being, as it
were, an intermediate species between the Demon and man, they had no
generative power.


106. Dicetur fortasse contra hoc, non posse, ex semine Dæmonum, quod
pro sui natura opportet esse tenuissimum, fieri mixturam cum semine
humano, quod crassum est; unde nec generatio sequi possit.


106. It may be objected that the sperm of Demons, which must, by
nature, be most fluid, could not mix with the human sperm, which is
thick, and that, consequently, no generation would ensue.


107. Respondeo quod, ut dictum fuit supra nº 32: virtus generandi
consistit in spiritu, qui simul cum materia spumosa et viscida
deciditur a generante; sequitur ex hoc, quod semen Dæmonis quantumvis
tenuissimum, quia tamen materiale, optime potest commisceri cum spiritu
materiali seminis humani, ac fieri generatio.


107. I reply that, as has been said above, N^r 32, the generative power
lies in the spirit that comes from the generator at the same time as
the spumy and viscous matter; it follows that, although most liquid,
the sperm of the Demon, being nevertheless material, can very well mix
with the material spirit of the human sperm, and bring about generation.


108. Replicabitur adhuc contra conclusionem, quod si vere fuisset
Gigantum generatio ex semine Incuborum et Mulierum, nunc quoque
Gigantes nascerentur: non desunt enim mulieres coeuntes cum Incubis,
ut patet ex gestis SS. Bernardi et Petri de Alcantara, et aliarum
historiarum, quæ passim ab auctoribus recitantur.


108. It will be retorted that, if the generation of Giants had really
come from the combined sperms of Incubi and Women, Giants would
still be born in our time, since there is no lack of women who have
intercourse with Incubi, as is shown by the Acts of St Bernard and
Peter of Alcantara, and other stories related by various authors.


109. Respondeo, quod prout ex Guaccio dictum fuit supra nº 81: alii
sunt hujusmodi Dæmones terrei, alii aquei, aerei alii, et alii ignei,
qui respective in propriis eorum elementis habitant. Videmus autem
animalia eo majora esse quo majus est elementum in quo degunt, ut patet
in piscibus, inter quos licet multi sint minuti, ut etiam sunt plura
animalia terrestria minutissima, et tamen quia elementum aquæ majus
est elemento terræ (utpote continens majus semper est contento), ideo
pisces a tota specie superant in magnitudine molis animalia terrestria,
ut patet in balenis, orcynis, pistis seu pistricibus, thynnis, ac
aliis piscibus cetaceis, seu viviparis, qui quodvis animal terrestre
longe superant. Porro cum Dæmones hujusmodi animalia sint, ut hucusque
probatum est, eo erunt majores in magnitudine quo elementum majus
pro sui natura inhabitabunt. Et cum aer excedat aquam, et ignis aere
major sit, sequitur, quod Dæmones ætherei ac ignei longe superabunt
terrestres et aqueos, tum in mole corporis, tum in virtute. Nec
contra hoc facit instantia de avibus, qui licet incolant aerem, qui
major est aqua, tamen corpore minores sunt a tota specie piscibus et
quadrupedibus, quia aves, licet per aerem volatu spatientur, revera
tamen pertinent ad elementum terræ, in qua quiescunt; aliter enim
pisces nonnulli qui volant, ut hirundo marina, et alii, dici deberent
animalia aerea, quod falsum est.


109. I reply that, as has been said above, N^r 81, from Guaccius, some
of those Demons are earthly, some aqueous, some aerial, some igneous,
and they all dwell in their respective element. Now, it is well known
that animals are of larger size, according to the element they live in;
thus with fishes, many of which are diminutive, it is true, as happens
with animals that live on land; but, the element water being larger
than the element earth, since the container is always larger than the
contents, fishes as a species, surpass in size the animals that dwell
on land, as shown by whales, tunnies, cachalots, and other cetaceous
and viviparous fish which surpass by far all animals that live on land.
Consequently, these Demons being animals, as has been shown, their
size will be proportionate to the extent of the element they dwell in,
according to their nature. And, air being more extensive than water,
and fire than air, it follows that ethereal and igneous Demons will
by far surpass their earthly and aqueous fellows, both in stature and
might. It would be to no purpose to instance, as an objection, birds
which, although inhabitants of the air, a more extensive element than
water, are smaller, as a species, than fishes and quadrupeds; for, if
birds do indeed travel through the air by means of their wings, they
no less belong to the element earth, where they rest; otherwise, some
fishes that fly, such as the sea swallow, would have to be classed
among aerial animals, which is not.


110. Advertendum autem, quod post diluvium aer iste terraqueo globo
citissimus magis incrassatus est ex humiditate aquarum, quam fuerit
ante diluvium, et hinc forte est, quod ex tali humido, quod est
principium corruptionis, fiat, quod homines non ætatem ita producant,
ut faciebant ante diluvium. Ex ista autem aeris crassitie fit, quod
Dæmones ætherei, ac ignei, cæteris corpulentiores, nequeunt diutius
manere in hoc aere crasso, et si descendunt aliquando hoc fit
violenter, et eo modo quo urinatores ad ima maris descendunt.


110. Now, it must be observed that, after the flood, the air which
surrounds our earthy and aqueous globe, became, from the damp of the
waters, thicker than it had been before; and, damp being the principle
of corruption, that may be the reason why men do not live as long as
they did before the flood. It is also on account of that thickness
of the air that ethereal and igneous Demons, more corpulent than the
others, can no longer dwell in that thick atmosphere, and if they do
descend into it occasionally, do so only by force, much as divers
descend into the depths of the sea.


111. Ante diluvium autem, cum adhuc aer non ita crassus erat, veniebant
Dæmones, et cum mulieribus miscebantur, et gigantes procreabant, qui
magnitudinem corpoream Dæmonum generantium æmulabantur. Nunc vero
ita non est: Dæmones enim Incubi, qui fœminas incessunt, sunt aquei
quorum corporis moles magna non est: et proinde in forma homuncionum
apparent, et quia aquei etiam salacissimi sunt; luxuria enim in humido
est: ut proinde Venerem e mari natam Poetæ finxerint, quod Mythologi
explicant de libidine, quæ oritur ab humiditate. Cum ergo Dæmones, qui
corpore parvi sunt his temporibus mulieres imprægnent, non gigantes,
sed staturæ ordinariæ filii nascuntur. Sciendum porro quod si miscentur
corporaliter cum mulieribus Dæmones in sua ipsorum corpulentia
naturali, nulla facta immutatione aut artificio, mulieres illos non
vident, nisi tanquam umbram pæne incertam, ac quasi insensibilem, ut
patet in muliere illa, de qua diximus supra nº 28., quæ osculabatur
ab incubo, cujus tactus vix ab ea sentiebatur. Quando vero volunt se
visibiles amasiis reddere, atque ipsis delectationem in congressu
carnali afferre, sibi indumentum visibile assumunt, et corpus crassum
reddunt. Qua vero hoc arte fiat, ipsi norunt. Nobis curta nostra
Philosophia hoc non pandit. Unum scire possumus, et est, quod tale
indumentum seu corpus ex solo aere concreto constare nequiret, hoc enim
esse deberet per condensationem, et proinde per frigus; unde oporteret,
quod corpus illud ad tactum esset veluti glacies, et ita in coitu
mulieres non delectaret, sed torqueret, cum tamen contrarium eveniat.


111. Before the flood, when the air was not yet so thick, Demons came
upon earth and had intercourse with women, thus procreating Giants
whose stature was nearly equal to that of the Demons, their fathers.
But now it is not so; the Incubi Demons who approach women are aqueous
and of small stature; that is why they appear in the shape of little
men, and, being aqueous, they are most lecherous. Lust and damp go
together: Poets have depicted Venus as born of the sea, in order to
show, as explained by Mythologists, that lust takes its source in damp.
When, therefore, Demons of short stature impregnate women nowadays,
the children that are born are not giants, but men of ordinary size.
It should, moreover, be known that when Demons have carnal intercourse
with women in their own natural body, without having recourse to any
disguise or artifice, the women do not see them, or if they do, see but
an almost doubtful, barely sensible shadow, as was the case with the
female we spoke of, N^r 28, who, when embraced by an Incubus, scarcely
felt his touch. But, when they want to be seen by their mistresses,
_atque ipsis delectationem in congressu carnali afferre_, they assume a
visible disguise and a palpable body. By what means this is effected,
is their secret, which our short-sighted Philosophy is unable to
discover. The only thing we know is that such disguise or body could
not consist merely in concrete air, since this must take place through
condensation, and therefore by the influence of cold; a body thus
formed would feel like ice, _et ita in coitu mulieres non delectaret_,
but would give them pain; and it is the reverse that takes place.


112. Visa igitur differentia Dæmonum spiritualium, qui cum sagis
coeunt, et Incuborum, qui cum fœminis minime sagis rem habent,
perpendenda est gravitas hujus criminis in utroque casu.


112. Being admitted the distinction between spiritual Demons, which
have intercourse with witches, and Incubi, who have to do with women
that are nowise witches, we have to weigh the grievousness of the crime
in both cases.


113. In coitu sagarum cum Dæmonibus, eo quia non fit nisi cum
apostasia a Fide, et Diaboli cultu, et tot aliis impietatibus quas
recensuimus supra a nº 12. ad 24., est maximum quorumque peccatorum,
quæ ab hominibus fieri possunt: et ratione tantæ enormitatis contra
Religionem, quæ præsupponitur coitu cum Diabolo, profecto Dæmonialitas
maximum est criminum carnalium. Sed spectato delicto carnis ut sic,
et ut abstracto a peccatis contra Religionem, Dæmonialitas redigenda
est ad simplicem pollutionem. Ratio, et quidem convincentissima, est
quia Diabolus, qui rem habet cum sagis, purus spiritus est, et est
in termino ac damnatus ut dictum supra fuit; proinde si cum sagis
coit, hoc facit in corpore assumpto, aut a se formato, ut sentiunt
communiter Theologi. Porro corpus illud quamvis moveatur, non tamen
vivens est; sequitur ergo quod coiens cum tali corpore, sive mas sive
fœmina fuerit, idem delictum committit, ac si cum corpore inanimato aut
cadavere coiret, quod esset simplex mollities, ut alias demonstravimus.
Verum est, quod, ut observavit etiam Cajetanus, talis coitus effective
potest habere deformitates aliorum criminum juxta corpus a Diabolo
assumptum, et vas: si enim assumeret corpus virginis consanguineæ, aut
sacræ, effective esset tale crimen incestus aut sacrilegium, et si in
figura bruti coiret, aut in vase præpostero, evaderet Bestialitas aut
Sodomia.


113. The intercourse of witches with Demons, from its accompanying
circumstances, apostasy from the Faith, worshipping of the Devil, and
so many other ungodly things related above, N^{rs} 12 to 24, is the
greatest of all sins which can be committed by man; and, considering
the enormity against Religion which is presupposed by coition with the
Devil, Demoniality is assuredly the most heinous of all carnal crimes.
But, taking the sin of the flesh as such, exclusive of the sins
against Religion, Demoniality should be reduced to simple pollution.
The reason is, and a most convincing one, that the Devil who has to do
with witches is a pure spirit, has reached the goal and is damned, as
has been said above; if, therefore, he copulates with witches, it is
in a body assumed or made by himself, according to the common opinion
of Theologians. Though set in motion, that body is not a living one;
and it follows that the human being, male or female, _coiens cum tali
corpore_, is guilty of the same offence as if copulating with an
inanimate body or a corpse, which would be simple pollution, as we have
shown elsewhere. It has, moreover, been truly observed by Cajetanus,
that such intercourse can very well carry with it the disgraceful
characteristics of other crimes, according to the body assumed by the
Devil, and the part used: thus, if he should assume the body of a
kinswoman or of a nun, such a crime would be incest or sacrilege; if
coition took place in the shape of a beast, or _in vase præpostero_, it
would be Bestiality or Sodomy.


