D. Hyeron., 1. i. Controvers. Jovinian.;

Alexandrum Magnum, Plutarch., in Vit. Alex. M.; Quint. Curt., 1. 4, deGest. Alex. M.; Seleucum, re gem Syr ice, Just., Hist., 1. 1 5,- Appian., in Syriac. ; Scipionem A/ri- canum Majorem, Liv., decad. 3, lib. 6; Cce- sarem Augustum Imperatorem, Sueton., in Octa., c. 94 ; Aristomenem .Messenium, strenuissimum ducem Grcecorum , Strabo, 'de Sit Orb., /it. 8; Pausan., de Rebus Grte- cor., lib. 3; et Merlinum, seu Melchinum Anglicum ex Incubo et Filia Caroli Magni Moniali, Haulier, volum. 2, Generat. 7, quod etiam de Martino Luthero,perditmimo
Demoniality 55
ardent, robust men, et abundantes multo semine, quibus succumbant, and then wo- men of a like constitution, quibus incum- bant, 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 Ma- luenda 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 Hali- carnassus and Pliny the Elder; Plato the Philosopher, according to Diogenes Laer- tius and Saint Hieronymus; Alexander the Great, according to Plutarch and Qiiintus-Curtius ; Seleucus, king of Syria, according to Justinus and Appianus; Scipio Africanus the Elder, according to Livy; the emperor Caesar Augustus, according to Suetonius; Aristomenes the Messenian, an illustrious Greek com- mander, 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 Cochlceus quoted by Maluenda, that damned Heresiarch ycleped Martin Luther.
56
Diemonialitas
Heresiarcha scribit Cochiceus apiid Ma- luendam, de Antich., lib. 2, c. 6, § Casterura.
3i. Salva tamen tot., et tantorum Docto- rum., qui in ea opinione conveniunt , reve- rentia, non video., quomodo ipsorum sen- tentia possit subsistere; turn quia., ut optime opinatur Pererius, tom. 2, in Ge- nes., cap. 6, disp. 5, tota vis et efficacia humani seminis consistit in spiritibus., qui dijfflantur, et evanescunt stutim ac sunt extra genitalia vasa, a quibus foventur et conservantur, ut scribunt Medici. Nequit proinde Dcemon semen acceptum conser- vare, ita ut aptum sit generationi, quia vas, quodcumque sit illud, in quo semen conservare tentaret, oporteret quod caleret calore assimetro a nativo organorum humantx generationis ; similarem enim a nullo alio pra’terquam ab organis ipsis habere potest generatio. Turn quia gene- ratio actus vitalis est, per quern 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 gene- rantis, quia ab eo non infertur in matri- cem ; proinde nec did potest, quod homo
Demoniality 5y
3i. However, with due deference to so many and such learned Doctors, I hardly see how their opinion can bear examina- tion. For, as Pererius truly observes in his Commentary on the Genesis, chapt. 6, the whole strengh and efficiency of the human sperm reside in the spirits which evapo- rate 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 or- gans, 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 genera- tion 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 con- trary, in this particular case, the introduc- tion 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
58
Dsemonialitas
eujus est semen, generet foetum, qui ex eo nascitiir. Neque Incubus ipsius pater did potest; quia de ipsius substantia semen non est. Hinc fiet, quod nascetur homo, eujus nemo pater sit, quod est incongrmtm. Turn quia in patre naturaliter generante duplex causalitas concurrit, nempe materialis, quia semen, quod materia generations, minis- trat, 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 actionc in ordine ad generationem ; proinde non posset did pater jilii qui nasceretur : et hoc est con- tra id, quod homo genitus ab Incubo non est illius filius, sed est jilius ejus viri, a quo Incubus semen sumpsit.
