n 
 
 mi 
 
 
 
 1 
 
SE- 
 
 CTARIAN SCHOOL-BOOKS 
 
 A SEEIES OF LETTEES 
 
 REV. ROBERT J.I JOHNSON 
 
 AND THE 
 
 BEY. GEORGE W: COOKE 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 ALTRED MUDGE & SON, PRINTERS 
 No. 24 Franklin Street 
 1889 
 
-^> 
 
 # 
 
 c\% 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The letters reprinted in this pamphlet originally appeared 
 in the Dedham /Standard, beginning in the issue of that 
 paper dated Nov. 24, ]888, and closing in its issue of April 
 13, 1889. 
 
 It was not my intention to republish them in this form 
 when they were written, and I only do so at the solicitation 
 of friends who are desirous that the whole correspondence 
 shall be submitted to the general public. They were writ- 
 ten hurriedly, and as usual haste made waste, so that the 
 reader will find in them some repetitions and digressions, 
 besides other imperfections that have necessarily attended so 
 long and desultory a correspondence. In these apologetic 
 words I speak, of course, only for my own contributions. 
 
 With only a few corrections of obvious slips of the pen, 
 or errors of the types, I have reprinted them as they 
 appeared in the columns of the Standard. I have also added 
 a number of foot-notes. 
 
 It is proper that I should here disclaim any original 
 research as to the facts and authorities used, or even as to the 
 arguments employed in my letters. The charges brought by 
 my opponent, Rev. Mr. Cooke, against the Catholic Church, 
 are all of very ancient origin, and the answers to them are 
 equally historic. Mr. Cooke has invented no calumny of 
 Catholic doctrine, teaching, or practice, which has not been 
 uttered a thousand times before ; most of the calumnies that 
 he repeats, indeed, are more than three centuries old. It 
 follows that I could not hope to find anything original to say 
 in exposing them. They had all been exposed and refuted 
 
2 
 
 times without number by others, and 1 could do little, 
 therefore, but repeal what had boon often and bettor said 
 before. 
 
 1 ought also to say hero that in these letters I do not claim 
 to have explained the doctrine of indulgences fully, nor 
 indeed any further than was necessary to make clear Mr. 
 Cooke's misconceptions and misrepresentations of that doe- 
 trine. The Catholic doetrine of indulgences is, therefore, 
 only treated oi' in a partial and fragmentary manner. In- 
 deed, the entire correspondence is of a disjointed and 
 discursive character ; but for this 1 am not responsible. I 
 followed where my opponent chose to lead, and my lines of 
 reply have been, oi' necessity, as irregular and eccentric as 
 his lines of attack. Thus more ground has been skimmed 
 over in these letters than has been effectually covered. My 
 opponent has steadily refused to concentrate his argument 
 either upon the point originally at issue or upon any other 
 point subsequently raised, and in attempting to follow his 
 truant lead 1 have been forced into the same scattering style 
 of pursuit. Nor do I even now claim to have answered all 
 the vague charges, which, as side issues of utter irrelevancy 
 to the main question touching Swinton's text-book and the 
 Catholic objections thereto, Rev. Mr. Cooke has imperti- 
 nently dragged in. Lite is too short, and time and type are 
 too valuable for that. 
 
 In his last letter, published in the Standard oi' April 13, 
 Mr. Cooke pays me the unexpected compliment oi' saying 
 that the style and manner in which 1 have treated his dia- 
 tribes against the Catholic Church and her doctrines "make 
 it undesirable that he should reply." 1 have heard the 
 same opinion expressed by others win) have attentively 
 followed the controversy. But 1 had not supposed it possi- 
 ble for a realizing sense of his own discomfiture to penetrate 
 the consciousness of my opponent. 
 
I 
 
 It is, indeed) most. " undesirable " that he should reply. 
 His is eminently a case for the friendly shelter of silence* 
 He has spoken enough already. He cannot extricate him- 
 self from the web that he has spun, — of falsified history, 
 mutilated quotations, misunderstood and misapplied extracts 
 from Catholic writers, manufactured excerpts from Catholic 
 magazines, and borrowed calumniations of the Catholic faith. 
 Mr. Cooke has practically acknowledged this to he the case, 
 for it is now five months since J challenged him (in my letter 
 to the Standard of April L3) to produce any Encyclical or 
 any other document issued by the Pope, containing the 
 words which Mr. Cooke has put into his mouth, and invited 
 him to publish the same, when found, in the Standard, at 
 advertising rates, and at my expense. 1 gave him the same 
 invitation respecting his pretended quotations from the 
 Catholic World, the Catholic Review, and Cardinal An- 
 tonelli. Ample time has elapsed in which these eballei 
 might have been taken up by Mr. Cooke and his quotations 
 verified at my cost, if verification were possible; but they 
 have not been taken up, for the excellent reason that their 
 verification is impossible. It is manifestly w undesirable " 
 that he should attempt any reply under the circumstances. 
 The old adage fits his situation exactly — "the least said the 
 
 Soonest mended."' 
 
 And yet Mr. Cooke's recognition of the feet that it is ex- 
 tremely "undesirable" for him to reply does not restrain him 
 from indulging in a few farewell flings, — further argument 
 he has none to offer. It is evidently a humiliation to him to 
 have the reader'.- attention directed to Mr. .Mend'- pamphlet, 
 and to be exposed in the act of appropriating thai writer's 
 data fills him with irritation. Therefore he wishes to have it 
 understood that his "article on the parochial schools and 
 what is taught in them was not taken from Mr. Mead's pam- 
 phlet," while he is fain to confess that he did read the 
 
pamphlet, and that it "did undoubtedly suggest several 
 points of which I (he) made use in my (his) article." Quito 
 That is exaotly as I supposed. I may note in passing 
 that Mr. Mead, in his pamphlet, has much to say to the 
 credit and praise of the Catholic Church and of parochial 
 schools, and it is strange that so olose a perusal o( its pages 
 as that which Mr. Cooke evidently gave should have sug- 
 gested hardly anything which he could use except in a de- 
 rogatory, depreciative, and hostile spirit towards Catholic 
 teaching and practices. 
 
 Those who have perused Mr. Mead's pamphlet do not need 
 mo to toll them that not only a great pari of what Mr. Cooke 
 has written about parochial school hooks, but also muoh of 
 the other matter out of which ho has compiled his mosaic 
 letters, including extracts from encyclopedias and other 
 authorities, is to bo found in that pamphlet. 
 