114. In coitu autem cum Incubo, in quo nulla habetur qualitas, vel
minima, criminis contra Religionem, difficile est rationem invenire,
per quam tale delictum Bestialitate et Sodomia gravior esset. Siquidem
gravitas Bestialitatis præ Sodomia, prout supra diximus, consistit
in hoc, quod homo vilificat dignitatem suæ speciei jungendo se cum
bruto quod est speciei longe inferioris sua. In coitu autem cum
Incubo diversa est ratio: nam Incubus ratione spiritus rationalis,
ac immortalis, æqualis est homini; ratione vero corporis nobilioris,
nempe subtilioris, est perfectior, et dignior homine; et hoc modo
homo jungens se Incubo non vilificat, immo dignificat suam naturam,
et ita, juxta hanc considerationem, Dæmonialitas nequit esse gravior
Bestialitate.


114. As for intercourse with an Incubus, wherein is to be found no
element, not even the least, of an offence against Religion, it is hard
to discover a reason why it should be more grievous than Bestiality and
Sodomy. For, as we have said above, if Bestiality is more grievous than
Sodomy, it is because man degrades the dignity of his kind by mixing
with a beast, of a kind much inferior to his own. But, when copulating
with an Incubus, it is quite the reverse: for the Incubus, by reason
of his rational and immortal spirit, is equal to man; and, by reason
of his body, more noble because more subtile, he is more perfect and
more dignified than man. Consequently, when having intercourse with an
Incubus, man does not degrade, but rather dignifies his nature; and,
taking that into consideration, Demoniality cannot be more grievous
than Bestiality.


115. Tamen gravior communiter censetur, et ratio, meo videri, potest
esse: quia peccatum contra Religionem est, quævis communicatio cum
Diabolo, sive ex pacto, sive non; puta habendo cum eo consuetudinem
aut familiaritatem, seu ab eo petendo auxilium, consilium, favorem,
aut ab ipso quærendo revelationem futurorum, relationem præteritorum,
absentium aut alias occultorum. Hujusmodi autem homines, seu mulieres,
concumbendo cum Incubis, quos nesciunt animalia esse, sed putant esse
diabolos, contra conscientiam erroneam delinquunt; et hoc modo ex
conscientia erronea ita peccant cum Incubis se jungendo, ac si cum
diabolis coirent: unde et gravitatem ejusdem criminis incurrunt.


115. It is, however, commonly held to be more grievous, and the
reason I take to be this: that it is a sin against Religion to hold
any communication with the Devil, either with or without compact, for
instance by being habitually or familiarly connected with him, by
asking his assistance, counsel or favor, or by seeking from him the
revelation of things to be, the knowledge of things gone by, absent,
or otherwise hidden. Thus, men and women, by mixing with Incubi, whom
they do not know to be animals but believe to be devils, sin through
intention, _ex conscientia erronea_, and their sin is intentionally the
same, when having intercourse with Incubi, as if such intercourse took
place with devils; in consequence, the grievousness of their crime is
exactly the same.




                                 FINIS

[Illustration: Decoration]




APPENDIX


The manuscript of _Demoniality_ breaks off with the conclusion just
given. In a purely philosophical and theoretical acception, the work is
complete: for it was enough that the author should define, in general
terms, the grievousness of the crime, without concerning himself with
the proceedings which were to make out the _proof_, nor with the
_penalty_ to be inflicted. Both those questions, on the contrary, had,
as a matter of course, a place assigned to them in the great work _De
Delictis et Pœnis_, which is a veritable _Code for the Inquisitor_; and
Father Sinistrari of Ameno could not fail to treat them there with all
the care and conscientiousness he has so amply shown in the foregoing
pages.

The reader will be happy to find here that practical conclusion to
_Demoniality_.

  (_Note by the Editor._)




[Illustration: Decoration]


PROBATIO DÆMONIALITATIS


=SUMMARIUM

1. De probatione criminis Dæmonialitatis, distinguendum est.

2. Indicia probantia coitum Sagæ cum Diabolo.

3. Requiritur confessio ipsius malefici ad plenam probationem.

4. Historia de Moniali habente consuetudinem cum Incubo.

5. Si adsint indicia visa in recitata historia, potest ad torturam
deveniri.=


PROOF OF DEMONIALITY


SUMMARY

1. _Distinctions to be made in the proof of the crime of Demoniality._

2. _Signs proving the intercourse of a Witch with the Devil._

3. _The confession of the Sorcerer himself is requisite for a full
eviction._

4. _Tale of a Nun who had an intimacy with an Incubus._

5. _If the indictment is supported by the recitals of eye-witnesses,
torture may be resorted to._


_1. Quantum ad probationem hujus criminis attinet, distinguendum est
de Dæmonialitate, puta, vel ejus, quæ a Sagis seu Maleficis fit cum
Diabolis; sive de ea, quæ ab aliis fit cum Incubis._


1. As regards the proof of that crime, a distinction must be made of
the kind of Demoniality, to wit: whether it is that which is practiced
by Witches or Wizards with the Devil, or that which other persons
perpetrate with Incubi.


