The Greek daimon (diminutive, daimonion), the
original of the English " demon," did not connote
necessarily the idea of evil. It was rather neutral,
and might even be used as a synonym of theos,
" god "; it was also generally employed to desig
nate a tutelary genius (Lat. lar, lemur, genius), and
came to be applied to any departed soul. In the
Septuagint of the Old Testament, in the New Tes
tament, and in Christian usage the connotation is
sinister and always involves an evil
r. Back- spirit. The origin of the idea of de
ground of mons lies far back in the empirical
Demon- dualism of man's animistic concep
ology. tions, according to which all nature is
peopled with spirits which are believed
constantly to affect or control human acts and des
tiny (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, § 4).
Man's efforts may turn out to his satisfaction or
to his disappointment, and he attributes the re
sults to the assistance or hindrance of spirits whom
he regards as good or bad according as they seem
to assist or to thwart his efforts. This primitive
bipartition of the spirit-world into good spirits
(which may become angels) and bad (which be
come demons) persists through many stages of un
folding in civilization and in religion, and remains
as a belief even in the period of enlightenment.
Traces of animistic belief have not been wholly
eradicated from the Old Testament; cf., e.g., the
serpent of Gen. iii. which has speech, mentality,
and evil purpose, and also the anointing by Jacob
of the stone to which he attributed his wonderful
dream (Gen. xxviii. 18). The narrative in Num.
xxii. 22-34 presupposes a belief in the vocal power
of animals, though the impression given by the
narration is rather that of miraculous impartation
of speech to an otherwise mute animal. The en
tire religious provenience out of which the Hebrew
religion sprang is full of demonism (see AssYRIA,
VIL, § 8; BABYLONIA, VIL,1, §§ 4-6). The Baby
Ionian religion divided its spirits into good and bad.
These were again classified and grouped, and to the
classes and groups names were given, though in
general the individual demons did not receive
names. This is in accordance with the general law
that only in the more developed stages do the
spirits become so individualized as to be named.
This appears in the Hebrew representation, where
in the earlier writings individual spirits are merely
referred without individualization to classes (cf.
the unnamed " evil spirit " which tormented Saul,
I Sam. xvi. 14-15, and the " evil spirit " which by
divine commission came between Abimelech and
the Shechemites, Judges ix. 23), while Satan, not
at first as devil, but as one belonging to God's com
pany, or at least admitted to his presence (Job i.
6 sqq.; Zeeh. iii. 1 sqq.), Azazel, and Asmodeus
(see below) emerge as personal spirits possessing
names Only in the late (postexilic) literature. A
wealth of demonic conceptions quite equal to the
Babylonian is found also in the Arabic religion, according to which demons swarm in the regions of air, earth, and water, lying in wait for the unwary. The magic and incantations of Arabic folk-lore are hardly less prominent and numerous than those of Babylonia, and where these exist belief in demonology is sure to be found (see DIVINATION; and MAGIC).
The characteristics of the demons in the Semitic sphere are like those of demons among other peoples. These beings, whose power is greatest during the hours of darkness, are responsible for ills of the flesh, of the mentality, and of the spiritual life. They cause disease, aberration of mind, and perverseness toward the gods; they con-
e. Nature trol the atmosphere and bring storms; of Demons. by their mastery of the waters they bring floods and destruction; they enter the bodies of human beings, are especially dangerous to women and children, and at the crit ical periods of life are alert to work them harm. They may be warded off by attention to the proper ritual, by the use of drugs and herbs, and by the potency of incantations and charms (the later Jews regarded the shema, " Hear, O Israel," of Deut. vi. 4 as a protection). Yet they may be welcomed by the individual and become so at home in his person that he becomes virtually one of their num ber. In accordance with their perverse nature, the demons have their dwelling-places in spots shunned by mortals-in the deserts, among ruins and in cities which have been destroyed by the enemy, among graves, in miasmatic morasses, and in like places. The demonology of the Old Testament and the New exhibits many of these traces. Yet it is to be observed that not even in its monotheism does the religion of Israel show a loftier elevation above the faiths of the surrounding peoples than in its demonology. The most numerous traces appear in the period of depression when national disaster had enforced contact with the pregnant demonism of Babylonians, Persians, and the in vading Arabs. As a matter of course, the nature of demons is ever va.