a name given by the ancients to certain spirits or genii, which they say appeared to men, either to do them service or to hurt them.

The Greek word δαίμων is derived (according to Plato, in his Cratylus, p. 398 ed. Serrani, vol. i.) from δαίμων, "knowing or intelligent;" but according to others from διαίρειν, "to distribute," (see the Scholiast on Homer, II. i. ver. 222). Either of these derivations agrees with the office ascribed to daemons by the ancient heathens, as the spirit intrusted with the inspection and government of mankind. For, according to the philosophers, daemons held a middle rank between the celestial gods and men on earth, and carried on all intercourse between them; conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and the divine benefits to men. It was the opinion of many, that the celestial divinities did not themselves interfere in human affairs, but committed the entire administration of the government of this lower world to these subaltern deities: Neque enim pro majestate deum caelestium fuit, hab curare (Apuleius de deo Socratici, p. 677). Cuncta calyculis voluntate, numine & autoritate, sed daemonum obsequio, & opera, & ministerio fieri arbitrandum est; (Id. p. 675.) Hence they became the objects of divine worship. "If idols are nothing," says Celsus (apud Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 393.), "what harm can there be to join in the public festivals? If they are daemons, then it is certain that they are gods, in whom we are to confide, and to whom we should offer sacrifices and prayers, to render them propitious."

Several of the heathen philosophers held, that there were different kinds of daemons; that some of them were spiritual substances of a more noble origin than the human race, and that others had once been men.

But those daemons who were the more immediate objects of the established worship amongst the ancient nations were human spirits, such as were believed to become daemons or deities after their departure from their bodies. Plutarch teaches (Vit. Romul. p. 36 ed. Paris) "that according to a divine nature and justice, the souls of virtuous men are advanced to the rank of daemons; and that from daemons, if they are properly purified, they are exalted into gods, not by any political institution, but according to right reason." The same author says in another place (de If. & Osir. p. 361.), "that Isis and Osiris were, for their virtue, changed from good daemons into gods, as were Heracles..." Dæmoniacules and Bacchus afterwards, receiving the united honours both of gods and dæmons." Hesiod and other poets who have recorded the ancient history or traditions on which the public faith and worship were founded, assert, that the men of the golden age, who were supposed to be very good, became dæmons after death, and dispensers of good things to mankind.

Though dæmon is often used in a general sense as equivalent to a deity; and is accordingly applied to fate or fortune, or whatever else was regarded as a god: yet those demons who were the more immediate objects of divine worship amongst the heathens were human spirits; as is shown in Farmer on Miracles, chap. iii. sect. 2.

The word dæmon is used indifferently in a good and in a bad sense. In the former sense, it was very commonly used among the ancient heathens. "We must not (says Menander) think any demon to be evil, hurtful to a good life, but every god to be good." Nevertheless, those are certainly mistaken who affirm, that dæmon never signifies an evil being till after the times of Christ. Pythagoras held demons who sent diseases to men and cattle (Diogen. Laert. Vit. Pythagor. p. 514. ed. Amplect.). Zaleucus, in his preface to his Laws (apud Stoicum, Serm. 42.) supposes that an evil dæmon might be present with a man, to influence him to injustice. The demons of Empedocles were evil spirits, and exiles from heaven; (Plutarch, Ἐπιτροπὴ τῶν δαιμόνων). And in his life of Dion (p. 958) he says, "It was the opinion of the ancients, that evil and mischievous demons, out of envy and hatred to good men, oppose whatever they do." Scarce did any opinion more generally prevail in ancient times than this, viz. that as the departed souls of good men became good demons, so the departed souls of bad men became evil demons.

It has been generally thought, that by demons we are to understand devils, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Others think the word is in that version certainly, applied to the ghosts of such dead men as the heathens deified, in Deut. xxxii. 17. Pf. cvi. 37. That dæmon often bears the same meaning in the New Testament, and particularly in Acts xvii. 18. 1 Cor. x. 21. 1 Tim. iv. 1. Rev. ix. 13. is shown at large by Mr Joseph Mede (Works, p. 623, et seq.). That the word is applied always to human spirits in the New Testament, Mr Farmer has attempted to show in his Essay on Demoniacs, p. 208, et seq. As to the meaning of the word dæmon in the fathers of the Christian church, it is used by them in the same sense as it was by the heathen philosophers, especially the latter Platonists; that is, sometimes for departed human spirits, and at other times for such spirits as had never inhabited human bodies. In the fathers, indeed, the word is more commonly taken in an evil sense, than in the ancient philosophers. Besides the two forementioned kinds of demons, the fathers, as well as the ancient philosophers, held a third, viz. such as sprang from the congress of superior beings with the daughters of men. In the theology of the fathers, these were the worst kind of demons.