 My opponent is very sensitive, too. oonoerning the charge 
 that ho garbled his quotations from Maurel's book on indul- 
 gences. He insists that ho quoted ''with great care, word 
 tor word, nearly a column of the Standard y from that book." 
 He certainly did quote it "with great oare"j but his moat 
 care was so toquoteit asio convey an exactly contrarymean- 
 ing to that which it> author intended and expressed. It is 
 not true that ho quoted it : ' word tor word." On the oontrary ho 
 quoted some words, omitted to quote other words, and strung 
 together the words which ho elected to quote in such order 
 and relation that the actual statements of Maurel were com- 
 pletely perverted. In my Letter oi Fob. :>, 1 showed exaotly 
 where and how, and with what manifest intent to garble and 
 distort, Mr, Cooke had broken in upon Maurel's sentences at 
 comma points, cutting them in two in the middle, and using 
 that part o( thom which, severed violently from the other 
 parts, reversed their meaning. His aim was to represent 
 Maurel as saying that indulgences were things bought and 
 
icld for money. Maurel's actual declaration* are, si I 
 showed in my letter of Feb. 9, moat emphatically to the 
 contrary of this prop'; rition. 
 
 Maurel in ,i t again and again, in terms as strong as the 
 language affords, that indulgence <-m never be granted ex- 
 cept where in hs Br I been the subject of lincere repent- 
 ance and contrition, and has been forgiven \ and that even 
 then indulgences only apply to the temporal punishment due 
 
 to in. 
 
 I' pite of all this, Mr. Cooke so dexterously manipulated 
 Maurel's text, omitting ;< half sentence here, dropping out a 
 whole sentence there, and skipping whole paragraphs which 
 were essential to the author's meaning, that the reader was 
 led to suppose that this Catholic author fully sustained 
 Swinton's slander, namely, that indulgence were bought and 
 hold for money by the authority of she Church, and 
 actual pardons of guilt, oy which fli f ; purchaser became free 
 from ;ill his sins. And now, convicted of this unscrupulous 
 misquotation, Mr. Cooke declares that he "quoted with great 
 care." What sort of care wa i it that made Maurel seem to 
 
 the rery reverse of what he really says? "Great care," 
 indeed ! Great effrontery is the better word. 
 
 In the same rein of hardihood my opponent undertal 
 justify bis treatment of Vicar-General Byrne. Space, be 
 
 , did not, permit him to quote the whole of the Vicar- 
 General's sermon and interview, as be would have been glad 
 to do. Possibly, but no more space was required for bim to 
 quote Vicar-General Byrne truly and justly than to quote 
 bim as be did, falsely and nnjustly. In my letter to the 
 Standard of March 2, J exposed his misquotation of t.h< ; 
 Vicar-General, and I need not goover the ground again. It. 
 toongh here to remind the reader that Mr. Cook': cited the 
 three last lines of an interview with Vicar-General Byrne in 
 the Boston Glebe, separating these from all t • before. 
 
6 
 
 Thus unfairly quoted, the Vicar-General was made to appear 
 as saying that Swinton had not misrepresented the Catholic 
 Church. Yet within ten lines before the three lines thus 
 abruptly severed from their connection, the Vicar-General 
 declared that Swinton's text-book was " one of the most 
 barefaced attempts that I (he) ever saw to use the public 
 schools for the purpose of bringing the Catholic Church into 
 odium and contempt," etc., etc. If Mr. Cooke had read the 
 whole interview, he knew that the Vicar-General had used 
 these strong words in condemnation of Swinton's book ; yet 
 he deliberately cut three lines out of their connection and 
 thus presented them for the purpose of making the Vicar- 
 General seem to hold and express an opinion which he knew 
 that Catholic clergymen had never held or expressed. And 
 still he pleads innocence of garbling and distortion. His 
 disclaimer of obligation to Mr. Mead and of misrepresent- 
 ing Catholic authorities and writers recalls a cartoon in one 
 of our comic papers, which represented a colored' boy 
 brought before a judge on a charge of chicken-stealing, and 
 stoutly asserting that he " neber see dose chickens," while 
 the chickens themselves were peeping out from under the 
 broken crown of his hat. 
 
 My opponent apologizes for his tirades on all manner of 
 side issues not practically related to the subject of discussion 
 — Swinton's text-book — by saying that at the outset he 
 stated his purpose to go beyond thai book and use it "simply 
 as a text." AVhat he actually promised us at the outset was to 
 show by "a consensus of unbiased historians" that every word 
 contained in Swinton's text-book was true. From his first 
 letter I will quote his exact words, which were as follows ; 
 
 " Since the question has been raised by Mr. Johnson, I 
 propose to say something at another time on the subject of 
 indulgences, with the purpose of showing that Swinton has 
 not been unjust to the Catholic Church, and that he does not 
 
misrepresent it-- teadhings of the Reformation era. What 
 the Catholic Cburcb teaches now is not the question in con* 
 troversy, but what it taught at the time of Luther. A con- 
 sensus of unbiased historians will prove that Luther bad 
 just cause for the protest Ik: made against the corruptions of 
 i!i<- Church. Such a consensus ••■.ill substantiate every word 
 contained in Swinton's history." 
 
 More than this, .Mr. Cooke said he was satisfied "that 
 Swinton understates rather than overstates the case against 
 the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation," and -till 
 more, that he believed that w all the leading historians will 
 present the case more strongly than Swinton." Those were 
 his propositions :it. the outset. ll<-- has not. sustained any 
 one of them. His array of "unbiased historians " has not 
 yet put in an appearance. Prof. Charles K. Adam-,, whom 
 be especially invoked as the highest historical authority in 
 America, has emphatically condemned Swinton's hook- for the 
 identical reasons that make Catholic-, object to it. Without 
 doubt, Prof. Adam-, i- the most respectable and strongest 
 authority named by Mi-. Cooke in endorsement of Swin- 
 ton. And what does he say? Why, be declares of Swin- 
 ton's account of the Reformation that "the general impres- 
 sion inevitably loft on the pupil'- mind i- one of strong bias 
 in opposition to the Catholic Church/' that "it doe- not tell 
 the whole truth," and finally that " it preaches the Protestant 
 doctrine; it. omit- to preach the Catholic doctrine." There- 
 fore, Prof. Adam-, (see his article in the Appendix to these 
 letters) declares that to compel a Catholic "to -end his 
 children to school, or to he taxed for a school, where the 
 Protestant view and the Protestant view alone is taught, i 
 unjustifiable as it would be to force Protestants into a. -imilar 
 position, if at some time the Catholic- -hould get the Upper 
 hand and the tables should ho turned." "And if," concludes 
 Prof. Adams, " under such circumstances Protestants would 
 not submit, it is -imply rank injustice to demand that Catho- 
 
8 
 
 lies shall ^submit, simply because the power at present hap- 
 pens to be in Protestant hands." 
 
 That is the deliberate and carefully considered judgment 
 of the Protestant historian to whom Mr. Cooke himself gave, 
 at the outset, the foremost place among historical authorities. 
 I ask no more than that he abide by that judgment. Paro- 
 chial school books, their merits and their defects, have 
 nothing to do with the grievance of Catholic parents in the 
 public schools, which Prof. Adams so calmly and concisely 
 states. Protestants are not taxed to support parochial 
 schools ; Protestant children are not obliged to read paro- 
 chial school books. Catholics are taxed to support public 
 schools, and Catholic children are compelled to read Swin- 
 ton's text-book, which, in Prof. Adams's words, "preaches 
 the Protestant doctrine," and " omits to preach the Catholic 
 doctrine." 
 
 What has become, then, of Mr. Cooke's appeal to " a con- 
 sensus of unbiased historians "? What is unbiased history? 
 I have always understood that the absolute truth of history 
 was only to be ascertained by reference to original docu- 
 ments, and that it must be founded on and confirmed by 
 such documents. Yet, the reader will observe that from first 
 to last Mr. Cooke has never once cited from an original docu- 
 ment issued by a Pope, or from any original statement or 
 definition of doctrine by a Catholic Council, or from any 
 authentic Catholic cathechism treating of the question under 
 discussion. Proposing to convict the Catholic Church of 
 teaching what Swinton says she teaches, concerning indul- 
 gences, by an appeal to " unbiased history," he utterly neg- 
 lects and ignores the only genuine and indisputable body of 
 historical evidence as to what the Church has taught either in 
 time past or time present, namely, the original documents 
 of her Popes granting indulgences and declaring the Church's 
 doctrine on that subject ; nor has he cited her teaching on 
 
9 
 
 this question as declared by her councils or her catechisms. 
 Mr. Cooke does, it is true, quote from some respectable 
 Catholic writers on the subject, but in such a disjointed 
 way as to convey an entirely erroneous idea of what they 
 actually say. So that if we are to accept the disclaimer he 
 makes in his last letter of any intent to garble or misrepre- 
 sent them, we can only do so by assuming that the real 
 meaning of these Catholic writers has never for one moment 
 entered his mind. And who, pray, are some of Mr. Cooke's 
 " unbiased historians " ? They include Motley and Robertson 
 — two notoriously ultra-Protestant partisans ; Rev. Dr. A. A. 
 Miner, Rev. Philip S. Moxom, Rev. James B. Dunn, and 
 Mr. Ezra Farnsworth. Unless Dr. Miner is deficient in the 
 sense of humor, he would laugh long and loud at the sugges- 
 tion that he was an " unbiased historian," and Drs. Moxom 
 and Dunn would certainly laugh with him. As for the his- 
 torian, Ezra Farnsworth, his writings are unknown to me. 
 The Boston Public Library boasts no copy of the works of 
 this very rare historian. Truly it is a marvellous array of 
 " unbiased historians " which Mr. Cooke has marshalled for 
 us ! 
 
 And when, supported by this brilliant galaxy of "unbiased 
 historians," my opponent triumphantly pointed, in his first 
 letter, to the report of the text-book committee, and said 
 that " each member " of it " gave the book a careful examina- 
 tion, and expressed himself entirely satisfied with it, because 
 of its clearness of statement, its comprehensiveness, its 
 accuracy, and its impartiality," there evidently seemed to 
 him nothing more to be said. Yet this learned text-book 
 committee might have reached a quicker, less laborious, and 
 wiser conclusion if it had gone to the standard Protestant 
 encyclopedias and read what they contain on the doctrine of 
 indulgences. 
 
 It must be clear to every reader that my opponent has 
 
10 
 
 utterly failed to make good his opening promises. Swinton's 
 definition of indulgences is not and cannot be sustained by 
 non-partisan history or by " a consensus of unbiased histo- 
 rians." To attempt, as he has done, to sustain it by quota- 
 tions from writers equally partisan with Swinton, or more 
 so, simply heightens the affront offered to every Catholic 
 parent. 
 
 Mr. Cooke says in his last letter (April 13) that" all intel- 
 ligent people to-day wish to see the world without being 
 compelled to use the spectacles of the Catholic or any other 
 denomination." Then Prof. Adams being our witness, 
 Swinton's text-book is a just cause of offence to " all intel- 
 ligent people," for it does compel Catholic pupils to use 
 Protestant spectacles in looking at the Reformation gen- 
 erally and at the Catholic doctrine of indulgences particu- 
 larly. 
 
 " When," says Mr. Cooke, " the Catholic Church begins to 
 meddle with the public schools I can no longer remain quiet." 
 Nothing deserves to be more despised by all fair-play loving 
 citizens than the cant of those who seek to use the public 
 schools as a screen from behind which to attack the Catholic 
 Church. Mr. Cooke mistakes his mission when he imagines 
 himself to be defending the public schools from Catholic 
 attack. He, and such as he, are not defending the schools 
 from sectarian assault ; on the contrary, they are the attack- 
 ing party, and are doing their best to sectarianize the public 
 schools. Their direct assault is on Catholics and the Catho- 
 olic Church, but that in effect is an attack on the unsectarian 
 character of the common schools. They are helping to in- 
 troduce anti-Catholic text-books and to force them into 
 Catholic pupils' hands. If they succeed, the unsectarian 
 public school is as good as destroyed. And on my side I 
 return Mr. Cooke's phrase and say that when the public 
 schools begin to meddle with the Catholic faith, misrepresent 
 
11 
 
 the Catholic doctrine, and outrage the Catholic conscience, I 
 can no longer remain quiet. 
 
 I do not know how far Mr. Cooke represents in this corre- 
 spondence the views of the School Board of Dedham as a 
 whole. I very much regret, however, that the Board has, 
 by its vote, kept Swinton's inaccurate and offensive text-book 
 in the public schools, and that the text-book committee should 
 have reported, after a professedly careful examination of its 
 contents, that it is accurate and unobjectionable. Such a 
 report reflects severely either upon the intelligence or the 
 impartiality of the committee, and is deeply to be regretted 
 as an indication that the sectarian spirit so painfully mani- 
 fest in Mr. Cooke's letters holds sway, for the time being, over 
 the text-book committee and the Board. 
 
 Mr. Cooke adds in his closing letter: "I detest all reli- 
 gious controversy. I have nothing against the Catholic 
 Church as a church ; I should prefer to praise it rather than 
 to condemn it." His distaste for religious controversy is 
 evidently quite recent. It would appear to date from his 
 discovery that religious controversy requires some knowledge 
 of the subject under discussion by those who engage in it. 
 Unfortunately, he had not this knowledge, as was made pain- 
 fully apparent from his pothering about the doctrine of indul- 
 gences ; for any bright Catholic school boy or girl could have 
 corrected his misrepresentations of that doctrine. 
 
