The conclusion is too obvious, too inevitable, to require or admit of argument.

But in order to illustrate the extent of this heathenish element, let us specify a few of the leading points, not one of which is to be found in the Old Testament. And let it be observed that most of these are borrowed directly from the Chaldeans or the Greeks.

1. The existence itself of evil demons, respecting which all their inspired scriptures are silent. Paganism generally.

2. That these demons are the spirits of the wicked dead. Greek and Roman.

3. That they possess or enter into the bodies of the living, and cause all manner of diseases, particularly insanity or lunacy, and epilepsy or the "falling sickness," accompanied with distortion of the limbs, foaming at the mouth, etc. - and even kill those who do not get help. Chaldean, Buddhist, Greek.

4.

That some of these are called "deaf and dumb spirits."

5. That these evil spirits may be cast out, and driven away, by means of charms and incantations known to professional exorcists. Greek and Oriental.

6. That some of these demons frequent lone and deserted places, as tombs, grave-yards, deserted houses and similar localities. Oriental, Hindoo, Buddhist.

7. That certain kinds have a great dread of being sent into the abyss, or the subterraneous depths; and tremble before any one threatening to cast, or drive, them out into those regions. Chaldean.

8. That these demons had a prince or king, who governed and employed them. Hindoo, Sabian, Magian.

9. That this chief demon had the power of death; or presided over the separation of soul and body, removing the soul, and causing the death of the body. Persian, Buddhist.

These are the principal particulars which the Jews borrowed directly from the heathen philosophies and mythologies; and which have no countenance from the Law or the Prophets. It would be a waste of words to enlarge upon this simple statement of facts.

A few testimonies from acknowledged authorities may be in place in confirmation of the preceding references to the sources whence the Jews derived their views regarding evil spirits. Dr. Mosheim says:

"Errors of a very pernicious kind had infested the whole body of the (Jewish) people. There had prevailed among them several absurd and superstitious notions concerning the divine nature, invisible

powers, magic, etc., which they had partly brought with them from the Babylonian captivity, and partly from those derived from the Egyptians, Syrians and Arabians who lived in their neighborhood." "The ancestors of those Jews who lived in the time of our Savior had brought from Chaldæa and the neighboring countries many extravagant and idle fancies utterly unknown to the original founders of the nation,... pernicious fables which were imperceptibly blended with their own religious doctrines."

The Encyclopædia Americana, art. "Demon," says, "The Hebrews received their doctrine of demons from two sources- at the time of the Babylonish captivity from the Chaldaic-Persian, afterward from Egyptic-Grecian sources." Enfield, in his History of Philosophy, says, "Besides the Supreme Being the Chaldæans supposed spiritual beings to exist, of several orders-gods, demons, heroes. The ancient Eastern nations in general, and among them the Chaldæans, admitted the existence of evil spirits, and in subduing or counteracting these they placed a great part of the efficacy of their religious incantations." The Greeks, Xenocrates, Pythagoras, Plato, etc., taught the existence of demons, good and evil, of various ranks, the lower rank being "human souls separated from the body, or heroes." "The Pythagoreans supposed the region of the air to be full of spirits, demons, heroes, who cause sickness or health to man and beast."

Another authority says that the Jews borrowed "many notions concerning evil spirits and their operations, from the Chaldeans, and, after their return from their captivity, ascribed many diseases and disorders to these invisible agents, besides those which were not to be accounted for by natural causes; and in this the ancient Christians followed them." Still another says, after elaborating the same point in regard to the Chaldean sources of Jewish opinions, "Thus the Jewish doctrine of evil spirits and their chief was developed. Insane persons, and patients suffering from nervous diseases, which manifest themselves by epileptic fits, were considered as subject to the influence of Satan; and people suffering under such diseases were said to have a devil." 4

Dr. Knapp, a German critic and theologian of great reputation, and whose work on Theology holds a high place in the regard of orthodox scholars, says positively:

"There is no trace of a belief in the existence of evil spirits among the Jews, until the Babylonian captivity. . . . It is not until the time *Not to have a "devil," but a "demon." Persons are never said, in the Greek of the New Testament, to have diabolos, but daimon.

of the exile, or shortly after it, that we find distinct traces of the doctrine that there are angels who were once good, but who revolted from God, and are now become wicked themselves, and the authors of evil in the world. The probability is, therefore, that this doctrine was first developed among the Jews, during their residence in Chaldea and shortly afterwards." 5

Witnesses might be multiplied indefinitely, but these are sufficient to show the truth of the statement that the Jews did not derive their doctrine of demons and possessions from their own scriptures, nor from any divine source; but borrowed or stole it from the heathen mythologies or religions, and chiefly from those of Chaldea and Greece.

Catholicism Again.