Different orders of dæmons had different stations and employments assigned them by the ancients. Good dæmons were considered as the authors of good to mankind; evil dæmons brought innumerable evils both upon men and beasts. Amongst evil dæmons there was a great distinction with respect to the offices assigned them; some compelled men to wickedness, others stimulated them to madness. See Demoniac.

Much has been said concerning the demon of Socrates. He pretended to his friends and disciples, and even declared to the world, that a friendly spirit, whom he called his dæmon, directed him how to act on every important occasion in his life, and restrained him from imprudence of conduct.

In contemplating the character of this great philosopher, while we admire him as the noblest pattern of virtue and moral wisdom that appeared in the heathen world, we are naturally led to inquire, whether what he gave out concerning his dæmon were a trick of imposture, or the reverie of a heated imagination, or a sober and true account of a favour which heaven designed to confer on so extraordinary a man.

To ascertain in this case the object of our inquiries, is by no means so easy as the superficial thinker may be apt to imagine. When we consider the dignity of sentiment and simplicity of manners which Socrates displayed through the general tenor of his life, we cannot readily bring ourselves to think that he could be capable of such a trick of imposture. Nothing of the wildness of an enthusiast appears in his character; the modesty of his pretensions, and the respect which in his conversation and conduct he uniformly testified for the ordinary duties of social life, sufficiently prove that he was free from the influence of blind enthusiasm: we cannot infer, therefore, that like the astronomer in Rasselas, he was deceived with respect to his dæmon by an overheated imagination. It is no less difficult to believe, that God would distinguish an heathen in so eminent a manner, and yet leave him uninstructed in the principles of true religion. Surely, if ever scepticism be reasonable, it must be in such matters as the present.

Yet, if it be still insisted, that some one of these three notions concerning the dæmon of Socrates must be more probable than the others; we would rather esteem Socrates an enthusiast in this instance, than degrade him to the base character of an impostor, or suppose that a spiritual being actually revealed himself to the philosopher, and condescended to become his constant attendant and counsellor. People are often under the influence of an over-heated imagination with regard to some one thing, and cool and sober as to everything else.

Dæmoniac (from dæmon), a human being whose Definition: volition and other mental faculties are overpowered and restrained, and his body possessed and actuated, by some created spiritual being of superior power.

Such seems to be the determinate sense of the word; Dispute but it is disputed whether any of mankind ever were concerning: dæmoniacs.

It is generally agreed, that neither good nor evil spirits are known to exert such authority at present over the human race: but in the ancient heathen world, and among the Jews, particularly in the days of our Saviour, evil spirits, at least, are thought by many to have been more troublesome.

The Greeks and Romans imagined, that their deities, to reveal future events, frequently entered into the prophet or prophetess who was consulted, over-powering the soul. powered their faculties, and uttered responses with their organs of speech. Apollo was believed to enter into the Pythones, and to dictate the prophetic answers received by those who consulted her. Other oracles besides that of Delphi were supposed to unfold futurity by the same machinery. And in various other cases, either malignant demons or benevolent deities were thought to enter into and to actuate human beings. The Lymphatics, the Cervits, the Larvati, of the Romans, were all of this description; and the Greeks, by the use of the word δαιμονισμός, show that they referred to this cause the origin of madness. Among the ancient heathens, therefore, it appears to have been a generally received opinion, that superior beings entered occasionally into men, overpowered the faculties of their minds, and actuated their bodily organs. They might imagine that this happened in instances in which the effects were owing to the operation of different causes; but an opinion so generally prevalent had surely some plausible foundation.

The Jews too, if we may trust the sacred writings or Josephus, appear to have believed in daemoniacal possession. The case of Saul may be recollected as one among many in which superior created beings were believed by the Jews to exert in this manner their influence over human life. The general tenor of their history and language, and their doctrines concerning good and evil spirits, prove the opinion of daemoniacal possession to have been well known and generally received among them.