32. Preeterea omni probabilitate caret quod scribit Vallesius, et ex eo recitavimus
Demoniality 5g
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 concur- rence of two casualties : 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 begot- ten 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. Besides, there is not a shadow of probability in what was written by Valle- sius and quoted from him by us {Vide supra n° 3o); and I wonder that any thing so extravagant should have fallen from
6o
Daemonialitas
supra 3o ; mirorque a doctissimi viri calamo talia excidisse. Notissimum enim est apud Physicos, quod magnitudo foetus non est a quantitate molis, sed est a quan- titate virtutis, hoc est spirituum in semine : ab ea enim tota generationis ratio dependet, ut optime testatur Michael Ettmullerus, Instit. Medic. Physiolog., car. 22, thes. i, fol. m., 3g, scribens : Tota generationis ratio dependet a spiritu genitali sub cras- sioris materiaj involucro excreto; ista ma- teria seminis crassa nullo modo, vel in utero subsistente, vel seu materia foetum constituente : sed solus spiritus genitalis maris unitus cum spiritu genitali mulieris in poros uteri, seu, quod rarius lit, in tubos uteri se insinuat, indeque uterum fecun- dum reddit. Qiiid ergo facere potest magna quantitas seminis ad foetus magnitudinem? Prceterea nec semper verum est, quod tales geniti ab Incubis magnitudine molis cor- porea; insignes sint : Alexander enim Ma- gnus, qui, ut diximus, natus taliter scri- bitur, statura pusillus erat ; unde carmen,
Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat.
Item quamvis taliter concepti supra cceteros homines excellant, non tamen hoc semper est in vitiis, sed aliquando in virtutibus
Demoniality 6i
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, com- bined with the genital spirit of the female, that permeates the pores, or, less frequen- tly, the tubes of the uterus, which it fecun- dates 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 pro- portions • 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
Daemonialitas
62
etiam in moralibus, ut palet in Scipione Africano, Ccesare Augusta, et Platone Philosopho, de quibiis Livius, Suetonius et Laertius respective scribunt, quod optimi in moribus fuere ; ut proinde arguere pos- simus, 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 Sacra? Scripturce, Gen., c. 6, V. 4, habemus quod gigantes nati sunt ex concubitu jiliorum Dei cum fliabus hominum, et hoc ad litteram sacri textus. Gigantes autem homines erant statura magna, ut eos vocat Baruch, c. 3, v. 2G, et excedente communem hominum proceri- tatem. Monstruosa statura, robore, latro- ciniis, et tj^rannide insignes : unde Gigantes per sua scelera fuerunt maxima," et potis- sima causa Diluvii, ait Cornelius a Lapid. in Gen., c. 6, v. 4, § Burgensis. Non qua- drat autem quorumdam expositio, quod nomine Jiliorum Dei veniant filii Seth, et vocabulo filiarum hominum Jilia; Cain, eo quod illi erant pietati, Religioni, et cceteris virtutibus addicti, descendentes autem a
Demoniality 63
other men, yet such superiority is not always shown by their vices, but some- times by their virtues and even their morals ; Scipio Africanus, for instance, Caesar Augustus and Plato the Philosopher, as is recorded of each of them respectively by Livy, Suetonius and Diogenes Laer- tius, 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 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
Dcemonialitas
64
Cain vice versa : nam salva opinantium, Chrysost.j CyrilL, Theodor. Rupert. Ab. et Hilar, in Psalm. j32, apud Cornel., a Lap., c. 6; G., V. 2, § Verutn dies, reverentia, tails expositio non cohceret sensui patenti litterce ; ait enim Scriptura, quod ex con- junctione talium nati sunt homines mon- struosce proceritatis corporece : ante illam ergo tales gigantes non extiterunt : quod si ex ea orti sunt, hoc non potuit esse ex CO, quod Jilii Seth coivissent cum jiliabus Cain, quia illi erant staturce or dinar i ce , prout etiam Jilice Cain, unde oriri ex his 7jaturaliter non potuerunt nisi jilii staturce ordinarice : si ergo monstruosa statura jilii nati sunt ex tali conjunctione, hoc juit, quia non juerunt progtiati ex ordinaria conjunctione viri cum midiere, sed ex Incubis dcemonibus qui ratione riaturce ipsorum optime possunt vocari jilii Dei, et in hac sententia sunt Philosophi Platonici, et Franciscus Georgius Venetus, tom. i, problem. 74 : nec disscntiunt ab eadem Joseph. Hebrceus, Philo Judceus, S. Jus- tinus Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, et Tertullianus, Joseph. Hebrceus, Antiq., /. I.; Philo, 1. dc Gigant.; S. Justinus M., Apolog. I.; Clemens Alex., lib. 3; TertulL, lib. de Habit. Mul., apud Cornel., loc.cit.; Hugo de S. Victor., Annot. in Gen,, c. 6,
Demoniality 65
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 opi- nion, it must be conceded that it clashes with the obvious meaning of the text. Scrip- ture 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 inter- course 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 opi- nion of the Platonist Philosophers and of Francis Georges the Venetian; nor is it discrepant from that of Josephus the His- torian, Phjlo the Jew, S. Justinus the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Ter- tullian, who look upon Incubi as corporeal
66
Doemonialitas
qui opinantur illos fuisse Angelos quos- nam corporeos qui in luxuriam cum mulie- ribus delapsi sunt : ut enim infra osten- demus, istxduce sententice in unam et eamdem conveniunt.