2. Quoad primam, probato crimine pacti facti cum Diabolo, probata
remanet =Dæmonialitas= ex consequentia necessaria; nam scopus
tum Sagarum, tum Maleficorum in ludis nocturnis, ultra convivia, et
choreas, est hujusmodi infamis congressus: aliter, illius criminis
nullus potest esse testis, quia Diabolus, qui Sagæ visibilis est,
aliorum oculos effugit. Verum est, quod aliquoties visæ sunt mulieres
in sylvis, agris, et nemoribus, supinæ jacentes, ad umbilicum tenus
denudatæ, et juxta dispositionem actus venerei, divaricatis et adductis
cruribus, clunes agitare, prout scribit Guacc., lib. 1, cap. 12, v.
=Sciendum est sæpius, fol. 65.= Tali casu emergeret suspicio
vehemens talis criminis, dummodo esset aliunde adminiculata, et
crederem talem actum per testes sufficienter probatum, sufficere Judici
ad indagandam tormentis veritatem; et hoc maxime, si post aliqualem
moram in illo actu, visus fuisset a muliere elevari quasi fumus niger,
et tunc mulierem surgere, prout ibidem scribit Guaccius; talis enim
fumus, aut umbra, Dæmonem fuisse concumbentem cum fœmina inferre
potest. Sicut etiam, si mulier visa fuisset concumbere cum homine,
qui post actum de repente evanuit, ut non semel accidisse idem auctor
ibidem narrat.


2. In the first case, the compact entered into with the Devil
being proved, the evidence of _Demoniality_ follows as a necessary
consequence; for, the purpose, both of Witches and Wizards, in the
nightly revels that take place after feasting and dancing, is none
other but that infamous intercourse; otherwise there can be no witness
of that crime, since the Devil, visible to the Witch, escapes the sight
of others. Sometimes, it is true, women have been seen in the woods, in
the fields, in the groves, lying on their backs, _ad umbilicum tenus
nudatæ, et juxta dispositionem actus venerei_, their legs _divaricatis
et adductis, clunes agitare_, as is written by Guaccius, book I, chap.
12, v. _Sciendum est sæpius_, fol. 65. In such a case there would be
a very strong suspicion of such a crime, if supported by other signs;
and I am inclined to believe that such action, sufficiently proved by
witnesses, would justify the Judge in resorting to torture in order
to ascertain the truth; especially if, shortly after that action, a
sort of black smoke had been seen to issue from the woman, and she had
been noticed to rise, as is also written by Guaccius; for it might
be inferred that that smoke or shadow had been the Devil himself,
_concumbens cum fœmina_. Likewise if, as has more than once happened,
according to the same author, a woman had been seen _concumbere cum
homine_, who, the action over, suddenly disappeared.


3. Cæterum ad probandum concludenter aliquem esse Maleficum, seu
Maleficam, requiritur propria confessio; nullus enim haberi potest de
hoc testis, nisi forte sint alii Malefici, qui in judicio deponunt de
complicibus; sed quia socii criminis sunt, eorum dictum non concludit,
nec etiam ad torturam sufficit, nisi alia existent indicia, puta,
sigillum Diaboli impressum in eorum corpore, prout diximus supra
=num. 23.=; et in eorum domibus, facta perquisitione, inveniant
signa, ac instrumenta artis diabolicæ, ut ossa mortuorum, præsertim
calvariam; crines artificiose contextos; nodos plumarum intricatos;
alas, aut pedes, aut ossicula vespertilionum, aut bufonum, aut
serpentium; ignotas seminum species; figuras cereas; vasculos plenos
incognito pulvere, aut oleo, aut unguentis minime notis, etc., ut
ordinarie contingit reperiri a Judicibus, qui, accepta accusatione
de hujusmodi Sagis, ad capturam, et domus visitationem deveniunt, ut
scribit Delbene, =de Off. S. Inquis., par. 2. dub. 206, num. 7.=


3. Moreover, in order to prove conclusively that a person is a Wizard
or a Witch, the own confession of such person is requisite: for there
can be no witnesses to the fact, unless perhaps other Sorcerers giving
evidence at the trial against their accomplices; from their being
confederates in the crime, their statement is not conclusive and does
not justify the recourse to torture, should not other indications be
forthcoming, such as the seal of the Devil stamped on their body, as
aforesaid, N^r 23, or the finding in their dwelling, after a search,
of signs and instruments of the diabolic art: for instance, bones
and, especially, a skull, hair artfully plaited, intricate knots of
feathers, wings, feet or bones of bats, toads or serpents, unfamiliar
seeds, wax figures, vessels filled with unknown powder, oil or
ointments, etc., as are usually detected by Judges who, upon a charge
being brought against Sorcerers, proceed to their apprehension and the
search of their houses.


4. Quantum vero ad probationem congressus cum Incubo, par est
difficultas; non minus enim Incubus, ac alii Diaboli effugiunt, quando
volunt, visum aliorum, ut videri se faciunt a sola amasia. Tamen non
raro accidit, quod etiam visi sint Incubi modo sub una, modo sub alia
specie in actu carnali cum mulieribus.

