Malleus Maleficarum

Part 1, Question 1: Whether Belief in Witches Is Essential to the Faith

The First Part, which treats of the three things that must accompany witchcraft: the devil, a witch, and the permission of Almighty God.

Here begins, auspiciously, the first part of this work. Question the First.

Whether the belief that there are such beings as witches is so essential a part of the Catholic faith that obstinately maintaining the opposite opinion clearly smacks of heresy.

It is argued that a firm belief in witches is not Catholic doctrine. See the Canon Episcopi (Causa 26, question 5): whoever believes that any creature can be changed for better or for worse, or transformed into another kind or likeness, except by the Creator of all things, is worse than a pagan and a heretic. So when people report that witches do such things, to maintain this opinion is not Catholic but plainly heretical.

Again, no operation of witchcraft has a permanent effect among us. Here is the proof. If it did, the effect would be produced by the working of demons. But to maintain that the devil has power to change human bodies or to do them permanent harm does not seem to agree with the teaching of the Church. For in that way devils could destroy the whole world and bring it to utter confusion.

Again, every alteration that takes place in a human body, such as a state of health or a state of sickness, can be traced back to natural causes, as Aristotle has shown in book 7 of his Physics. The greatest of these causes is the influence of the stars. But devils cannot interfere with the movement of the stars. This is the opinion of Dionysius in his letter to St. Polycarp. For God alone can do this.

It is therefore evident that demons cannot actually bring about any permanent transformation in human bodies, that is, no real metamorphosis. So we must ascribe the appearance of any such change to some dark and hidden cause.

Again, the power of God is stronger than the power of the devil, so divine works are more true than the works of demons. Therefore, since evil is powerful in the world, it must be the work of the devil, always in conflict with the work of God. So just as it is unlawful to hold that the devil’s evil craft can apparently exceed the work of God, it is unlawful to believe that the noblest works of creation, that is, man and beast, can be harmed and spoiled by the devil’s power.

Again, whatever is subject to the influence of a material object cannot have power over physical objects. But devils are subject to certain influences of the stars, since magicians watch the course of certain stars in order to summon devils. Therefore devils have no power to bring about any change in a physical object, and it follows that witches have even less power than demons have.

For devils have no power at all except by a certain subtle art. But art cannot permanently produce a true form. (As a certain author says, “Writers on alchemy know that there is no hope of any real transmutation.”) So devils, using the utmost of their craft, cannot bring about any permanent cure, or any permanent disease. But if such states exist, they are in truth due to some other cause, which may be unknown and has nothing to do with the workings of either devils or witches.

But according to the Decretals (33) the contrary is true: “If by witchcraft or any magic art permitted by the secret but most just will of God, and aided by the power of the devil, etc.” This refers to any act of witchcraft that may hinder the purpose of marriage. For this impediment to take effect, three things can concur: witchcraft, the devil, and the permission of God.

Moreover, the stronger can influence what is less strong. But the power of the devil is stronger than any human power: “There is no power upon earth which can be compared to him, who was created so that he fears none” (Job 41).

Answer: Here there are three heretical errors that must be met, and when they have been disproved the truth will be plain. Certain writers, claiming to base their opinion on the words of St. Thomas (4, 24) where he treats of impediments caused by magic charms, have tried to maintain that there is no such thing as magic. It exists, they say, only in the imagination of those who ascribe to witchcraft and spells natural effects whose causes are unknown.

Others acknowledge that witches do exist, but declare that the influence of magic and the effects of charms are purely imaginary and illusory. A third class of writers maintain that the effects said to be produced by magic spells are altogether illusory and fanciful, although the devil may really lend his aid to some witch.

The errors of each of these groups may be set out and refuted as follows. In the very first place, many orthodox writers show them to be plainly heretical, and especially St. Thomas. He teaches that such an opinion is altogether contrary to the authority of the saints and is founded on outright unbelief. For the authority of Holy Scripture says that devils have power over the bodies and over the minds of men when God allows them to exercise this power, as is plain from a great many passages in Scripture.