 It is certainly rather late for him to find out that he de- 
 tests religious controversy, after indulging in it so freely. 
 That this repugnance to controversy is a new-born feeling on 
 Mr. Cooke's part we may fairly infer, because it seems clear 
 that he had no such repugnance when he began to write his 
 letters. He was not requested by the town, the School Com- 
 mittee, or any one else, so far as I have heard, to take up 
 the cudgels on behalf of " Swinton the historian." He was 
 a volunteer champion, self-appointed to the work of vindi- 
 
12 
 
 eating this sectarian text-book. Manifestly he must have at 
 first relished his self-imposed task ; and that he lays down 
 his pen with so much dislike of what he began with gusto 
 argues that his experience of the delights of religious con- 
 troversy has not equalled his anticipations. In this experi- 
 ence he is not alone. Most of the assailants of the Catholic 
 Church have had a similar realization of their untenable 
 position as soon as they have learned something of her his- 
 tory and doctrine. 
 
 As to Mr. Cooke's disclaimer of hostility to the Catholic 
 Church, and his declared preference for praising rather than 
 condemning it, the readers of his letters may assuredly be 
 pardoned if they received them with a smile. If Mr. Cooke 
 did indeed desire to praise the Catholic Church, he must 
 himself look back upon his letters to the Standard with great 
 disappointment. It must surely be a source of profound re- 
 gret to him that in writing so many columns about that 
 Church he has found so little opportunity in which to gratify 
 his preference for praising it. 
 
 The text-book being still retained in the schools of Ded- 
 ham, and this discussion having been referred to in the last 
 report of the School Committee, the publication of this cor- 
 respondence will serve the useful purpose of making the 
 grounds on which Catholic parents object to this book clearly 
 and generally understood. It will at least place on record 
 their protest against the sectarian coloring of the teachings 
 in our common schools, notwithstanding the general boast 
 that there are, and the specific provision of the law that there 
 shall be, no sectarian text-books used therein. 
 
 In his final letter, Rev. Mr. Cooke accuses me of " mud- 
 throwing." It will be observed that my first letters to the 
 Standard were written in a thoroughly impersonal tone, and 
 dealt with the question strictly upon its merits. It was not 
 my desire that the discussion should take on a personal tone, 
 
13 
 
 nor was it my fault that it did. I should have been much 
 better pleased if the correspondence had been carried on to 
 the end on the plane of calm and reasonable argument, free 
 both from petty personalities and appeals to vulgar preju- 
 dice. But my opponent was determined from the outset to 
 drag the discussion down to these lower levels. In his very 
 first letter (published Dec. 22, 1888), which followed my 
 first three letters, in none of which was there one word of 
 a personal nature, Mr. Cooke left the subject in order to 
 enter on personalities. I was accused of raising the secta- 
 rian issue ; the authorities which I had ventured to quote 
 were cavalierly dismissed as of no account ; and I was rail- 
 ingly told that Swinton's slander was in fact unjust to the 
 Catholic Church only in this way, that it did not show her 
 and her teachings in a bad enough light. I was charged 
 
 © © © © 
 
 with " a desire to find offence " in a text-book where none 
 existed. In his following letters these flings were supple- 
 mented by the imputation to Catholics of a desire to 
 attack and destroy civil and religious liberty, of an intoler- 
 ant and persecuting spirit toward their fellow-citizens, and 
 of actual disloyalty to American institutions. Besides hurl- 
 ing this broad accusation of treason at the whole Catholic 
 body, Mr. Cooke did not hesitate to charge the Catholic 
 priesthood with selling forgiveness of sins for money. He 
 dragged into his letter an extract from an anti-Popery corre- 
 spondent, written from Italy to a Boston weekly paper, and 
 tendered it seriously as proof of the charge that Catholic 
 priests are pardoning guilt at certain fixed cash prices. 
 This, if true, would place the Catholic priesthood in a posi- 
 tion of the deepest degradation. And after offering all these 
 bitter insults to Catholics, Mr. Cooke complains of " mud- 
 throwing." 
 
 I fear I must plead guilty to some warmth of reply, and 
 it may be that I ought not to have let myself repay my 
 
14 
 
 assailant in his own coin. I certainly regret having yielded 
 to his provocation, great though it was. The highest Chris- 
 tian ideal no doubt required that I should bear in silence 
 with his taunts and gibes, whether at myself, at the Church 
 of which I am a humble member, or at the doctrines and 
 practices which that Church teaches and inculcates. Hearing 
 the Catholic body stigmatized as disloyal citizens, I should 
 have meekly forborne from making any retort ; when the 
 Catholic clergy were represented as tricksters and knaves, and 
 accused of making barter and sale of the pardon of Heaven, 
 I should have answered mildly and without heat ; I should 
 have been genteel and polite in repelling my opponent's 
 slanders, and Rev. Mr. Cooke should have been allowed 
 a monopoly of the " mud-throwing." But unfortunately I 
 forgot this sometimes, and hence Mr. Cooke's indignation. 
 Everything held sacred by Catholics, it seems, was properly 
 enough a target for his slander and vituperation, but when a 
 Catholic resents such treatment, and employs vigorous lan- 
 guage in doing it, Mr. Cooke is shocked at the "mud-throw- 
 ing." I regret that his delicate sensibilities on this point have 
 been so hurt. But something will be gained thereby if he 
 learns that Catholics will not submit to be rolled in the mud 
 without making as much resistance as is needed to show that 
 they have not lost their self-respect. In short, Mr. Cooke 
 must make the best of his discovery that there are blows 
 to be taken as well as given in a controversy carried on upon 
 the plane to which he himself insisted on lowering it, — the 
 plane of prejudice and personality. 
 
 A word is necessary as to the Appendix of this pamphlet. 
 In it will be found a letter of the Hon. H. Winn, entitled 
 "A Plea for Toleration," published in the Boston Herald of 
 Dec. 10, 1888 ; a review of Swinton's " Outlines " by Mr. 
 Alpha Child, which appeared in the Boston Transcript; an 
 editorial on "The Teaching of History," from the Christian 
 
15 
 
 Register of Nov. 8, 1888 ; an extract from an editorial on 
 ^Indulgences," in the Boston Advertiser of; May 12, 1888; 
 an editorial in the same paper of May 16, 1888 ; and a 
 paper by Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, on "The Public 
 School Question," all of which are referred to in the corre- 
 spondence between myself and Mr. Cooke. In these articles, 
 all written by non-Catholic writers, there are some things, 
 of course, with which a Catholic would not agree, but in the 
 main they deal with the subject under discussion in a fair 
 spirit. 
 