In quodam Monasterio (nomen ejus et urbis taceo, ne veterem ignominiam
memoriæ refricem) quædam fuit Monialis, quæ cum alia Moniali, quæ
cellam habebat suæ contiguam, simultatem ex levibus causis, ut
assolet inter mulieres, maxime Religiosas, habebat. Hæc sagax in
observando quascumque actiones Monialis sibi adversæ, per plures dies
vidit, quod ista in diebus æstivis, statim a prandio non spatiabatur
per viridarium cum aliis, sed ab iis sequestra, se retrahebat in
cellam, quam sera obserabat. Observatrix igitur æmula curiositate
investigans, quid tali tempore illa facere posset, etiam ipsa in
propriam cellam se recipiebat; cœpit autem audire submissam quasi
duorum insimul colloquentium vocem (quod facile erat, nam cella parvo
simplicis, scilicet lateris unius, disterminio dividebatur), mox
sonitum poppysmatum[4], concussionis lecti, gannitus, ac anhelitus,
quasi duorum concubentium; unde aucta in æmula curiositate stetit
in observatione, ut sciret, quinam in illa cella essent. Postquam
autem per tres vices vidit, nullam aliam Monialem egressam e cella
illa, præter æmulam, dominam cellæ, suspicata est Monialem in camera
absconditum aliquem virum, clanculum introductum, retinere; unde
et rem detulit ad Abbatissam, quæ consilio habito cum discretis,
voluit audire sonitus, et observare indicia relata ab accusatrice, ne
præcipitanter et inconsiderate ageret. Abbatissa igitur cum discretis
se receperunt in cellam observatricis, et audierunt strepitus, et
voces, quas accusatrix detulerat. Facta igitur inquisitione, an ulla
Monialium potuisset secum in illa cella clausa esse, et reperto quod
non, Abbatissa cum discretis fuit ad ostium cellæ clausæ; et pulsato
frustra pluries ostio, cum Monialis nec respondere, nec aperire vellet,
Abbatissa minata est, se velle ostium prosterni facere, et vecte
aggredi opus fecit a quadam conversa. Tunc aperuit ostium Monialis,
et facta perquisitione, nullus inventus est in camera. Interrogata
Monialis cum quonam loqueretur, et de causa concussionis lecti,
anhelituum, etc., omnia negavit.

Cum vero res perseveraret, accuratior, ac curiosior reddita Monialis
æmula perforavit tabulas lacunaris, ut posset cellam introspicere; et
vidit elegantem quemdam juvenem cum Moniali concumbentem, quem etiam
eodem modo ab aliis Monialibus videndum curavit. Delata mox accusatione
ad Episcopum, ipsaque Moniali omnia negante, tandem metu tormentorum
comminatorum adacta, confessa est se cum Incubo consuetudinem habuisse.


4. The proof of intimacy with an Incubus offers the same difficulty;
for, no less than other Demons, the Incubus is, at will, invisible to
all but his mistress. Yet, it has not seldom happened that Incubi have
allowed themselves to be surprised in the act of carnal intercourse
with women, now in one shape, now in another.

In a Monastery (I mention neither its name nor that of the town where
it lies, so as not to recall to memory a past scandal), there was
a Nun, who, about trifles, as is usual with women and especially
with nuns, had quarrelled with one of her mates who occupied a cell
adjoining to hers. Quick at observing all the doings of her enemy, this
neighbour noticed, several days in succession, that instead of walking
with her companions in the garden after dinner she retired to her cell,
where she locked herself in. Anxious to know what she could be doing
there all that time, the inquisitive Nun betook herself also to her
cell. Soon she heard a sound, as of two voices conversing in subdued
tones, which she could easily do, since the two cells were divided but
by a slight partition), then a peculiar friction[4], the cracking of
a bed, groans and sighs, _quasi duorum concumbentium_; her curiosity
was raised to the highest pitch, and she redoubled her attention
in order to ascertain who was in the cell. But having, three times
running, seen no other nun come out but her rival, she suspected that
a man had been secretly introduced and was kept hidden there. She went
and reported the thing to the Abbess, who, after holding counsel with
discreet persons, resolved upon hearing the sounds and observing the
indications that had been denounced her, so as to avoid any precipitate
or inconsiderate act. In consequence, the Abbess and her confidents
repaired to the cell of the spy, and heard the voices and other noises
that had been described. An inquiry was set on foot to make sure
whether any of the Nuns could be shut in with the other one; and the
result being in the negative, the Abbess and her attendants went to the
door of the closed cell, and knocked repeatedly, but to no purpose: the
Nun neither answered, nor opened. The Abbess threatened to have the
door broken in, and even ordered a convert to force it with a crow-bar.
The Nun then opened her door: a search was made and no one found. Being
asked with whom she had been talking, and the why and wherefore of the
bed cracking, of the sighs, etc., she denied every thing.

But, matters going on just the same as before, the rival Nun, become
more attentive and more inquisitive than ever, contrived to bore a hole
through the partition, so as to be able to see what was going on inside
the cell; and what should she see but an elegant youth lying with the
Nun, and the sight of whom she took care to let the others enjoy by the
same means. The charge was soon brought before the bishop: the guilty
Nun endeavoured still to deny all; but, threatened with the torture,
she confessed having had an intimacy with an Incubus.

 [4] _Poppysmatum._--That word being but little used, it may be useful
 to record here the definition given of it by the _Glossarium eroticum
 linguæ latinæ_ (auctore P. P., Paris, 1826):

  POPPYSMA.--Oris pressi sonus, similis illi quo permulcentur equi et
  canes. Obscene vero de susurro cunni labiorum, quum frictu madescunt.

 Father Sinistrari, well versed in classical literature, had turned to
 account the following epigram of Martial (book VII, 18):

 IN GALLAM

     Quum tibi sit facies, de qua nec fœmina possit
       Dicere, quum corpus nulla litura notet;
     Cur te tam rarus cupiat, repetatque fututor,
       Miraris? Vitium est non leve, Galla, tibi.
     Accessi quoties ad opus, mixtisque movemur
       Inguinibus, cunnus non tacet, ipsa taces.
     Di facerent, ut tu loquereris, et ipse taceret!
       Offendor cunni garrulitate tui.
     Pedere te mallem: namque hoc nec inutile dicit
       Symmachus, et risum res movet ista simul.
     Quis ridere potest fatui =poppysmata= cunni?
       Quum sonat hic, cui non mentula mensque cadit
     Dic aliquid saltem, clamosoque obstrepe cunno:
       Et si adeo muta es, disce vel inde loqui.