THE April Catholic World makes a fierce onslaught upon our article in the January Quarterly on "Catholicism-its Relations to Education and Morals." As we read, we remembered the words of the editor: "We will take this country, and build our institutions over the grave of Protestantism. There is ere long to be a state religion in this country, and that state religion is to be Roman Catholic" and also the words of Archbishop Williams as reported by the Boston Pilot: "There can be no religion without the Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the promotion of the true faith." We felt a trembling gratitude as we pondered these sayings in connection with the temper and spirit manifested by the reverend author of the article in the "Catholic World"; and thanked God that he and his associate priests were obliged in these days, and in this land, to content themselves with such harmless tirades as a substitute for the tortures of the Inqusition. The following, which is the opening paragraph, will show the reader the sweet charity in which our Catholic brother writes:

"A good definition of the word fabrication is “a built-up lie." At any rate, it applies exactly to a statement about our Catholic schools, of which statement the joint builders are Mr. Dexter A. Hawkins, of the New York bar; the Hon. John Jay, ex-Minister to Austria, and grandson of John Jay of Revolutionary fame; and the Rev. Thomas B. Thayer, D. D., editor of the Universalist Quarterly. They have jointly fabricated an outrageous falsehood about Catholic schools, and we shall endeavor to give to them the credit respectively due to them for it.

5Knapp's Theology, vol. i. 485-450.

This is followed by charges of falsehood sufficient in number to have sufficed for an article five times as long-"lie the first," "lie the second," "lie the third," "monstrous farago of lies," "the lie in all its nakedness," "advocates of the devil," "nefarious course," etc. Most of these epithets, to be sure, are applied to the authorities quoted in our article, Dexter A. Hawkins and Hon. John Jay, but the shadow of them falls on us for having dared to cite their facts and statements in the article aforesaid.

The writer accuses the gentlemen named of "playing a juggle " with words, and of altering terms and phrases in order to deceive, and to establish conclusions not in their premises. So far as we can see his entire argument is one about words more than things. The substance of the statements of Messrs. Jay and Hawkins, and of our argument from them, was simply this: Wherever the Catholic Church has supreme control of the teaching and training of the masses, the results show as a rule a greater degree of ignorance, pauperism and crime than is found in those communities where Protestantism prevails. This is the real question at issue; all the rest is words.

And now how does the "Catholic World" deal with this proposition? By calmly proving from authentic statistics that there is less, or no more illiteracy, poverty and crime in Ireland, Italy, Spain, Mexico, South America, and among the Catholic foreigners coming to this country; or, in other words, more education and material wealth, and a greater measure of virtue and morality, than can be found in any Protestant community in the world? No; but in the place of this we have a coarse bluster about lies, malignant falsehoods, advocates of the devil, and wholesale denials without proofs, distributed ostentatiously under First, Second, Third, etc. As an example:

“Mr. Hawkins says that according to the census of 1870, the total foreign-born population of the United States is 5,567,229, and the number of those among them who cannot write is 777,873, about 14 per cent. of the whole number most of whom came from Ireland and England - lie the first countries up to that time dependent upon parochial schools - lie the second, so far as Ireland is concerned." To this the writer adds, "According to the census the Irish constituted only one third of our foreign-born population."

Mr. Hawkins did not say "most of whom came from Ireland,” but from "Ireland and England." The critic drops an essential factor of the statement, and then talks of lies and deception.

As regards the illiteracy of those named Mr. Hawkins says, "Hence, at that date, our foreign-born population may be justly taken as a fair average product of the parochial mode of education." To this the writer says in his classic speech, "lie the third, or rather a whole series of lies mixed together," and then adds, “Ireland has had no system of parochial schools. She has been obliged to put up with private schools supported by the people themselves." And pray, so far as concerns the real matter at issue, what is the difference between private and parochial schools? Are not both supported "by the people themselves"? And are not both in Ireland entirely controlled by the priesthood as to the teachers, and the course of study pursued? Would the priest of the parish permit a Protestant to teach a school of Catholic children? or any one to teach such children anything contrary to Catholic doctrine? In what way then are Mr. Hawkins' statistics affected by the distinction between a private school controlled by a Catholic priest, and a parochial school controlled by a Catholic priest?

Again, this writer charges "Hon. John Jay" with falsehood and deliberate deception, because, in his citation of Mr. Hawkins' statement, he changes the descriptive term "Parochial system" into the phrase "Roman Catholic schools." Mr. H.'s tabulation is,

Mr. Jay gives the same statement, making only the change named above, which our critic accounts a mortal offence against his church. But his outcry is a mere "blind." The two expressions are substantially equivalent. He knows perfectly well that no sect in the country but that of the Catholics has established parochial schools in opposition to the Public Schools. Episcopalians, Methodists, Universalists, etc,, have academies and private schools to some extent, but not because they are enemies to the public school system. On the contrary, they are all earnest friends and supporters of it. In the sense in which the term parochial or parish schools is applied to, and by, Catholics, there are none save those established by themselves. Whenever therefore the "Parochial system" in this country is mentioned it is the same as saying "Catholic schools," and what is true of one is equally true of the other.

Mr. Hawkins shows by authentic statistics that “a child trained up in the Roman Catholic parochial school is so much inferior intel