 R. J. Johnson. 
 
 St. Mary's Church, 
 
 Dedham, Mass., September, 1889. 
 
A SECTARIAN TEXT-BOOK. 
 
 swinton's "outlines of the "world's history" shown to 
 he sectarian by the highest protestant authorities. — 
 standard works of reference refute swinton's state- 
 ment of the doctrine of indulgences. 
 
 [From the Dedliam Standard, Nov. 24, 1888.] 
 
 Persons whose memories reach thirty years into the past 
 will note a great change in the temper of sectarian discus- 
 sion in our community. Time was, and that within the 
 limit of the past generation, when the differences of opinion 
 and of sentiment even between nearly related Protestant 
 sects were bitter, and when all discussions of these differ- 
 ences Avere nothing if not intensely partisan. A little 
 further back, and the orthodox Congrcgationalist of Con- 
 necticut found it difficult to admit that the Episcopalian's 
 chances of salvation were really clear. At any rate they 
 did not compare with his own certainties. The Episcopa- 
 lian creed was thought to savor dangerously of "Romanism," 
 and as to the Catholics themselves, they were held by the 
 orthodox to be little better than pagans. Christian charity 
 stopped, in very many cases, with them; and this was the 
 case with so-called " orthodox " believers who were in other 
 respects mild and even tolerant persons. The history of 
 religious misunderstanding, to use the mildest term possible, 
 has had a new and singular chapter in the record of the New 
 England Puritan's zeal against " Rome " and the ancient 
 creed and practices of the Catholic Church. 
 
 All this is happily changed, at least as far as concerns the 
 exterior relations of Catholic and Protestant. The intrinsic 
 differences remain, but there is more courtesy, more tol- 
 
17 
 
 erance. The real trouble now is not intolerance so much 
 as unintelligence. The Protestant is not so often discour- 
 teous to his antagonist in a religious discussion as he is ill- 
 informed. The Protestant writer seldom sets out to make a 
 direct attack upon the Catholic Church. But he is apt to 
 fall into mistakes which may easily be more injurious than 
 open attacks.* 
 
 A case of this ignorant blundering has lately attracted 
 much attention, and deservedly, because its consequences 
 may be wide-spread if the blunders are not corrected. I 
 refer to a school text-book by William Swinton, " Outlines 
 of the World's History " ; and I propose to examine its 
 merits, or rather its demerits, somewhat carefully, touching 
 first upon its attitude toward church history, then upon 
 other points in which scarcely less of misinformation is 
 shown, and lastly, upon the qualifications and character of 
 the author. 
 
 The inquiry is not only timely, but pressingly necessary. 
 The School Board of this town has voted to adopt Swinton's 
 " Outlines " as a text-book for use in our public schools. 
 It has done this after a professedly careful examination of 
 the work. It says, in effect, that it contains nothing that 
 any Catholic need find fault with. After exploring its pages 
 with such learning and labor as it could command, it has 
 only praises for the book. Let us see how far those praises 
 arc deserved. 
 
 And first let me remark that this action of the Board is in 
 marked contrast with that of other school boards in this 
 State.* The greater part of them, as soon as their atten- 
 tion had been called to Mr. Swinton's travesty of Catholic 
 faith and teaching, and to the distortions of history for that 
 
 * At the time this letter was written I was informed that Swinton's 
 " Outlines " had been passed upon by several other school boards besides 
 that of Boston. Further inquiry satisfied me that this was not the case. 
 
18 
 
 purpose which I will point out, have excluded the work from 
 their schools. In this they have acted with fairness and 
 liberality, and their action has been sustained by the best 
 Protestant authorities. It will not be difficult to make very 
 clear the causes which have determined this exclusion. But 
 how has it happened that the School Board of Dedham has 
 failed to detect what so many other school boards have dis- 
 covered, — the rank misrepresentation of the Catholic 
 Church in Swinton's " Outlines," and its frequent historical 
 inaccuracy of other important points? 
 
 The " Outlines " contains, at page 320, the following ex- 
 traordinary foot-note : 
 
 " These indulgences were, in the early ages of the Church, 
 remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins 
 had brought scandal upon the community. But in process 
 ■of time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and 
 the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from 
 all his sins." 
 
 Is there no cause here for the action of school boards in 
 excluding the work? Let us see what some of the boards 
 have done, and their reasons for their action. It will be an 
 interesting study. Among the boards which have excluded 
 the work is the School Committee of Boston, a body cer- 
 tainly not less distinguished for the ability and character of 
 its members than that of Dedham. It examined this book 
 critically, and its text-book committee, composed of both 
 
 The fact, however, that school committees and school teachers elsewhere 
 have sanctioned and approved the use of this erroneous text-book, con- 
 taining statements calculated to poison the minds of pupils with anti- 
 Catholic prejudice, would be no justification for the use o"f the same book 
 in Dedham schools. A man caught poisoning the wells of one town 
 would hardly be excused by pleading that other men were pouring the 
 same kind of poison into the wells of other towns. And the fact that this 
 text-book is used in so many other schools simply shows how wide-spread 
 is the sectarian influence in school management and how general is the in- 
 justice done to Catholics. 
 
10 
 
 Protestant and Catholic gentlemen eminent for their learn- 
 ing and culture, unanimously condemned it. Among those 
 who joined in the report in favor of its exclusion from the 
 public schools of Boston, was the Kev. Joseph T. Duryea, 
 D. D., a Presbyterian divine, whose scholarship can no more 
 be questioned than his Protestantism. Yet this is what Dr. 
 Duryea and his colleagues on the text-book committee say : 
 
 " Members of the High School Committee called the 
 attention of this committee to statements of the author of 
 the text-book upon the subject of indulgences. These are 
 contained in a paragraph of the text and a note at the 
 bottom of the page (320). This note is indefinite ; it should 
 have been omitted or made explicit. It is misleading. In 
 a text-book which is an outline, a guide to the teacher and 
 pupil, every statement should be clear, definite and accurate, 
 for the teacher is entitled to take it as such, if he be dis- 
 posed, as containing a warrant of his exposition, expanding 
 and illustrating from his memory according to his impres- 
 sions or opinions, inasmuch as the book is in his hands by 
 the authority of the Board. In the present instance the 
 teacher appears to have done this, and to have taught that 
 an indulgence ' is a permission to commit sin.' This is not 
 and never was true. It is true that it has been so repre- 
 sented, as the note affirms ; but it should add when, where, 
 and by whom, and definitely. It certainly never was by 
 any duly recognized authority in the Catholic Church. The 
 attention of the agent of the publishers was called to the 
 defective character of the note. The committee is credibly 
 informed that the publishers themselves were advised by a 
 competent scholar, than whom perhaps no other in this 
 country has more weight of authority, that the note could 
 not be approved as sufficiently explicit. . . . Ample 
 opportunity was given for promise or action insuring a cor- 
 rection. This failing, the committee recommended that the 
 book be dropped from the lists." 
 
