And then, too, in relation to the nature of the demon, or demons: the theory of the ancients, from whose representative minds this writer has quoted, was notoriously quite different from that which he has given. The ancients recognized good demons and evil demons. The demon of Socrates was regarded by him as an invisible, individual intelligence. A legion of demons were in one instance cast out by Christ from the body of a man whom they had infested; we can hardly suppose that these were simply a legion of "nervous principles" or "souls of the world." What those demons were really understood to be in those days, may be learned from a passage in the address of Titus to his army, when encamped before Jerusalem, in which, in order to remove from their minds the fear of death in battle, he says:

"For what man of virtue is there who does not know that those souls which are severed from their fleshy bodies in battles by the sword, are received by the ether, that purest of elements, and joined to that company which are placed among the stars; that they become _good demons_ and propitious heroes, and show themselves as such to their posterity afterward?"--_Josephus, Wars of the Jews, B. VI., chap. 1, sec. 5._

The Salem witchcraft, The planchette mystery, and Modern spiritualism — Part 67

Hesiod and many others might be quoted to the same purpose; but let this suffice as to the character and origin of these demons; and it may suffice also for the theory of _To Daimonion_, as to the particular mystery here to be explained.

The Salem witchcraft, The planchette mystery, and Modern spiritualism — Part 67

IT IS SOME PRINCIPLE OF NATURE AS YET UNKNOWN.

The Salem witchcraft, The planchette mystery, and Modern spiritualism — Part 67

If there is any wisdom in this theory, it is so profound that we "don't see it." It looks very much to us as though this amounted only to the saying that "all we know about the mystery is, that it is _unknown_; all the explanation that we can give of it is, that it is inexplicable; and that the only theory of it is, that it has no theory." Thus it leaves the matter just where it was before, and we should not have deemed this saying worthy of the slightest notice had we not heard and read so much grave discussion on the subject, criticising almost every other theory, and then concluding with the complacent announcement of the writer's or speaker's theory as superior to all others, that "_it is some principle or force of nature as yet unknown_!"