Therefore those err who say that there is no such thing as witchcraft but that it is purely imaginary. They err even though they do not believe that devils exist except in the imagination of the ignorant and common people, where a man wrongly blames some supposed devil for the natural accidents that happen to him. For some people’s imagination is so vivid that they think they see actual figures and appearances that are only the reflection of their own thoughts. These are then believed to be the apparitions of evil spirits, or even the phantoms of witches.

But this is contrary to the true faith. The faith teaches us that certain angels fell from heaven and are now devils, and we are bound to acknowledge that by their very nature they can do many wonderful things that we cannot do. Those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders are called witches. And because unbelief in a person who has been baptized is technically called heresy, such persons are plainly heretics.

Now consider those who hold the other two errors. They do not deny that there are demons or that demons have natural power, but they differ among themselves about the possible effects of magic and the possible works of witches. One school holds that a witch can truly bring about certain effects, yet these effects are not real but imaginary. The other school grants that some real harm does befall the person or persons injured, but holds that a witch is grossly deceived when she imagines this damage is the effect of her arts.

This error seems to be based on two passages from the Canons. The first condemns certain women who falsely imagine that at night they ride abroad with Diana or Herodias; this may be read in the Canon. Yet those who suppose, because such things often happen by illusion and merely in the imagination, that all the effects of witchcraft are mere illusion and imagination are very greatly deceived.

Secondly, there is the passage concerning a man who believes or maintains that a creature can be made, or changed for better or for worse, or transformed into some other kind or likeness, by anyone except God alone, the Creator of all things: such a man is an unbeliever and worse than a heathen. Because of these words “changed for the worse,” they say that such an effect, if produced by witchcraft, cannot be real but must be purely imaginary.

But since these errors smack of heresy and contradict the obvious meaning of the Canon, we will first prove our points by divine law, and also by church and civil law, beginning in general terms.

To begin with, the wording of the Canon must be treated in detail, although its sense will be made even clearer in the following question. For the divine law in many places commands not only that witches be avoided, but that they be put to death. It would not impose this extreme penalty if witches did not really and truly make a compact with devils in order to bring about real and true injuries and harms.

For the penalty of death is inflicted only for some grave and notorious crime. It is otherwise with the death of the soul, which can be brought about by the power of an imaginary illusion or even by the stress of temptation. This is the opinion of St. Thomas when he discusses whether it is evil to make use of the help of devils (2, 7).

For Deut 18 commands that all wizards and charmers be destroyed. Leviticus also says: “The soul which goeth to wizards and soothsayers to commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of my people” (Lev 20). And again: “A man, or woman, in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit dying, let them die: they shall stone them” (Lev 20). Those persons in whom the devil works extraordinary things are called pythons.

Remember, too, that because of this sin Ahaziah fell sick and died (2 Kgs 1). The same is true of Saul (1 Chr 10). We also have the weighty opinions of the Fathers who have written on the Scriptures and have treated at length of the power of demons and of magic arts. One may consult the writings of many doctors on Book 2 of the Sentences. All of them will be found to agree that there are wizards and sorcerers who by the power of the devil can produce real and extraordinary effects. These effects are not imaginary, and God permits them.

I will not mention the very many other places where St. Thomas discusses operations of this kind in great detail. Examples are his Summa contra Gentiles, book 3, chapters 1 and 2; part one, question 114, argument 4; and the Second of the Second, questions 92 and 94. We may further consult the commentators and interpreters who have written on the wise men and the magicians of Pharaoh (Exod 7). We may also consult what St. Augustine says in The City of God, book 18, chapter 17, and in book 2 of his On Christian Doctrine.

Very many other doctors put forward the same opinion. It would be the height of folly for anyone to contradict all of them, and he could not be held free of the guilt of heresy. For anyone who gravely errs in expounding Holy Scripture is rightly considered a heretic. And whoever thinks otherwise about these matters, which touch the faith held by the Holy Roman Church, is a heretic. That is the faith.

Church law shows that denying the existence of witches is contrary to the obvious sense of the Canon. For we have the opinions of the commentators on the canon that begins, “If anyone by magic arts or witchcraft …” There are also the writers who speak of men who are impotent and bewitched. Because of this impediment caused by witchcraft they are unable to have intercourse, so the contract of marriage is made void and marriage becomes impossible for them.

For these writers say, and St. Thomas agrees with them, that if witchcraft takes effect in a marriage before there has been carnal intercourse, then, if it is lasting, it annuls and destroys the contract of marriage. And it is quite plain that such a condition cannot in any way be called illusory or the effect of imagination.

On this point see what Blessed Henry of Segusio (Hostiensis) has written so fully in his Summa, and see also Godfrey of Fontaines and St. Raymond of Peñafort. They have discussed this question in detail and very clearly. They do not ask whether such a physical condition could be thought imaginary and unreal, but take it as an actual and proven fact. They then determine whether it is to be treated as a lasting or a temporary infirmity if it has continued for more than three years. They do not doubt that it may be brought about by the power of witchcraft, although it is true that this condition may be intermittent.

But this is a fact beyond dispute: such impotence can be brought about through the power of the devil by means of a contract made with him, or even by the devil himself without the help of any witch, although this very rarely happens in the Church, since marriage is a most excellent sacrament. But among pagans it actually does happen, because evil spirits act as if they had a certain legitimate dominion over them.

Peter of Palude tells of such a case in his fourth book. A young man had pledged himself in marriage to a certain idol, and nevertheless married a young girl. But he was unable to have any intercourse with her, because the devil always intervened, actually appearing in bodily form.

Nevertheless, in the Church the devil prefers to work through witches and to bring about such effects for his own gain, that is, for the loss of souls. How he is able to do this, and by what means, will be discussed a little later, where we treat of the seven ways of doing harm to men by such operations.

Theologians and canonists have raised other questions about these points. One of them is very important, since it concerns how such impotence can be cured, whether it is permissible to cure it by some counter-charm, and what is to be done if the witch who cast the spell is dead. Godfrey of Fontaines treats of this last circumstance in his Summa. These questions will be fully explained in the Third Part of this work.

This, then, is why the canonists have so carefully drawn up a table of different penalties. They distinguish between the private and the open practice of witchcraft, or rather of divination, since this foul superstition has various species and degrees. Anyone who is notoriously given to it must be refused Communion. If it is practiced secretly, the culprit must do penance for forty days. If he is a cleric, he is to be suspended and confined in a monastery. If he is a layman, he shall be excommunicated. So all such infamous persons must be punished, together with all who resort to them, and no excuse at all is to be allowed.

The civil law prescribes the same penalty. Azo, in his Summa on book 9 of the Code, in the rubric concerning sorcerers, the second after the Cornelian Law concerning assassins and murderers, lays down: “Let it be known that all those who are commonly called sorcerers, and those too who are skilled in the art of divination, incur the penalty of death.” The same penalty is enforced yet again, for this is the exact sentence of these laws: “It is unlawful for any man to practice divination; and if he does so his reward shall be death by the sword of the executioner.”

There are others too who by their magic charms try to take the lives of innocent people, who turn the passions of women to lusts of every kind, and these criminals are to be thrown to the wild beasts. The laws allow any witness whatever to be admitted to give evidence against them, and the canon on the defense of the faith explicitly commands this. The same procedure is allowed in a charge of heresy. When such an accusation is brought, any witness may come forward to give evidence, just as he may in a case of lese-majesty, that is, treason against the sovereign. For witchcraft is high treason against God’s Majesty.

So they are to be put to the torture to make them confess. Any person, whatever his rank or position, may be put to the torture on such an accusation. And anyone found guilty, even if he confesses his crime, is to be put on the rack and is to suffer all the other tortures the law prescribes, so that he may be punished in proportion to his offenses.

Note: In former times such criminals suffered a double penalty and were often thrown to wild beasts to be devoured. Nowadays they are burned at the stake, and this is probably because the majority of them are women.

The civil law also forbids anyone to tacitly allow such practices or to join in them. It did not allow a diviner even to enter another person’s house. It often ordered that all their possessions be burned, and no one was allowed to patronize or consult them. Very often they were deported to some distant and deserted island, and all their goods were sold at public auction. Moreover, those who consulted or resorted to witches were punished with exile and the confiscation of all their property. These penalties were put into force by the common consent of all nations and rulers, and they have greatly helped to suppress the practice of such forbidden arts.

It should be noted that the laws highly commend those who try to nullify the charms of witches. And those who take great pains to keep the work of men from being harmed by tempests or hailstorms deserve a great reward rather than any punishment. How such damage may lawfully be prevented will be discussed fully below.

How, then, can the denial or frivolous contradiction of any of these propositions be free from the mark of some notable heresy? Let everyone judge for himself, unless indeed his ignorance excuses him. What sort of ignorance may excuse him we shall explain very shortly.

From what has been said we draw the following conclusion. It is a most certain and most Catholic opinion that there are sorcerers and witches who, by the help of the devil and because of a compact they have made with him, are able, since God allows it, to produce real and actual evils and harm. This does not make it unlikely that they can also produce visionary and imaginary illusions by some extraordinary and special means.

The scope of the present inquiry, however, is witchcraft, which differs very widely from these other arts. So a consideration of them would be beside the point, since those who practice them may more accurately be called fortune-tellers and soothsayers than sorcerers.

It must be particularly noted that these last two errors are founded on a complete misunderstanding of the words of the Canon. (I will not speak of the first error, which plainly condemns itself, since it is flatly contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture.) So let us proceed to a right understanding of the Canon. First we will speak against the first of these two errors, which says that the mean, the middle term between the two extremes, is mere illusion although the two extremes are real.

Here it must be noted that fourteen distinct species fall under the genus of superstition. For the sake of brevity it is hardly necessary to list them, since they have been set out very clearly by St. Isidore in his Etymologies, book 8, and by St. Thomas in his Second of the Second, question 92. Moreover, they will be mentioned explicitly further on, when we discuss the gravity of this heresy in the last question of our First Part.

The category in which women of this sort are to be ranked is called the category of Pythons: persons in whom or through whom the devil either speaks or performs some astonishing operation. This is often the first category in order. But the category under which sorcerers come is called the category of Sorcerers.

And since these persons differ greatly from one another, it would not be correct to leave them out of the species under which so many others are confined. The Canon explicitly mentions certain women but does not in so many words speak of witches. Therefore those are entirely wrong who take the Canon to speak only of imaginary journeys and comings and goings in the body, and who wish to reduce every kind of superstition to this illusion. For as those women are transported in their imagination, so witches are actually and bodily transported.

Whoever wishes to argue from this Canon that the effects of witchcraft, the infliction of disease or any sickness, are purely imaginary utterly mistakes its meaning and errs most grossly.

Further, consider those who allow the two extremes, namely some operation of the devil and its effect, a perceptible disease, to be actual and real, but deny that any instrument is the means of it; that is, they deny that any witch could have taken part in such a cause and effect. These, I say, err most gravely. For in philosophy the mean must always share in the nature of the two extremes.

Again, it is useless to argue that any result of witchcraft may be a fantasy and unreal. For such a fantasy cannot be produced without resorting to the power of the devil, and a contract with the devil must be made. By this contract the witch truly and actually binds herself to be the devil’s servant and devotes herself to him. This is not done in a dream or under any illusion: she herself bodily and truly cooperates with the devil and joins herself to him.

For this is indeed the end and purpose of all witchcraft. Whether it is the casting of spells by a look, by a formula of words or by some other charm, it is all of the devil, as will be made clear in the following question.

In truth, anyone who cares to read the words of the Canon will be struck by four points in particular.

