2. However it is clear that in the above passage S. Thomas did not at all allude to intercourse with the Demon. As shall be demonstrated further on, that intercourse cannot be included in the very particular species of _Bestiality_; and, in order to make that sentence of the holy Doctor tally with truth, it must be admitted that when saying of the unnatural sin, “_that committed through intercourse with a thing of different species, it takes the name of Bestiality_”, S. Thomas, by _a thing of different species_, means a living animal, of another species than man: for he could not here use the word _thing_ in its most general sense, to mean indiscriminately an animate or inanimate being. In fact, if a man should fornicate _cum cadavere humano_, he would have to do with a thing of a species quite different from his own (especially according to the Thomists, who deny the form of human corporeity in a corpse); similarly _si cadaveri bestiali copularetur_: and yet, _talis coitus_ would not be bestiality, but pollution. What therefore S. Thomas intended here to specify with preciseness, is carnal intercourse with a living thing of a species different from man, that is to say, with a beast, and he never in the least thought of intercourse with the Demon. 3. Coitus igitur cum Dæmone, sive Incubo, sive Succubo (qui proprie est =Dæmonialitas=), specie differt a Bestialitate, nec cum ea facit unam speciem specialissimam, ut opinatus est Cajetanus: peccata enim contra naturam specie inter se distingui contra opinionem nonnullorum Antiquorum, et Caramuelis, =Summ.=, Armill., v. =Luxur.=, n. 5., Jabien., eo. v. n. 6., Asten. lib. 2. tit. 46. art. 7., Caram. =Theol. fundam.= post Filliucium, et Crespinum a Borgia, est opinio communis; et contraria est damnata in proposit. 24. ex damnatis ab Alexandro VII.; tum quia singula continent peculiarem, et distinctam turpitudinem repugnantem castitati, et humanæ generationi; tum quia quodlibet ex iis privat bono aliquo secundum naturam, et institutionem actus venerei, ordinati ad finem generationis humanæ; tum quia quodlibet ipsorum habet diversum motivum, per se sufficiens ad privandum eodem bono diversimode, ut optime philosophatur Filliuc., tom. 2. c. 8. tract. 30. q. 3. nº 142; Cresp., q. mor. sel. contro.; Caramuel., q. 5. =per tot.=