(3) Souls of Bad Men. It was also believed that the souls of bad men became evil demons (Chalcid. in Moon. Tim., cap. t35, p•330). Ac cordingly acuAiifyior often occurs in ancient au thors as a term of reprbach. The other kind of demons were of more noble origin than the human race, having never inhabited human bodies (Plato, Tim., pp. 4i, 42, 69, 7i, 75; Apulcius, Dc Deo Socrates, p. 69o).
(4) Objects of Worship. Those demons who had once been souls of men were the objects of immediate worship among the heathens (Deut. xxvi :14; Ps. cvi:28; Is. yiii :19), and it is in contradistinction to these that Jehovah is so fre quently called the living God' (Dem. v:6, etc.; Farmer's Essoy on the Dcmoniocs, Passim).
(5) Malignant. The heathens held that some demons were malignant by noture, and not merely so when provoked and offended. Plutarch says, it is a very ancient opinion that there are cer tain wicked and malignant demons, who envy good men, and endeavor to hinder them in the pursuit of virtue, lest men should be partakers of greater happiness than they enjoy' (Plus. Dion., p. tom. i edit. Paris, 1624). On this passage Bishop Newton remarks: 'This was the opinion of all the later philosophers, and Plutarch unde niably affirms it of the very ancient ones' (Dissert. on the Proph., Lond., 1826, P. 476)• Pythagoras held that certain demons sent diseases to men and cattle (Diog. Laert., Vit. Pythag., p. 514, cd. Amstel.). Zaleucus, in his preface to his Laws (upud Stobcrum. Serm. xlii), supposes that an evil demon might be present with a witness to influence him to injustice.
In later times Josephus uses the word demon always in a bad sense, as do the writers of the New Testament, when using it as from them selves, and in their own sense of it (De Bell. Ind. vii :6, sec. 3). 'Demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.' For proof of the latter assertion we must
refer the reader to the contents of the New Testa ment, and if necessary for a reconciliation of the apparent exceptions, to Farmer's Essay.' (6) Demons of New Testament. It is fre quently supposed that the demons of the New Testament are fallen angels; on the contrary, it is maintained by Farmer that the word is never applied to the Devil and his angels, and that there is no sufficient reason for restricting the term to spirits of a higher order than mankind. They who uphold the former opinion urge that our Lord, when accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, replies, How can Satan cast out Satan? (\lark iii :23. etc.). There is no doubt but that Satan and Diabolus are the same, and hence Beelzebub and Diabotas are evidently the same being. It is further urged that it is but fair and natural to suppose that the writers of the New Testament use the word de mons in the same sense in which it was under stood by their contemporaries, which, as it appears from Josephus and other authorities, was, that of the spirits of the wicked, and that if these writ ers had meant anything else they would have given notice of so wide a deviation from popular usage. The writings of the Fathers show that they sometimes understood the demons to be fallen angels; at other times they use the word in the same sense as the ancient philosophers. Justin Martyr affirms (Apol. i p. 65) that 'those persons who arc seared and thrown down by the souls of the deceased arc such as all men agree in calling demoniacc, or mad.' (Creamier, Religions de iii, pt. t, pp. t-55; pt.
p. 873 ff.; Campbell. Four Gospels. Prel. Hies., vi, pl. t ). J F D