In the days of our Saviour, it would appear that daemoniacal possession was very frequent among the Jews and the neighbouring nations. Many were the evil spirits whom Jesus is related in the gospels to have ejected from patients that were brought unto him as possessed and tormented by those malevolent demons. His apostles too, and the first Christians, who were most active and successful in the propagation of Christianity, appear to have often exerted the miraculous powers with which they were endowed on similar occasions. The demons displayed a degree of knowledge and malevolence which sufficiently distinguished them from human beings; and the language in which the daemoniacs are mentioned, and the actions and sentiments ascribed to them in the New Testament, show that our Saviour and his apostles did not consider the idea of daemoniacal possession as being merely a vulgar error concerning the origin of a disease or disease produced by natural causes.

The more enlightened cannot always avoid the use of metaphorical modes of expression; which though founded upon error, yet have been so established in language by the influence of custom, that they cannot be suddenly dismissed. When we read in the book of Joshua, that the sun on a certain occasion stood still, to allow that hero time to complete a victory; we easily find an excuse for the conduct of the sacred historian, in accommodating his narrative to the popular ideas of the Jews concerning the relative motions of the heavenly bodies. In all similar instances, we do not complain much of the use of a single phrase, originally introduced by the prevalence of some groundless opinion, the falsity of which is well known to the writer.

But in descriptions of characters, in the narration of facts, and in the laying down of systems of doctrine, we require different rules to be observed. Should any person, in compliance with popular opinions, talk in serious language of the existence, dispositions, declarations, and actions of a race of beings whom he knew to be absolutely fabulous, we surely could not praise him for candid integrity: we must suppose him to be either exulting in irony over the weak credulity of those around him, or taking advantage of their weakness, with the dishonesty and the selfish views of an impostor. And if he himself should pretend to any connection with this imaginary system of beings; and should claim, in consequence of his connection with them, particular honours from his contemporaries; whatever might be the dignity of his character in all other respects, nobody could hesitate even for a moment to brand him as an impostor of the basest character.

Precisely in this light must we regard the conduct of our Saviour and his apostles, if the idea of daemoniacal possession were to be considered merely as a vulgar error. They talked and acted as if they believed that evil spirits had actually entered into those who were brought to them as possessed with devils, and as if those spirits were actually expelled by their authority out of the unhappy persons whom they had possessed. They expected, they demanded too, to have their professions and declarations believed, in consequence of their performing such mighty works, and to be honoured as having thus triumphed over the powers of hell. The reality of daemoniacal possession stands upon the same evidence with the gospel system in general.

Neither is there anything absurd or unreasonable in this doctrine. It does not appear to contradict those ideas which the general appearances of nature and the series of events suggest concerning the benevolence and wisdom of the Deity, and the counsels by which he regulates the affairs of the universe. We often fancy ourselves able to comprehend things to which our understanding is wholly inadequate: we persuade ourselves, at times, that the whole extent of the works of the Deity must be well known to us, and that his designs must always be such as we can fathom. We are then ready, whenever any difficulty arises to us, in considering the conduct of Providence, to model things according to our own ideas; to deny that the Deity can possibly be the author of things which we cannot reconcile; and to assert, that he must act on every occasion in a manner consistent with our narrow views. This is the pride of reason; and it seems to have suggested the strongest objections that have been at any time urged against the reality of daemoniacal possession. But the Deity may surely connect one order of his creatures with another. We perceive mutual relations and a beautiful connection to prevail through all that part of nature which falls within the sphere of our observation. The inferior animals are connected with mankind, and subjected to their authority, not only in instances in which it is exerted for their advantage, but even where it is tyrannically abused to their destruction. Among the evils to which mankind have been subjected, why might not their being liable to daemoniacal possession be one? While the Supreme Being retains the sovereignty of the universe, Demoniac universe, he may employ whatever agents he thinks proper in the execution of his purposes: he may either commission an angel or let loose a devil; as well as bend the human will, or communicate any particular impulse to matter.

All that revelation makes known, all that human reason can conjecture, concerning the existence of various orders of spiritual beings, good and bad, is perfectly consistent with, and even favourable to, the doctrine of demoniac possession. It was generally believed through the ancient heathen world; it was equally well known to the Jews, and equally respected by them; it is mentioned in the New Testament in such language, and such narratives are related concerning it, that the gospels cannot well be regarded in any other light than as pieces of imposture, and Jesus Christ must be considered as a man who dishonestly took advantage of the weakness and ignorance of his contemporaries, if this doctrine be nothing but a vulgar error; it teaches nothing inconsistent with the general conduct of Providence; it is not the caution of philosophy, but the pride of reason, that suggests objections against this doctrine.

Those, again, who are unwilling to allow that angels or devils have ever intermeddled so much with the concerns of human life, urge a number of specious arguments in opposition to these.

The Greeks and Romans of old, say they, did believe in the reality of demoniac possession. They supposed that spiritual beings did at times enter into the sons or daughters of men, and distinguish themselves in that situation by capricious freaks, deeds of wanton mischief, or prophetic enunciations. But in the instances in which they supposed this to happen, it is evident that no such thing took place. Their accounts of the state and conduct of those persons whom they believed to be possessed in this supernatural manner, show plainly that what they ascribed to the influence of demons were merely the effects of natural diseases. Whatever they relate concerning the larvati, the cererii, and the lymphatici, shows that these were merely people disordered in mind, in the same unfortunate situation with those madmen and idiots and melancholy persons whom we have among ourselves. Festus describes the Larvati as being furiosi et mente moti. Horace says,

"Hellede percussit, Marius cum pricipitat fit, Cerrius fuit."

Plato, in his Simaeus, says, "whic yae eivous iepetivaias mavivnei oivou, rambou." Lucien describes demoniacs as lunatic, and as staring with their eyes, foaming at the mouth, and being speechless.

It appears still more evidently, that all the persons spoken of as possessed with devils in the New Testament, were either mad or epileptic, and precisely in the same condition with the madmen and epileptics of modern times. The Jews, among other reproaches which they threw out against our Saviour, said, "He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?" The expressions he hath a devil, and is mad, were certainly used on this occasion as synonymous. With all their virulence, they would not surely ascribe to him at once two things that were inconsistent and contradictory. Those who thought more favourably of the character of Jesus, asserted concerning his discourses, in reply to his adversaries, "These are not the words of him that hath a devil; meaning, no doubt, that he spoke in a more rational manner than a madman could be expected to speak.

The Jews appear to have ascribed to the influence of demons, not only that species of madness in which the patient is raving and furious, but also melancholy madness. Of John, who secluded himself from intercourse with the world, and was distinguished for abstinence and acts of mortification, they said, "He hath a devil." The youth, whose father applied to Jesus to free him from an evil spirit, describing his unhappy condition in these words, "Have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic and sore vexed with a devil; for oft times he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water," was plainly epileptic. Every thing indeed that is related in the New Testament concerning demoniacs, proves that they were people affected with such natural diseases as are far from being uncommon among mankind in the present age. When the symptoms of the disorders cured by our Saviour and his apostles as cases of demoniacal possession, correspond to exactly with those of diseases well known as natural in the present age, it would be absurd to impute them to a supernatural cause. It is much more consistent with common sense and sound philosophy to suppose, that our Saviour and his apostles wisely, and with that condescension to the weaknesses and prejudices of those with whom they conversed, which so eminently distinguished the character of the Author of our holy religion, and must always be a prominent feature in the character of the true Christian, adopted the vulgar language in speaking of those unfortunate persons who were groundlessly imagined to be possessed with demons, though they well knew the notions which had given rise to such modes of expression to be ill-founded, than to imagine that diseases, which arise at present from natural causes, were produced in days of old by the intervention of demons, or that evil spirits still continue to enter into mankind in all cases of madness, melancholy, or epilepsy.

Besides, it is by no means a sufficient reason for receiving any doctrine as true, that it has been generally received through the world. Error, like an epidemic disease, is communicated from one to another. In certain circumstances, too, the influence of imagination predominates, and restrains the exertions of reason. Many false opinions have extended their influence through a very wide circle, and maintained it long. On every such occasion as the present, therefore, it becomes us to inquire, not so much how generally any opinion has been received, or how long it has prevailed, as from what causes it has originated, and on what evidence it rests.

When we contemplate the frame of nature, we behold a grand and beautiful simplicity prevailing throughout the whole: notwithstanding its immense extent, and though it contains such numberless diversities of being; yet the simplest machine constructed by human art does not display easier simplicity, or a happier connection of parts. We may therefore venture to draw an inference, by analogy, from what is observable of the order of nature in general to the present case. To permit evil spirits to intermeddle with the concerns of human life, would be to break through that order which the Deity appears to have established through his works; DAI

works; it would be to introduce a degree of confusion unworthy of the wisdom of Divine Providence.

Such are the most rational arguments that have been urged on both sides in this controversy. Perhaps the demonianists have the stronger probabilities on their side; but we will not presume to take upon ourselves the office of arbitrators in the dispute.

DÆMONIACS, in church-history, a branch of the Anabaptists; whose distinguishing tenet is, that the devils shall be saved at the end of the world.