New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-04-18
A CATHOLIC STANDPOINT.
Mr. Shsran of St. Paul Takes Exception
to an Article in the Review.

Editor Review - Once more must
complain about that strange minggi1ng OF
truth and falsehood which character1zes
so much of what your correspondent has
written. If remember my early read
ings of Greecian history, it was this prac-
t1ce that made the Sophists; and since
their time it has disgraced many scholars
who might otherwise have won reputa-
ton for learning. For seldom, when 1t
is resorted to, can man v1ndlGate
claim to honesty; your correspondent
may be sincere but the strange way he
ningles the aforementioned elements
causes naturally some suspicion. Moreover
the caricature and cheap wit in which he
induIges is scarcely worthy of place In
an honest and serious search after rellgi-
Gus truth. One is not surprised to find
such sallies in the pages OF Judge or
Puck where they belong; but their ap-
pearance in religious discussion argues
a painful lev1ty an unbecoming attitude,
and gives to the unbelieveT that odlous
complexion which he wears IN christian
eyes. Throughout the article now under
review I find cerrain passages which the
editor of Puck would pay high prices
tor; yet these passages in reference to
the historical problems thus mrllltated
and ridicuIed, can have no value what
ever. The devil. hell, the Trinity, the
Holv Eucharist, in short any belief held
bv christian or, for that matter, by any
other man may be easily made the sub
iect Of ridicule and laughter. The imag-
ination can easily disigure and render
ridiculous the most sacred things. But
the scholor and honest Investigator
always leave such dirty work to the
trivial. meaner class, whose simian pros
pensities go so far in bearing out the
theory of Charles Darwin.
The Hebrew idea concerning Satan
and the Internal spirits was acquired
during the captivity and came from the
Persians-Moses did not have it." I
have already shown that the Mosaic
account of the serpent that deceived our
first parents cannot be explained except
under the hyphothesis of an evil spirit.
Take any other view and the context is
meaningless In confirmation of my
statement I may quote the language of
the Encyclopedias Britannica (page 1871,
Vol. VII The idea of an evil personali-
ty was a native growth Of the Jewish
mind as is evident from the Pentateuch." :"
They sacrificed to devils not to Godi'-
such is the language of one book Moses
wrote-Deutronomy. Turn to another by
the same author, ,Leviticus land they shall
sacrifice no more victims to the devils in
opposition to God: they must have been
usurping the place of Jehovah in the
public worship, otherwise the command
then, we have, in germ al least evil
spirits as adversaries OF God. Agai1 the
monotheism OF the Jews there was an
undergrowIh of, darker conceptions, point
ing to evil existences opposed to the
divine. The process of growth in the
Hebrew mind may have been greatly
aided by contact with the Persian
duaIism but it was also largely original
and, at the end as at the beginning, the
Jewish and Christian conception of the
devil and his angels were very distinct
from those of the Persian faith" Origen-
Cyprian and Tertulian in their test1mon-
les bear out this writer in the Britannica :;
neither the character of Satan nor the
plurality of devils nor their character as
adversaries of God come from Persian
source. Evidently your correspondent
has slight knowledge of Persian Dual
ism if he thinks that Satan as the Jews
pictured him, and the oriac1pIe of Evil
as held by the Persians. are Identical; for-
first of all, the Principle of Evil with the
Persians was co-creator and co =, 1aI
with the Principle of Light; oa e con-
trary we know that Satan WIS never so
considered among the Jews = he was
always held as Gods rebellious creature.
Moreover his very name is from the pure
Hebrew root, Soften, signifying opposer;
whereas In all cases where mythology
cal god or devil was borrowed he invar-
IDLY took his baptismal name with him.
f Satan were taken thus, the Jews
would have called him Augra or AhrI
man; for such were the Iranian names
of the evil principle, from whom the
Persians borrowed their divinities. After