 . Speaking in the Boston School Board on the adoption of 
 the report from which I have just quoted, Dr. Duryea, 
 who is a representative man in whose judgment all unpreju- 
 diced Protestants will have confidence, says : 
 
20 
 
 " If the facts are to be given in a history they must be given 
 as they are, and not distorted. ... I am surprised at the 
 action of many of those in this community. I can only ex- 
 plain it by race prejudice and religion. It is assumed that 
 there has been dictation by one religion. I should vote for 
 the exclusion of the history in courtesy to the feelings of the 
 Catholics. Because a man is a Catholic has he no right to 
 have any feelings? I am surprised. It is nothing but rank, 
 partisan, religious, bigoted, political prejudice and passion 
 that is behind all this matter. The teachings of Swinton's 
 school-book are not correct." 
 
 If any one is disposed, however, to cavil at Dr. Duryea's 
 opinion, — I believe one partisan has hinted that Dr. 
 Duryea is a Jesuit in disguise, — I can easily furnish him 
 with an abundance of other Protestant authority in support 
 of the Catholic objections to Swinton's " Outlines," as an 
 untruthful, a misleading, and, as to the Catholic Church, a 
 most unjust book. 
 
 The gist of the controversy over it turns upon its statement 
 of the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, by which they are rep- 
 resented to be pardons of guilt and licenses to commit sin. I 
 venture with confidence to say that there is not a single stand- 
 ard Protestant work of reference, with any reputation among 
 scholars, which sustains Swinton's libel of the Catholic faith 
 on this point. The "Encyclopedia Britannica," the " Ameri- 
 can Encyclopedia," the " Dictionary of Religious Knowledge," 
 "McClintock and Strong's Biblical Cyclopedia," and the "Reli- 
 gious Encyclopedia," are all standard Protestant authorities ; 
 the three last named are edited respectively by distinguished 
 Congregational, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian clergy- 
 men. Every one of them contains an article devoted to the 
 Catholic doctrine of indulgences, and not one of them sus- 
 tains, or in the least justifies, the slander in question. All 
 these authorities, on the contrary, support the dictum of 
 Prof. Fisher of Yale College, the eminent church historian, 
 who says distinctly : " To say that the Roman Catholic 
 
21 
 
 Church has ever taught that the forgiveness of sins can be 
 bought with money, is an atrocious slander." 
 
 The Protestant press, — that part of it that has any repu- 
 tation for learning or critical judgment, — both religious and 
 secular, has, I am glad to note, dealt candidly with Swinton's 
 erroneous text-book. It cannot be that the members of our 
 Dedhani School Board are aware of the general and emphatic 
 condemnation of it by papers of the highest standing, and of 
 whose decided Protestant bias no one has the least doubt. 
 For example, the Boston Advertiser is not a Catholic organ, 
 but speaking of the teaching deduced from Swinton's book 
 that the Catholic Church regards an indulgence as a " per- 
 mission to commit sin," it says : "Historically the statement 
 is not true ; theologically, the topic is forbidden in the 
 schools." 
 
 The Christian Register is certainly a paper whose Protes- 
 tant character is undoubted, and following is its judgment on 
 the matter : 
 
 "A public school is not the place in which to teach eccle- 
 siastical history. Mr. Swinton half confesses this when, in 
 his ( Outlines of the World's History,' he puts the statement 
 in regard to indulgences, to which Roman Catholics have 
 objected, in a foot-note. It would have been wiser if he had 
 left it out altogether. From a Protestant staud-point, his 
 statement may be unquestioned. But the subject is one on 
 which Catholics also have their opinions. No public school 
 board has a right to force on Catholic pupils historical state- 
 ments on debatable points which may be said to strain the 
 Catholic position." 
 
 In a later issue, the Christian Register elaborated its posi- 
 tion, and approving the action of the Boston School Com- 
 mittee in regard to a teacher in the English High School, 
 who had been complained of for his teaching in connection 
 with Swinton's " Outlines," said : 
 
 " The committee decided unanimously that, whatever the 
 teacher's motives in the matter, he had made an unfortunate 
 
22 
 
 mistake in his method of teaching. Acknowledging the jus- 
 tice of the complaint, he was transferred to another depart- 
 ment of the school. The committee also found the book 
 which precipitated the discussion faulty in its definitions. 
 The view of indulgences which it presented was given wholly 
 from a Protestant stand-point. It did not recognize that 
 there was another stand-point. To remove this occasion of 
 difficulty, the committee decided to withdraw the book. The 
 committee, we think, on the evidence presented, acted intel- 
 ligently and fairly, and for the best interest of the public 
 schools." 
 
 The Examiner is a recognized organ of the Baptist denomi- 
 nation, and surely will not be suspected of a prejudice in 
 favor of the Catholics. The following is its view on the 
 matter : 
 
 "Those who are ready on slight grounds, or on no grounds 
 at all, to come out with charges of Romish aggression have 
 seized upon the exclusion of this book, on account of objec- 
 tions entertained by Catholics to this passage, as another 
 proof of Catholic hostility to the public schools and the 
 determination of the Catholic leaders, if they cannot destroy 
 the public-school system, to control it in their own interests. 
 Rev. J. T. Duryea, D. D., who is pastor of the Central Con- 
 gregational Church of Boston, and a member of the School 
 Committee that pronounced against this book, advocates its 
 exclusion from the schools upon the ground that it is wise to 
 avoid any cause of suspicion that the teaching in the schools 
 is not conducted with perfect fairness to all classes. This 
 ground seems to be impregnable. The theory is that our pub- 
 lic schools, supported as they are by taxes levied on all citi- 
 zens alike, are for the education of the children of all citizens 
 alike. As the religious beliefs of the citizens are not taken 
 into account in the levying of taxes, it is right that they should 
 be respected in the conduct of the schools. There should be 
 nothing in the instruction or the text-books or the discipline 
 that would give any citizen, whatever his religious belief, 
 reasonable ground of complaint." 
 
 In a later issue the same high Baptist authority further 
 
 says : 
 
23 
 
 "It is evident that a citizen has a reasonable ground of 
 complaint when a text-book states, as indisputable facts, 
 things that are disputed by historians and theologians, or 
 imputes beliefs to any class that are distinctly repudiated by 
 its authorized spokesmen. It is not even admitted by all 
 Protestants that the statement in Swinton's history regard- 
 ing the Catholic doctrine of indulgences is correct. . . . 
 The only safe and equitable rule is this : In all cases of mat- 
 ters about which there is controversy, no statement should 
 be admitted into text-books to be used in public schools that 
 is believed to be false or unfair by any class of citizens. No 
 other principle is workable. If a Protestant majority may 
 to-day insist on putting into text-books things distasteful to 
 a Catholic minority, can we complain if a Catholic majority 
 to-morrow reverses the procedure ? The theory of our 
 schools necessitates absolute neutrality in religious beliefs, 
 and the books must be made to conform to the theory." 
 
 We are beginning to see, I think, that in protesting 
 against the placing of this text-book in the hands of their 
 children, Catholics are simply asking their Protestant fellow- 
 citizens not to force upon them, in the guise of historical 
 truth, nor to give their children, as if it were impartial edu- 
 cation and pure information, statements which the highest 
 Protestant scholarship has pronounced to be false and slan- 
 derous. But I will return to this subject in another letter. 
 
 K. J. Johnson. 
 
 CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CARICATURED. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCE AS DEFINED BY THE CHURCH 
 GROSSLY DISTORTED BY SWINTON. — MANY PROTESTANT NEWS- 
 PAPERS ACKNOWLEDGE ITS UNJUST MISREPRESENTATION OF 
 CATHOLIC TEACHING. 
 
 [From the Declham Standard, Dec. 1, 1888.] 
 
 With your permission I propose offering some further ob- 
 servations on the tone of Swinton's text-book as judged by 
 impartial critics. It seems to me important to put the atti- 
 tude of Protestant writers clearly and fully on record, 
 
24 
 
 because it is oreditable to their fairness and to the growing 
 historical knowledge which they bring to bear on questions 
 whioh have been unnecessarily controverted. Fuller knowl- 
 edge, greater fairness, — surely no one can object to these; 
 not even the publishers who have put forth, originally in 
 ignorance oi' its true character let us hope, the little book 
 whioh has been the eause of so mueh misrepresentation. 
 
 'The book itself is not, indeed, worthy oi' long discussion: 
 hut the principles which have been raised by it are among 
 the gravest which could become a cause of misunderstanding. 
 And when the misunderstanding is oenturies old, one which 
 has fomented unnecessary discord between Protestants ami 
 Catholics ever since tin- sixteenth oentury, it becomes tho 
 duty of all fair-minded students to examine and to settle for- 
 ever, eaoh for himself, the causes oi' the disagreements 
 
 Let me return, therefore, to the essential subject-matter 
 of this controversy. 'The text-book in question, as 1 said in 
 my first letter, attributes to the Catholic Church the repre- 
 sentation oi' indulgences as actual pardons oi' sin. Any 
 student of church history knows that this is now, ami always 
 has been, false. What is the true doctrine oi' the Catholic 
 Church in regard to indulgences? 
 
 It may interest readers who do not understand the doctrine 
 of indulgences to quote an authoritative definition of an indul- 
 gence. The catechism ordered to be adopted by the third 
 Council of Baltimore includes the following questions and 
 answers : 
 
 "Q. "What is an indulgence? 
 
 M A. An indulgence is the remission in whole or in part 
 of the temporal punishment due to sin. 
 
 "Q. Is an indulgence a pardon of sin, or a license to com- 
 mit sin? 
 
 "A. An indulgence is not a pardon of sin, nor a license to 
 commit sin, and one who is in a state of mortal sin cannot 
 gain an indulgence." 
 
25 
 
 Will my Protestanl readers in particular be good enough 
 to note how for it La from implying anything like a "permis- 
 
 rsiorj to commit sin "? 
 Father Macleod says : 
 
 " I>y an indulgence is meanl the remission of the temporal 
 punishment due to sine already forgiven. Every sin, how- 
 ever grievous, is remitted through the sacrament of penance, 
 or through an act of perfect contrition, as regards its guilt 
 and the eternal punishment due it. But the debt of tem- 
 poral punishmenl is noi always remitted al the same time. 
 The latter is done away with by deep penitence, or by works 
 of satisfaction, e. y., prayer, alms, fasting, or by patient en- 
 durance of troubles and adversities sent us by God, or by the 
 satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ and the saints, applied 
 to us by the Church under certain conditions ; which applica- 
 tion we call an indulgence. An indulgence, then, is not a 
 pardon for sin, because sin must be remitted before an indul- 
 gence can be gained. Much less is it a permission to commit 
 sin, . . . for even (k><\ himself could not give such permis- 
 sion. In order to gain any indulgence whatever one must 
 be in a state of grace." 
 
 And this doctrine has always been the doctrine of the 
 Catholic Church. That abuses of it arose is true; thai the 
 Church ever sanctioned them is not true. And to -how how 
 generally even Protestant journals of scholarship and fairness 
 recognize the fact, 1 will make; a few more quotations from 
 representative papers. 
 
 The Boston /u<i<oii is a paper that cannot be suspected of 
 an\' bias in favor of the Catholic Church, and which enjoys 
 considerable reputation as a critical authority in literature. 
 Here is its opinion : 
 
 "The Boston School Committee has dropped William 
 Swinton's 'Outlines of the World's History' from the books 
 
 authorized for us in our city high schools. The reason for 
 this is the foot-note (already quoted) on page 320 of the 
 book. As a matter of fad, it is not absolutely wrong when 
 understood quite literally; for many a Protestant believes 
 
26 
 
 to-day that the Catholic Church sells indulgences for money, 
 and represents an indulgence to be a pardon of sins past and 
 prospective. But Mr. Swinton's statement really conveys 
 the idea that the Catholic Church treats indulgences as actual 
 pardons of guilt, and sells them for cash. For very natu- 
 rally the second sentence of Mr. Swinton's, being connected 
 with the first in a separate note, is understood to represent 
 the position of the Church in later ages precisely as the first 
 represents the belief of the Church in ' the early ages.' The 
 sentence would be unobjectionable if Mr. Swinton inserted 
 the words ( by ignorant or unfriendly persons' after the 
 word 'represented.' The statement as now printed in the 
 book is not legitimate. On the contrary, there is a special 
 reason why the teachings of the Catholic Church in regard 
 to indulgences should have been presented with scrupulous 
 fairness, that is to say, in terms approved by the Catholic 
 Church in its official capacity. School-books should contain 
 demonstrable or historical truths only, and if the Boston 
 School Committee will insist upon this point, the community 
 will profit." 
 