   (_Editorial Note._)


5. Quando igitur adessent talia indicia, sicut in recitata historia
intervenerunt, posset utique in rigoroso examine rea constitui; sine
tamen ejus confessione, non censendum est delictum plene probatum,
quantumvis a testibus visus fuisset congressus; siquidem aliquando
accidit, quod Diabolus, ut infamiam alicui innocenti pararet,
præstigiose talem concubitum repræsentaverit. Unde in his casibus debet
Judex Ecclesiasticus esse perfecte oculatus.


5. When, therefore, indications are forthcoming, such as those
recited above, a charge might be brought after a searching inquiry;
yet, without the confession of the accused, the offence should not
be regarded as fully proved, even if the intercourse were testified
by eye-witnesses; for it sometimes happens that, in order to undo an
innocent female, the Devil feigns such intercourse by means of some
delusion. In those cases, the Ecclesiastical Judge must consequently
trust but his own eyes.

[Illustration: Decoration]




PŒNÆ


Quantum ad pœnas =Dæmonialitatis=, nulla lex civilis, aut
canonica, quam legerim, reperitur, quæ pœœnam sanciat contra crimen
hujusmodi. Tamen, quia crimen hoc supponit pactum, ac societatem cum
Dæmone, ac apostasiam a fide, ultra veneficia, atque alia infinita
propemodum damna, quæ a Maleficis inferuntur, regulariter, extra
Italiam, suspendio et incendio punitur. In Italia autem, rarissime
traduntur hujusmodi Malefici ab Inquisitoribus Curiæ sæculari.


PENALTIES


As regards the penalties applicable to _Demoniality_, there is no law
that I know of, either civil or canonical, which inflicts a punishment
for a crime of that kind. Since, however, such a crime implies a
compact and fellowship with the Demon, and apostasy of the faith,
not to speak of the malefices and other almost numberless outrages
perpetrated by Sorcerers, as a rule it is punished, out of Italy, by
the gallows and the stake. But, in Italy, it is but very seldom that
offenders of that kind are delivered up by the Inquisitors to the
secular power.

[Illustration: Decoration]




[Illustration: Decoration]


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE[5]


 [5] This Notice is an extract from tome 1 of the complete works of
 Father Sinistrari, _Romæ_, 1753.

Father Ludovico Maria Sinistrari, of the Order of Reformed Minors of
the strict Observance of St. Francis, was born in Ameno, a small town
of the district of St. Julius, in the diocese of Novara, on the 26^{th}
of February 1622. He received a liberal education and went through a
course of humanities in Pavia, where, in the year 1647, he entered the
Order of Franciscans. Devoting himself henceforward to tuition, he was
first a professor of Philosophy; he then, during fifteen successive
years, taught Theology in the same town, amidst a numerous concourse
of students attracted from all parts of Europe by his high repute. His
sermons preached in the principal cities of Italy, at the same time as
they caused his eloquence to be admired, were productive of the most
happy results for piety. Equally endeared to the World and to Religion,
he had been favoured by nature with the most brilliant gifts: square
frame, high stature, open countenance, broad forehead, sparkling eyes,
high-coloured complexion, pleasant conversation replete with sallies
of wit[6]; more valuable still, he was in possession of the gifts of
grace, through which he was enabled to sustain, with unconquerable
resignation, the assaults of an arthritical disease he was subject to;
he was, moreover, remarkable for his meekness, candour and absolute
submission to the rules of his Order. A man of all sciences[7], he had
learnt foreign languages without any master, and often, in the general
Meetings of his Order, held in Rome, he supported, in public, theses
_de omni scibili_. He, however, addicted himself more particularly to
the study of Civil and Canon laws. In Rome he filled the appointment
of Consulter to the supreme Tribunal of the Holy-Inquisition; was some
time Vicar general of the Archbishop of Avignon, and then Theologian
attached to the Archbishop of Milan. In the year 1688, charged by the
general Meeting of Franciscans with the compilation of the statutes of
the Order, he performed this task in his treatise entitled _Practica
criminalis Minorum illustrata_. He died in the year of our Lord 1701,
on the 6th of March, at the age of seventy-nine[8].

 [6] Quadrato corpore, statura procera, facie liberali, fronte
 spatiosa, oculis rutilantibus, colore vivido, jucundæ conversationis,
 ac lepidorum salium.

 [7] Omnium scientiarum vir.

 [8] The complete works of P. Sinistrari (_Rome, Giannini_, 1753-1754,
 3 vol. in-folio) include the following books: _Practica criminalis
 Minorum illustrata_,--_Formularium criminale_,--_De incorrigibilium
 expulsione ab Ordinibus Regularibus_,--_De Delictis et Pœnis_, to
 which should be added the present work: _De Dæmonialitate_, published
 for the first time in the year 1875.

[Illustration: Decoration]

[Illustration: Decoration]




INDEX


                                                                   Pages
  Preface.                                                             v

  Demoniality: origin of the word.--Wherein
  that crime differs from those
  of Bestiality and Sodomy.--Opinion
  of St Thomas. N^{rs} 1 to 8.                                         1

  Material intercourse with Incubi and
  Succubi is not a thing of imagination;
  testimony of St Austin. N^{rs} 9 and 10.                            15

  Wizards and Witches; their relations
  with the Devil; ceremonials of their
  profession. N^{rs} 11 to 23.                                        21

  Artifices resorted to by the Devil for the
  assumption of a body. N^r 24.                                       31

  Incubi do not assail but women. N^r 26.                             35

  _Goblins_ have no dread of exorcisms. N^r 27.                       37

  Humorous story of signora Hieronyma:
  the enchanted repast. N^r 28.                                       37

  Men begotten by Incubi: Romulus and
  Remus, Plato, Alexander the Great,
  Cæsar-Augustus; Merlin the Enchanter,
  Martin Luther.--The Antechrist
  to be born of an Incubus. N^r 30.                                   53

  Incubi are not pure spirits: they beget,
  and therefore have a body of their own.--Remark
  concerning Giants. N^{rs} 31
  to 33.                                                              57