~ncly treated, and the exact no tions about them are difficult to determine. De mons were regarded as not of flesh and blood (cf. Eph. vi. 12), yet they ate and drank, reproduced their kind, and might be wounded and killed. They were pictured with the passions and even the lusts of mankind (cf. Tobit vi. 14). They were above the laws of nature, and could transform themselves into various shapes, even into those of angels of light (cf. II Cor. xi. 14). In Judaism they were regarded as especially the opponents of the Messiah (see DEMONIAC). Their origin is seldom accounted for in popular belief. They come down as elemental spirits in the common belief of the people, and their number is added to as the souls of the departed become regarded as malignant. When an angelology develops, the angels are re garded as falling from their high estate and adding to the number of the demons. So in the earlier stag s of the Hebrew religion demons are not ac counted for; but in late Jewish works, especially in the Book of Enoch (see PsEUDEPIGRAPHA), the de mons are largely derived from the episode narrated|
400 |
|
401 |
|
402 |
|
403 |
|
404 |
|
405 |
|
406 |
|
407 |
|
408 |
|
409 |
|
410 |
|
411 |
|
412 |
|
413 |
|
414 |
|
415 |
|
416 |
|
417 |
|
418 |
|
419 |
|
420 |
|
421 |
|
422 |
|
423 |
|
424 |
|
425 |
|
426 |
|
427 |
|
428 |
|
429 |
|
430 |
|
431 |
|
432 |
|
433 |
|
434 |
|
435 |
|
436 |
|
437 |
|
438 |
|
439 |
|
440 |
|
441 |
|
442 |
|
443 |
|
444 |
|
445 |
|
446 |
|
447 |
|
448 |
|
449 |
of an established rule. As early as the fifth century the bishops of Rome assumed the right of deviating from the decrees formulated by the ecumenical councils where such departures involved a mere abandonment of detail without injury to the essence of canonical prescription, or were found necessary for the preservation of the spirit of the law. Similar powers were exercised by the provincial synods and bishops; but from the middle of the eleventh century the reference of applications for exemption (q.v.) to the bishop of Rome became general, and once the supreme legislative power of the pope had been established the highest power of dispensation was deduced therefrom. In theory the exercise of this function was justified only by the welfare or necessities of the Church, but in practise the papal discretion became absolute. After the fourteenth century the practise became a source of papal revenue; for though theoretically the grant of exemption was not purchasable, yet the charges connected with the administration of this department fell upon the applicant and were made heavy for the express purpose of discourar ging frequent recourse to this mode of evading the law. The Council of Trent confirmed the pope in possession of his absolute power, unlimited even by the decrees of a general council, and sanctioned the exercise of the dispensatory power by others than the pope, but only in eases of extreme necessity or where the aim is some benefit for the Church admitting of no delay.
Upon the principle that the power of dispensation follows from that of legislation, the pope alone may grant exemption from a universal law or a law of limited application emanating from the pope or a general council. Dispensations in foro &vterno are issued through the office of the Dataria, and those in foro interno by the Panitentiaraa; the former requiring in every case the papal decision, the latter only in certain exceptional cases. The formal modes of granting dispensation are in forma commiaaaria, whereby a mandate is addressed to the territo. rial bishop authorizing him after due investigation to act in the name of the pope; or in forma gratima, wherein the act of concession is addressed directly to the petitioner, a favor extended, however, only in such exceptional cases as that of Ovwigs or bishops. The acceptance of the grant of dispensation by the petitioner is not necessary to render it efficacious.
The independent exercise of the power by the bishops is restricted to cases specified in the Cor pua juris and established by the Council of Trent, outside of which the papal authorization is neces-
Such authorization (facultatm; see FACUI, alas) is conferred for a regular number of years and within a prescribed sphere of action. The doctrine that bishops may make use of the power of dispensation in emergencies where communication with Rome is impossible or hazardous finds its sanction in a constructive papal authorization. Bishops and provincial and diocesan synods Possess the independent power of dispensation in the matter of rules and regulations of local validity; here too, however, the papal authority may intervene.
111.-29 (P. HlrlecRlvat.) BIHwOOEArwl: M. A. 8tiegler, in Archio fHirc*vwht, Mains, 1897-98; H. Brandhuber von Etsohfeld, Ueber Dispanwgon and Diepmuationrr-hR Vienna. 1888; E. Friedberg, Do& peltende Vsrfo"unot der evanpetiwhen Landeskirehen. Leipsio, 1888. Consult also J. H. Blunt, Di4io~ of Doctrinal and Historical The. o1m, pp. Wb-"20, London. 1870.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |