64. Sed hoc argumentum, quod revera magis pulsat existentiam, quam possibilitatem illarum, facili negotio solvitur ex iis quæ præmissimus supra nº 41. et 42. Argumentum enim ab auctoritate negativa non tenet. Præterquam quod falsum est, quod de illis notitiam non tradiderint tum Philosophi, tum Scriptura, tum Patres. Plato siquidem, ut refert Apuleius =de Deo Socratis= et Plutarchus =de Isid.= apud Baronem, =Scot. Defens.=, tom. 9. =Apparat.= p. 1. fol. 2., voluit Dæmones esse animalia genere, animo passiva, mente rationalia, corpore aerea, tempore æterna: creaturasque istas nomine =Dæmonum= intitulavit; quod tamen nomen non male sonat ex se: importat enim =plenum sapientia=; unde cum Diabolum (Angelum nempe malum) volunt auctores exprimere, non simpliciter Dæmonem sed =Cacodæmonem= vocant: sicut =Eudæmonem=, quando bonum Angelum volunt intelligi. Similiter in Scriptura Sacra et Patribus, de dictis creaturis habetur mentio, et de hoc infra dicemus. 64. But that argument which, in fact, calls in question their existence rather than their possibility, is easily disposed of by our premises, Nrs 41 and 42; for no argument can stand in virtue of a negative authority. Besides, it is not correct to assert that neither the Philosophers, nor the Scriptures, nor the Fathers have handed down any notion of them. Plato, as is reported by Apuleius (_The Demon of Socrates_) and Plutarch (_Isis and Osiris_), declared that Demons were beings of the animal kind, passive souls, rational intelligences, aerial bodies, everlasting; and he gave them the name of _Demons_, which of itself is nowise offensive, since it means _replete with wisdom_; so that, when authors allude to the Devil (or Evil Angel), they do not merely call him Demon, but _Cacodemon_, and say likewise _Eudemon_, when speaking of a good Angel. Those creatures are also mentioned in Scripture and by the Fathers, as shall be said hereafter.