The first point is this: all creatures and priests, and all who have the care of souls, are absolutely bound to teach their flocks that there is one only true God, and that worship may be given to no other in heaven or on earth.

The second point is this: although these women imagine that they are riding (as they think and say) with Diana or with Herodias, in truth they are riding with the devil, who calls himself by some such heathen name and casts a magical illusion before their eyes.

The third point is this: the act of riding abroad may be merely illusory, since the devil has extraordinary power over the minds of those who have given themselves up to him, so that what they do purely in imagination they believe they have actually and really done in the body.

The fourth point is this: witches have made a compact to obey the devil in all things. It is therefore absurd to extend the words of the Canon to include and cover every act of witchcraft, since witches do much more than these women, and are in fact of a very different kind.

Whether witches are actually and bodily transported from place to place by their magic arts, or whether this happens merely in imagination, as with the women called Pythons, will be dealt with later in this work. We shall also discuss how they are conveyed. So we have now explained at least two errors, and we have arrived at a clear understanding of the sense of the Canon.

Again, a third error, which mistakes the words of the Canon and says that all magic arts are illusions, may be corrected from the very words of the Canon itself. For it says that whoever believes that any creature can be made or transformed for better or for worse, or changed into some other species or likeness, except by the Creator of all things Himself, etc., is worse than an unbeliever. If these three propositions are understood as they might appear at face value, they are flatly contrary to the sense of Holy Scripture and the commentaries of the doctors of the Church.

For the following canon clearly says that creatures can be made by witches, although they must necessarily be very imperfect creatures, and probably deformed in some way. And it is plain that the sense of the Canon agrees with what St. Augustine tells us about the magicians at Pharaoh’s court, who turned their rods into serpents. The holy doctor writes this on the verse “And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians …” (Exod 7:11).

We may also refer to the commentaries of Walafrid Strabo. He says that devils hurry up and down over the whole earth when witches are employing them by their incantations in various operations. These devils are able to collect various germs or seeds, and from these germs or seeds they can cause various species to grow. We may also refer to Blessed Albert the Great, in his De animalibus (On Animals), and to St. Thomas, part 1, question 114, article 4. For the sake of brevity we will not quote them at length here, but this remains proven: it is possible for certain creatures to be created in this way.

As for the second point, that a creature may be changed for better or for worse, this must always be understood to happen only by the permission, and indeed by the power, of God, and only in order to correct or to punish. God very often allows devils to act as His ministers and His servants, but throughout it all, God alone can afflict and He alone can heal, for “I kill and I make alive” (Deut 32:39). So evil angels may and do carry out the will of God.

St. Augustine also bears witness to this when he says: “There are in truth magic spells and evil charms, which not only often afflict men with diseases but even kill them outright.”

We must also try to understand clearly what actually happens when, nowadays, wizards and witches are changed into wolves and other savage beasts by the power of the devil. The Canon, however, speaks of some bodily and lasting change. It does not discuss the extraordinary things that may be done by magical illusion, of which St. Augustine speaks in The City of God, book 18, chapter 17. There he reports many strange tales of the famous witch Circe, of the companions of Diomedes, and of the father of Praestantius. This will be discussed in detail in the Second Part.

Whether It Is a Heresy to Deny That Witches Exist

The second part of our inquiry is this: whether obstinately to maintain that witches do not exist is heretical. The question is whether people who hold that witches do not exist are to be regarded as notorious heretics, or as gravely suspected of holding heretical opinions. It seems that the first opinion is correct, for this is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of the learned Bernard.

And yet those who openly and obstinately persist in heresy must be proved heretics by unshaken evidence. Such proof is generally of one of three kinds: either a man has openly preached and proclaimed heretical doctrines, or he is proved a heretic by the evidence of trustworthy witnesses, or he is proved a heretic by his own free confession.