  Angels are not all pure spirits: decision
  to that effect of the second Council of
  Nicea N^r 37.                                                       71

  Existence of rational creatures or animals
  other than man, and endowed,
  like him, with a body and a soul. N^{rs} 38
  to 43.                                                              85

  Wherein do those animals differ from
  man? What their origin? Do they all
  descend from one individual, as men
  descend from Adam? Is there between
  them a distinction of the sexes? What
  are their manners, laws, social customs?
  N^{rs} 44 to 50.                                                    87

  What are the shape and organisation of
  their body? A comparison drawn from
  the composition of wine. N^{rs} 51 to 56.                           95

  Are those animals subject to diseases,
  to physical and moral infirmities, to
  death? N^{rs} 57 and 58.                                           107

  Are they born in the original sin? Have
  they been redeemed by Jesus-Christ,
  and are they capable of beatitude and
  damnation? N^{rs} 61 and 62.                                       119

  Proofs of their existence. N^{rs} 65 to 70.                        123

  Story of an Incubus and of a young
  Nun. N^r 71.                                                       139

  Story of a young deacon. N^r 72.                                   145

  Incubi are affected by material substances:
  they therefore participate of the
  matter of those substances. N^r 73.                                149

  Instance drawn from the history of Tobit;
  ejection of the Incubus which
  vexed Sarah; cure of old Tobias.
  N^{rs} 74 to 76.                                                   151

  St Anthony falls in with a Faun in the
  wilderness: their conversation. N^r 77
  to 84.                                                             161

  Other proofs of the corporeity of Incubi,
  especially the Manna of the Hebrews
  or Bread of Angels. N^{rs} 90 to 95.                               179

  In what sense are to be understood the
  words of Christ: “_Other sheep I have
  which are not of this fold?_” Apollo’s
  address to the Emperor Augustus:
  the end of the Gods. N^{rs} 96 to 101.                             191

  “THE GREAT PAN IS DEAD”, or the death
  of Christ announced to Fauns, Sylvans
  and Satyrs: their bewailing. N^r 102.                              203

  Solving of the problem: How can a
  woman be impregnated by an Incubus?--Comparison
  of Giants with
  mules. N^{rs} 104 and 105.                                         207

  Wherein lies the generating virtue;
  why no more Giants are born. _Luxuria
  in humido._ N^{rs} 106 to 111.                                     211

  Appreciation of the crime of Demoniality:
  1º committed with the Devil;
  2º committed with an Incubus. N^{rs} 112
  to 114.                                                            219

  Is Demoniality more grievous than Bestiality?--Conclusion.
  N^r 115.                                                           223

  APPENDIX                                                           227

  BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE                                                245

[Illustration: Decoration]




                                LETTER

                                OF THE

                 _REV. FATHER PROVINCIAL OF CAPUCHINS_

                       FOR THE PROVINCE OF P....


  _P..., Friday (8 October 1875)._

   †
  Pax

  MONS. ISIDORE LISEUX,
  Paris.

_I have gone through the work you sent me yesterday, and have, indeed,
been satisfied with the edition; the time has not yet arrived for me to
give my opinion on the value of the work itself. Here you would have
met with no other works of the Rev. Father Sinistrari of Ameno than his
book:_ Practica criminalis Minorum; De Delictis et Pœnis _is to be
found, I believe, in another of our convents; but you would have been
given a most welcome reception._

_I believe that Des Grieux can hardly have resided in the present
St-Sulpice, which dates but from the year 1816.... So far as a
superficial glance has enabled me to ascertain, there are some other
mistakes; but, altogether, the work is a good one, and you may accept
of the congratulations of_

  _Your very little servant,_
  _Fr. A..._
  o.m.c.
  m.p.

  _Convent of Capuchins, rue ...._


Paris, imprimerie D. JOUAUST, rue Saint-Honoré, 338.




                   ISIDORE LISEUX, LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR

                      Rue Bonaparte, nº 2, PARIS


                           CATALOGUE COMPLET

                         AU 1^{er} AVRIL 1879

                                PETITE

                        COLLECTION ELZEVIRIENNE

_Ouvrages curieux, rares ou inédits, tirés à petit nombre sur papier de
Hollande._


Théologie

HISTOIRE ECCLÉSIASTIQUE, PROTESTANTISME

SINISTRARI (Le R. P.). _De la Démonialité_ et des animaux _Incubes et
Succubes_, publié pour la première fois, d’après le manuscrit original
découvert à Londres en 1872, et traduit du Latin par Isidore Liseux;
avec le texte en regard.
  5 fr.

VALLA (Laurent). _La Donation de Constantin_, premier titre du pouvoir
temporel des Papes, où il est prouvé que cette Donation n’a jamais
existé, et que l’Acte attribué à Constantin est l’œuvre d’un faussaire.
Traduit en Français pour la première fois et précédé d’une étude
historique par Alcide Bonneau, avec le texte Latin.
  10 fr.

_LES ECCLÉSIASTIQUES_ de France, leur nombre, celuy des religieux et
des religieuses, ce dont ils subsistent et à quoy ils servent (XVII^e
siècle).
  2 fr.

HUTTEN (Ulrich de). _Julius_, dialogue entre Saint Pierre et le Pape
Jules II à la porte du Paradis; traduction nouvelle par Edmond Thion,
texte Latin en regard.
  3 fr. 50

LUTHER. _La Conférence entre Luther et le Diable_ au sujet de la Messe.
  4 fr.

THÉODORE DE BÈZE. _Epître de maître Benoît Passavant_; traduit pour la
première fois du Latin macaronique de Théodore de Bèze, par Isidore
Liseux, avec le texte en regard.
  3 fr. 50

_PASSEVENT PARISIEN respondant à Pasquin Romain: De la vie de ceux qui
sont allez demourer à Genève_; fait en forme de Dialogue (1556).
  3 fr. 50


Philosophie

MŒURS ET USAGES, HISTOIRE

LA MOTHE LE VAYER. _Soliloques sceptiques._
  2 fr. 50

POGGE. _Un vieillard doit-il se marier?_ traduit par Alcide Bonneau.
  3 fr.

POGGE. _Les Bains de Bade_ au XV^e siècle, scène de mœurs de l’âge
d’or; traduit en Français pour la première fois par Antony Méray.
  2 fr.

ÉRASME. _La Civilité puérile_, traduction nouvelle, texte Latin en
regard, par Alcide Bonneau.
  4 fr.

HENRI ESTIENNE. _La Foire de Francfort_ (Exposition universelle et
permanente au XVI^e siècle); traduit pour la première fois par Isidore
Liseux, texte Latin en regard.
  4 fr.

GESNER (J.-M.). _Socrate et l’Amour Grec_ (_Socrates sanctus_
 Παιδεραστής); traduit en Français pour la première fois, texte Latin en
regard, par Alcide Bonneau.
  3 fr. 50

TACITE. _La Germanie_, traduction entièrement nouvelle, texte Latin en
regard, par E.-P. Dubois-Guchan.
  3 fr. 50

ULRICH DE HUTTEN. _Arminius_, dialogue, traduit pour la première fois
par Edmond Thion, texte Latin en regard.
  2 fr.

_REMONSTRANCE AUX FRANÇOIS_, pour les induire à vivre en paix à
l’advenir (1576).
  1 fr.


Poésie

DU BELLAY (Joachim). _Divers jeux rustiques._
  3 fr. 50

DU BELLAY (Joachim). _Les Regrets._
  3 fr. 50

BONNEFONS (Jean). _Pancharis._
  4fr.

BOULMIER (Joseph). _Villanelles_, avec eau-forte de Lalauze.
  5 fr.


Contes et Nouvelles

ARISTENET. _Les Épistres amoureuses d’Aristenet_, tournées de Grec en
François par Cyre Foucault, sieur de la Coudrière (1597); avec notice
par A.-P. Malassis.
  5 fr.

BOCCACE. _Décaméron_, traduit par Antoine Le Maçon, 6 vol.
  30 fr.

POGGE. _Facéties_, 2 vol. (publié à 20 fr.)
  _Épuisé._

L’ABBÉ FAVRE. _Histoire de Jean-l’ont-pris_, conte Languedocien du
XVIII^e siècle, traduit et précédé d’une notice par Jules Troubat.
  3 fr.

VIVANT DENON. _Point de Lendemain_, conte dédié à la Reine, avec
fleurons dessinés par Marillier; notice par A. P.-Malassis (publié à 4
fr.).
  _Épuisé._

CASTI. _La Papesse._
  10 fr.


Philologie, Histoire littéraire

GABRIEL NAUDÉ, Parisien. _Advis pour dresser une Bibliothèque._
  4 fr.

LA MOTHE LE VAYER. _Hexaméron rustique_ (publié à 3 fr. 50).
  _Épuisé._

GRIMAREST. _La Vie de M^r Molière_; notice par A. P.-Malassis (publié à
5 fr.).
  _Épuisé._

_LES INTRIGUES DE MOLIÈRE_ et celles de sa femme, avec notes par Ch.-L.
Livet (publié à 6 fr.).
  _Épuisé._

_MOLIÈRE JUGÉ_ par ses contemporains; notice par A. P.-Malassis.
  4 fr.

_ELOMIRE HYPOCONDRE_, comédie (contre Molière), avec une note sur les
Ennemis de Molière, par Ch.-L. Livet.
  10 fr.


COLLECTION IN-8º

ESTIENNE (Henri). _Apologie pour Hérodote_, avec Introduction et Notes
par P. Ristelhuber, 2 vol.
  25 fr.

SINISTRARI (Le R. P.). _De la Démonialité_ et des animaux Incubes et
Succubes, première édition (publiée à 10 fr.).
  _Épuisé._

LOISELEUR. _Les Points obscurs de la vie de Molière_ (publié à 12 fr.).
  _Épuisé._

_LES INTRIGUES DE MOLIÈRE_ et de sa femme, avec Préface et Notes par
Ch.-L. Livet.
  12 fr.


FORMAT GRAND IN-18

SAINT-PIERRE (Bernardin de). _Paul et Virginie_, avec huit eaux-fortes
de Lalauze.
  25 fr.

-- Les huit eaux-fortes tirées à part, sur papier de Chine ou de
Hollande.
  10 fr.

POGGE. _Facéties_, deuxième édition complète, avec le texte Latin, 2
vol.
  15 fr.

PIEDAGNEL. _Avril_, poésies, avec un frontispice de Giacomelli, gravé à
l’eau-forte par Lalauze.
  5 fr.

BOULMIER (Joseph). _Villanelles_, première édition (avec eau-forte de
Lalauze).
  5 fr.

BOUTMY (Eugène). _Dictionnaire de la Langue verte typographique._
  3 fr.

SINISTRARI. _Demoniality_, or Incubi and Succubi, now first translated
into English, with the Latin text.

POGGIO. The “_Facetiæ_”, or Jocose Tales, now first translated into
English, with the Latin text.

TROUBAT (Jules). _Plume et Pinceau_, études de littérature et d’art.
  3 fr.

DESMARETS. _L’ancienne Jonction de l’Angleterre à la France_, ou le
Détroit de Calais, avec deux cartes topographiques.
  3 fr.


_ENVOI FRANCO RECOMMANDÉ_

Contre le prix en Mandat de Poste.


Paris.--Imp. Motteroz, rue du Dragon, 31.







End of Project Gutenberg's Demoniality, by The Rev. Father Sinistrari of Ameno

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 54243 ***