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_”.