Yet there are some who rashly set themselves against all authority and publicly proclaim that witches do not exist, or at any rate that they can in no way afflict and hurt mankind. Strictly speaking, therefore, those who are convicted of such evil doctrine may be excommunicated, according to Bernard’s commentary, since they are to be openly and unmistakably convicted of false doctrine. The reader may consult the works of Bernard and will find that this sentence is just, right and true.

Yet perhaps this may seem altogether too severe a judgment, chiefly because of the penalties that follow excommunication. For the canon prescribes that a cleric is to be degraded, that is, stripped of his clerical rank, and that a layman is to be handed over to the secular courts, which are admonished to punish him as his offense deserves. Moreover, we must take into account the very great numbers of people who, through their ignorance, will surely be found guilty of this error. And since the error is very common, the rigor of strict justice may be tempered with mercy.

It is indeed our intention to try to excuse those who are guilty of this heresy rather than to accuse them of being infected with the malice of heresy. It is better, then, that a man who is even gravely suspected of holding this false opinion should not be condemned at once for the grave crime of heresy. (See the gloss of Bernard on the word Condemned.) One may indeed proceed against such a man as against a person who is gravely suspect, but he is not to be condemned in his absence and without a hearing.

And yet the suspicion may be very grave, and we cannot help suspecting these people, for their frivolous assertions certainly seem to affect the purity of the faith. There are three kinds of suspicion: a light suspicion, a serious suspicion and a grave suspicion. These are treated in the chapter on Accusations and in the chapter on Contumacy, book 6, On Heretics. These matters come under the jurisdiction of the archdeacon’s court. Reference may also be made to the commentaries of Giovanni d’Andrea, in particular to his glosses on the phrases Accused and Gravely suspect, and to his note on a presumption of heresy.

It is certain, too, that some who lay down the law on this subject do not realize that they are holding false doctrines and errors. For many have no knowledge of canon law, and some, being badly informed and insufficiently read, waver in their opinions and cannot make up their minds. Now an idea merely kept to oneself is not heresy unless it is afterward put forward and obstinately and openly maintained. So it should certainly be said that persons such as we have just mentioned are not to be openly condemned for the crime of heresy.

But let no one think he may escape by pleading ignorance. For those who have gone astray through ignorance of this kind may be found to have sinned very gravely. There are many degrees of ignorance. Nevertheless, those who have the care of souls cannot plead invincible ignorance, nor that particular ignorance, as the philosophers call it, which the writers on canon law and the theologians call ignorance of the fact. What is to be blamed in these persons is universal ignorance, that is, ignorance of the divine law, which, as Pope Nicholas has laid down, they must and should know.

For he says: “The dispensation of these divine teachings is entrusted to our charge: and woe be unto us if we do not sow the good seed, woe be unto us if we do not teach our flocks.” So those who have the charge of souls are bound to have a sound knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. It is true that, according to Raymond of Sabunde and St. Thomas, those who have the care of souls are certainly not bound to be men of any extraordinary learning. But they certainly should have a competent knowledge, that is, enough to carry out the duties of their state of life.

And yet, and this may be some small consolation to them, the theoretical severity of the law is often balanced by actual practice. They may also know that this ignorance of canon law, although it may sometimes be culpable and worthy of blame, is considered from two points of view.

Sometimes people do not know, do not wish to know, and have no intention of knowing. For such people there is no excuse; they are altogether to be condemned. Of them the Psalmist speaks: “He would not understand in order that he might do good.”

But secondly, there are those who are ignorant, yet not from any desire not to know. This lessens the gravity of the sin, because there is no actual consent of the will. Such is the case when someone ought to know something but cannot realize that he ought to know it, as St. Paul says in 1 Tim 1:13: “But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.”

This is technically called an ignorance that is at least indirectly the person’s own fault. Because of many other occupations he neglects to inform himself of matters he ought to know, and he makes no effort to become acquainted with them. This ignorance does not entirely excuse him, but it excuses him to a certain degree. So St. Ambrose, writing on the words “Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance?” (Rom 2:4), says: “If you do not know through your own fault, then your sin is very great and grievous.”

