Chapter II: Part 2

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.