33. Si ergo Incubi tales, ut fert communis sententia, Gigantes genuerunt, accepto se- mine ab homine, juxta id, quod supra dictum est, non potuerunt ex illo semine nasci nisi homines ejusdem staturce plus minusve, cum eo a quo semen acceptum est: nec enim facit ad altiorem corporis statu- ram major seminis quantitas, itautattracta -insolite a Dcemone, dum Succubus fthomini, augeat ultra illius staturam enormiter cor- pus ab eo geniti ; quia, ut supra diximus, hoc residet in spiritu, et non in mole semi- nis : ut proinde necesse sit concludere, quod ab alio semine, quam humano, hujus- modi gigantes nati sint, et proinde Dcemon Incubus non humano, sed alio semine utatur ad generationem. Quid igitur dicendum ?
Demoniality 67
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. If therefore these Incubi, in confor- mity 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 pro- create 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?
68
Daemonialitas
34. Quantum ad hoc, sub correctione Sanctce Matris Ecclesice, et mere opinative dico, Incubum Dcemonem, dum mulieribus commiscetur, ex proprio ipsius semine hominem generare.
35. Paradoxa in fide, et parum Sana nonnullis videbitur ha’C opinio; sed lecto- rem meum deprecor, ut judicium non privcipitet de ea : ut enim incivile est non- dum tota lege perspecta judicare, ut Celsus, lib. 24. jf. de legib, et S. C., ait, ita neque damnanda est opinio, nisi prius examinatis, ac solutis argumentis, qitibus innititur. Ad probandam igitur supra- datam conclusionem, nonnulla sunt neces- sario prcemittenda.
36. Prarmittendum primo de fide est, quod dentur Creatures pure spirituals nullo modo de materia corporea parti- cipantes, prout habetur ex Concilio La- teranensi, sub Innocentio Tertio, c. Firm, de Sum. Trin. et Fid. Cath. Cone. Fph. in Fpist. Cyrill. ad Reggia, et alibi. Hujusmodi autem sunt Angeli beati, et Dxmones damnati ad ignem perpetuum. Quamvis vero nonnuUi Doctores, Bann.
Demoniality 69
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 , bigets the human fetus from his own sperm.
35. To many that proposition will seem heterodox and hardly sensible; but I beg of my reader not to condemn it precipita- tely; for if, as Celsus says, it is improper to deliver judgment without having tho- roughly 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 there- fore to prove the above conclusion, and must necessarily premise with some state- ments.
36. Firstly, I premise, as an article of belief, that there are purely spiritual crea- tures, not in any way partaking of corpo- real matter, as was ruled by the Council of Lateran, under the pontificate of Inno- cent III. Such are the blessed Angels, and the Demons condemned to ever-lasting fire. Some Doctors, it is true, have profes- sed, subsequently even to this Council, that the spirituality of Angels and Demons
70
Dajmonialitas
par. I. q. S. ar. i. Can. de Loc. Theol. /. 5. c. 5. Sixt. sen Bibliot. San. /, 5. annot. 8., Mirand. Sum. Concil. v°. Angelas, Molina., p. i. q. 5o., a. i., Carranq., Annot. ad Synod. 7., etiam post Conci- lium illud docuerint spiritualitatem Ange- lorum et Dccmonum non esse de fide, it a ut nonnulli alii, Bonav. in lib. 2. sent. dist. 3. q. I., Scot, de Anim. q. i5., Cajet. in Gen. c. 4.J Franc. Georg. Problem/ /. 2. c. 57., August. Hyph., de Daemon., /. 3. c. 3., scripserint illos esse corporeos, et proinde Angelos Dcemonesque corpore et spiritu constare non esse propositionem ha’reticam, neque erroneam, probet Bona- ventura Baro, Scot. Defens. tom. 9. apo- log. 2., act. I.,/?, g 7. : tamen quia Con- cilium ipsiim statuit de fide tenendum, Deum esse Creatorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corpora- lium, qui utramque dc nihilo condidit creaturam spiritualem et corporalem An- gelicam, videlicet ut mundanam : ideo dico de fide esse quasdam creaturas dari mere spirituals, et tales esse Angelos, non quidem omnes, sed quosdam.
