Part 9

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truth regarding the virtue of those things, or whether he might have lied; and likewise, whether the whiteness was withdrawn from the eyes of the elder Tobit by the native force of the gall of the fish, or by the supernatural virtue of the Angel Raphael?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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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