More especially, then, in these days, when souls are beset by so many dangers, we must take steps to dispel all ignorance. We must always keep before our eyes the severe judgment that will be passed on us if we do not use the one talent that has been given us, each according to his proper ability. In this way our ignorance will be neither thick nor stupid; for, metaphorically, we call men thick and stupid who do not see what lies directly in their path.

And in the Flores regularum moralium (Flowers of Moral Rules), the Roman Chancellor, commenting on the second rule, says: A culpable ignorance of the divine law does not necessarily affect the ignorant person. The reason is this: the Holy Spirit is able to instruct a man directly in all the knowledge essential to salvation, if these things are too difficult for him to grasp unaided by his own natural intellect.

The answer to the first objection, then, is a clear and correct understanding of the Canon.

To the second objection Peter of Tarentaise (Blessed Innocent V) replies: No doubt the devil, because of the malice he harbors against the human race, would destroy mankind if God allowed him to do so. The fact that God sometimes allows him to do harm, and sometimes hinders and prevents him, clearly brings the devil into more open contempt and loathing. For in all things God is using the devil, unwilling though he is, as a servant and slave, for the manifestation of His glory.

With regard to the third objection: the infliction of sickness or some other harm is always the result of human effort, by which the witch submits her will to evil. And so, like any other evildoer, she can actually by an act of her will afflict some person, bring about some damage or perform some villainous act.

If it is asked whether the devil’s moving of material objects from place to place may be compared with the movement of the spheres, the answer is no. For material objects are not moved in this way by any natural power inherent in them. They are moved only by a certain obedience to the power of the devil, who by virtue of his own nature has a certain dominion over bodies and material things. He has this certain power, I affirm. Yet he cannot add to created material objects any form or shape, whether substantial or accidental, without some mixture or compounding with another created natural object.

But since, by the will of God, he is able actually to move material objects from place to place, he can produce disease, or any condition he wishes, by combining various objects. So the spells and effects of witchcraft are not governed by the movement of the spheres. Nor is the devil himself so governed, since he may often make use of these conditions to serve him.

The answer to the fourth objection: the work of God can be destroyed by the work of the devil, in accordance with what we are now saying about the power and effects of witchcraft. But since this can happen only by the permission of God, it does not at all follow that the devil is stronger than God. Again, he cannot use as much violence as he wishes to harm the works of God, because if he were unrestricted he would utterly destroy all the works of God.

The answer to the fifth objection may be stated clearly thus: the planets and stars have no power to force and compel devils to perform any actions against their will, although demons do seem readier to appear when magicians summon them under the influence of certain stars. They appear to do this for two reasons.

First, because they know that the power of that planet will help bring about the effect the magicians desire.

Secondly, they do this to deceive men, making them suppose that the stars have some divine power or actual divinity. And we know that in days of old this veneration of the stars led to the vilest idolatry.

As to the last objection, which is founded on the argument that alchemists make gold, we may put forward the opinion of St. Thomas where he discusses the power of the devil and how he works. Certain forms having a substance may be produced by art and the power of a natural agent; for example, the form of fire is produced by art applied to wood. Nevertheless, this cannot be done universally, because art cannot always find the proper agents or mix them together in the proper proportions, though it can produce something similar.

And so alchemists make something similar to gold as far as its external accidents, its outward qualities, are concerned. But they do not make true gold, because the substance of gold is not formed by the heat of the fire that alchemists use. It is formed by the heat of the sun, acting and reacting on a certain spot where mineral power is concentrated and amassed. Therefore such gold has the likeness of natural gold but is not of the same species. And the same argument applies to all their other operations.

This, then, is our proposition. Devils by their art do bring about evil effects through witchcraft. Yet it is true that without the help of some agent they cannot make any form, either substantial or accidental. We do not maintain that they can inflict harm without the help of some agent; but with such an agent, diseases and any other human sufferings or ailments can be brought about, and these are real and true. How these agents, or the use of such means, can be made effective in cooperation with devils will be made clear in the following chapters.