37. Inaudita forsan erit sententia hcec, sed non destituta erit probabilitate. Si enim a Theologis tanta inter Angelos diversitas
Demoniality 71
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 cer- tain merely spiritual creatures, and that such are Angela; not all ofthem,buta cer- tain number.
37. It may seem strange, yet it must be admitted not to be unlikely. If, in fact. Theologians concur in establishing
72
Daemonialitas
specijica^ et proinde essentialis statuitur, ut in via D. Thotnce, p, p. 5o, ar. 4, plures Angeli nequeant esse in eadem spe- cie, sed quilibet Angelus propriam speciem constituat, profecto nulla invenitur repu- gnantia, quod Angelorum nonmilli sint purissimi spiritus, et proinde excellentis- simce naturae, alii autem corporei, et minus excellentes, et eorum differentia petatur per corporeum et incorporeum. Accedit quod hac sententia facile solvitur alias inso- lubilis contradictio inter duo Concilia CEcumenica, nempe Septimam Synodum generalem, et dictum Concilium Latera- nense : siquidem in ilia Synodo, qua.’ est secunda Niccena, actione quinta, productus est liber Joannis Thessalonicensis scriptus contra quemdam Philosophum gentilem, in quo ita habetur : De Angelis et Archan- gelis, atque eorum Potestatibus, quibus nostras Animas adjungo, ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentit, esse quidem intelligi- biles, sed non omnino corporis expertes, et insensibiles, ut vos Gentiles dicitis , verum tcnui corpore prreditos, 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
Demoniality 73
amongst Angels a specific, and therefore es- sential, diversity so considerable that, ac- cording 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 con- sequently very superior nature, and others corporeal, therefore of a less perfect na- ture, differing thus from each other in their corporeal or incorporeal substance? This doctrine has the advantage of solving the otherwise insoluble contradiction between two (Ecumenical Councils, namely the Seventh General Synod and the above- mentioned Council ofLateran. 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, Ar- changels and their Powers^ to which I adjoin our own Souls, the Catholic Church is really of opinion that they are intelli- gences, but not entirely body less and sen- seless, 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 jire His Minister ». And further on : « Although not corporeal in the
7
74
Dsemonialitas
Angelos, vel Dcemones, vel Animas dixerit incorporeas : multoties enim in proprio corpore visi sunt ab illis, quibus Dominus oculos aperuit. Et cum omnia lecta fuis- sent coram Patribus synodaliter congre- gatis, Tharasius, Patriarcha Constantino- politamis, poposcit adprobationern Sanctce Synodi his verbis : Ostendit Pater, quod Angelos pingi oporteat, quoniam circum- scribi possunt, et ut homines apparuerunt. Synodus autem uno ore respondit : Etiam, Domine.
38. Hanc autem Conciliarem adpfoba^ tionem de materia ad longum perttactata a D. Joanne in libro coram Patribus lecto^ statuere articulum fidei circa corporei- tatem Angelorum, perspicuum est : unde ad tollendam contradictionem hujus, cum allata definitione Concilii Lateranensist multum desudant Theologi. Unus enim, Suare:^, de Angelis, ait, quod Patres non contradixerunt tali asserto de corporeitate Angelorum, quia non de ilia re agebatur. Alius, Bann., in p. p. q. lo, ait, quod Synodus adprobavit conclusionem, nempe Angelos pingi posse, non tamen adpro-
Demoniality 7 5
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, inves- ted 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. 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 Theo- logians 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 corpo- reity of Angels, it is because that was not the question. Another contends that the Synod did approve the conclusion, namely
D®monialitas
76
bavit rationem, quia corporei sunt. Alius, Molin., in p. p., q. 5o. a. 1, ait, quod dejinitiones Conciliares in ilia Synodo factce sunt solum actione septima, proinde ea quce habentur in actionibus praceden- tibus non esse dejinitiones de Jide. Alii, Joverc. et Mirand., Sum. Cone., scribunt nec Niccenum, nec Lateranense Concilium intendisse dejinere de Jide queestionem; et Niccenum quidem locutum fuisse juxta opinionem Platonicorum, quce ponit An- gelos corporeos, et tunc prcevalebat ; Late- ranense autem locutum esse juxta mentem Aristotelis, qui, /. 12. Metaphys., tex.
49, ponit intelligentias incorporeas, quce sententia contra Platonicos apud plerosque Doctores invaluit expost.
3g. Sed quam jrigidee sint istce respon- siones nemo non videt, ac eas minime sa- tisjacere oppositioni palmariter demonstrat Bonaventura Baro, Scot. Defens., tom. 9, apolog. 2, actio i, § 2 per totum. Proinde ad tollendam coptradictionem Conciliorum dicendum est, Nicceum lo- cutum esse de una, Lateranense autem de alia specie Angelorum, et illam quidem corpoream, hanc vero penitus incorpoream ;
Demoniality 77
that Angels might be pictured, but not the motive given, their corporeity. A third, Molina, observes that the definitions is- sued in Council by the Sjmod 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 Aristo- teles, who, in his 12th. book of Metaphy- sics, lays down the existence of incorpo- real intelligences, a doctrine which has since carried the day with most Doctors over the Platonists.
3g. But any one can discern the invali- dity of those answers , and Bonaventure Baro [Scot. Defens., tome 9) proves to evi- dence that they do not bear. In conse- quence, 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, cor- poreal, the latter on the contrary abso- lutely incorporeal; and thus are recon-
7-
78 Daemonialitas
et sic conciliantur aliter irreconciliabilia Concilia.
40. Pra’mittendum 2°, nomen Angeli esse nomen officii, non natures, ut concor- diter scribunt S. S. Patres : Ambros. in c.
I epist. ad Hebr., Hilar is, 1. 5 de Trin., Augustinus, lib. i5 de Civit. Dei c. 23, Gregorius, Horn. 84 in Evang., Isidorus, 1. de Sum. Bonit., c.* 12; unde prceclare ait D. Ambrosius : Angelus non ex eo quod est spiritus, ex eo quod agit, An- gelus, quia Angelus Greece. Latine Nun- tivis 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 Doc- toribus, 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 exerci- tuum est. D. Joannes Baptista ab eodem Propheta, c. 3 v. i, vocatur Angelus, dum ait : Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, et praeparabit viam ante faciem meam. Et hanc prophetiam esse ad litteram de S. Joanne Baptista testatur Christus Do-
Demoniality 79
ciled two otherwise irreconcilable Coun- cils.
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. Isi- dorus. Supreme Goodness). An Angel, very truly says St. Ambrose, is thus styled, not because he is a spirit, but on account of his office : ’AyyeXo? 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, ex- plain 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, d The same prophet, chapt. 3, V. I, 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 lite- rally applies to St. John the Baptist is
8o
Daemonialitas
minus in Evangelio Matthasi, ii, v. lo. Immo et ipse Deus, quia fuit missus a Patre in mundum ad evangelijandum legem gratice, vocatiir Angelas. Ita in prophetia Isaice, c. 9 v. 6, juxta ver- sionem Septuaginta : Vocabitur nomen ejus magni consilii Angelus, et clarius in Malachice c. 3 v. i : Veniet ad templum sanctum suum Dominator quern vos quze- ritis, et Angelus testament! quern vos vultis. Quce prophetia ad litteram est de Christo Domino. Sequitur igitur nullum absurdum sequi ex hoc, quod dicimus An- gelos quosdam esse corporcos, nam et homines, qui corpore constant, Angeli vo- cabulo efferuntur.
41. Prcemittendum 3“, nondum rerum naturalium, quce sunt in mundo, satis per- spectam esse existentiam, aut naturam, ut proinde aliquid negandum sit ex eo, quod de illo nunquam alias dictum, aut scriptum fuerit. Patet enim tractu temporis de- tectas esse novas terras, quas Antiqui nostri ignorarunt, novaque animalia, her- bas, plantas, fructus, semina nunquam alias visa ; et si pervia esset Terra Austra- lis incognita, cujus indagatio, et lustratio
Demoniality 8i
testified by our Lord Jesus-Christ, in the Gospel, accordingto St. Matthew, chapt. 1 1 ,