 The same paper, in a later issue, returns to the subject and 
 says further : 
 
 "The School Committee has dismissed the petition asking 
 for the reinstatement of Swinton's History. The petitioners 
 and the two ladies who have seen fit to act as the champions 
 of the book are unable to hold their ground. The book 
 should not be used, not only because of the wretched note 
 on indulgences, but also because it misrepresents the begin- 
 ning of the Protestant Reformation. A book that publishes 
 fiction in the place of historical facts should not be used in 
 any school, least of all in our public schools." 
 
 In other articles, which I cannot here quote without mak- 
 ing this letter too long, the Beacon points out the grossly 
 inaccurate character of Mr. Swinton's book, not only as to 
 indulgences, but as to many other matters of importance, 
 and says emphatically that it should not be used in our 
 public schools, where nothing but indisputable truths should 
 ever be taught. 
 
27 
 
 The Boston Saturday Evening Gazette, another paper not 
 to be suspected of Catholic leanings, says : 
 
 "It is folly to attempt to make an issue between Protes- 
 tants and Catholics on the basis of a difference of interpreta- 
 tion of a difficult historical question. The Roman Catholics 
 are quite right in demanding that a public-school teacher 
 shall not constitute himself a judge of a question of scholar- 
 ship and research so difficult to decide that there are prob- 
 ably not a hundred men in the United States competent to 
 speak upon it. 
 
 " We hope it was not Roman Catholic influence alone that 
 helped in this matter. We hope level-headed Protestants 
 used their influence in the same direction. For, looked at 
 broadly, it is not a petty question of sectarianfsm, but it is 
 the large question of an historical difference ; and whether 
 it be decided one way or the other by a school teacher, is 
 not the trouble : it is that the teacher did not admit the 
 nicety of the point, and remain, personally, coldly neutral 
 concerning it. There are undisputed facts enough that a 
 teacher may inculcate, and if he be a modest man, if he be 
 a consecrated student, he will be very loath to be dogmatic 
 about uncertainties. The text-book itself is well out of the 
 way, — there are at least two as good as Swinton's, — and to 
 do away with the book removes at once the main cause of 
 irritation." 
 
 The Boston Daily Advertiser, which I have already 
 briefly quoted, will not, I suppose, be accused of undue 
 favoritism towards Catholics. In an editorial comparing 
 Swinton's "Outlines" with Prof. Fisher's "Outlines," that 
 paper says : 
 
 " Those people who are crying out against the School 
 Board for its action in voting to drop from the list of text- 
 books Swinton's ' Outlines of the World's History,' would do 
 well to consider whether they would be willing to have a 
 text-book used in the public schools of Boston which could 
 be made the basis of a slanderous misrepresentation of the 
 various religious sects to which they are attached. . . . 
 A reader of Swinton would conclude that it was the Roman 
 Catholic Church by which these indulgences ' in process of 
 time' came to be 'represented as actual pardons of guilt'; 
 
28 
 
 while ;v reader of Fisher would understand that this impres- 
 sion was created in the popular mind solely by the way in 
 which 'the business was managed in Germany at the time,' 
 an understanding confirmed by everything that this most 
 eminent church historian has written on the subject, an 
 understanding sanctioned by every Protestant writer of 
 recognized authority in Europe and America." 
 
 In our magazine literature we shall find the same feeling. A 
 writer in the North American Review for December says : 
 
 " I am speaking entirely from the point of sight of a Prot- 
 estant — a Protestant not only by every trait and tincture of 
 heredity, but by every conviction of reason ; a Protestant 
 to whom sonte of the assumption of the Roman Church seems 
 not only unwarrantable, but well-nigh intolerable. But," 
 continues this writer, " the differences between Protestants and 
 Catholics are not to be fought out in the public school. There 
 are times, seasons, fields for this fight ; but the public school 
 is not one of them. Truth is of the first importance. If any 
 truth of history is so hidden, remote, doubtful, that we can- 
 not come to an agreement about it, it is far better to leave it 
 alone than to teach as indisputably true, what, at best, is 
 only disputably true. If there is so much to be said on 
 each side that neither side can convince the other, the only 
 resource is to suppress both sides or insert both sides. To 
 force cither side to accept the other's view is mere absolute 
 despotism. . . . In the realm of thought is no rule of the 
 majority. . . . Nothing should be taught in the schools 
 supported by the common fund except that which is ac- 
 cepted by the common faith. . . . Whatever makes the 
 public school odious weakens its hold. Nothing can make 
 it so odious as attacks upon the religious, whether or not 
 false, faith of any of its supporters. If the attacks arc well 
 founded, they are altogether out of place. If they are ill 
 founded, they have no place." 
 
 A Unitarian clergyman, the Kev. Minot J. Savage, in a 
 recent discourse at the Church of the Unity, in Boston, 
 struck the same note : 
 
 "Were I a Catholic," he said, "I would fight to the bitter 
 end the teaching of a doctrine to my child which I believed 
 
29 
 
 to be pernicious to his welfare in this world and the next. I 
 object to my children being taught sectarian ideas by the 
 State. We have no right to teach sectarianism in the public 
 schools." 
 
 And if we look for testimony upon this question outside 
 of the Christian Church, we shall find the same views as those 
 already quoted. The Rabbi Solomon Schindler, a short time 
 ago, said in his synagogue : 
 
 " In the public schools ... a text-book which should be 
 offensive even by one single sentence to a class of citizens 
 should be dropped at once." 
 
 As I said in my earlier letter, the original offence in the 
 present caso was rather a blunder than an intentional af- 
 front. Neither the publishers nor the Protestant commu- 
 nity have anything to gain by fomenting bad feeling, and 
 least of all in the management of the schools in which 
 the children of both Catholic and Protestant meet on equal 
 grounds. Nothing is more to be deplored than a misun- 
 derstanding here. The heart of the trouble is the incom- 
 petence of the men who write our text-books, and sometimes, 
 it is to be feared, of the men who are instrumental in intro- 
 ducing them. 
 
 "Most of our school-books," says the Beacon, "are the 
 work of cunning publishers and the men they hire. Most of 
 these books are f introduced ' by a contract that the cunning 
 publishers conclude with more or less incompetent school 
 committees." 
 
 Our school expenses are now very large, and it is all the 
 more important that books should not be bought which have 
 to be abandoned. This is a point for tax-payers in connec- 
 tion with this matter, which may well be kept in mind. 
 Text-books cost money. The annual appropriation for text- 
 books is simply wasted when it is spent one year for books 
 
30 
 
 which have to be put aside as useless the next. Already the 
 tax-payers have seen this appropriation used to buy the 
 works of a Coffin, and later to purchase Welsh's " Develop- 
 ment of English Literature," all of which are now piled upon 
 the shelves of the School Committee rooms, admittedly untit 
 for use in the public schools ; and to this heap of literary 
 lumber there will no doubt be presently added the works 
 of Swinton, the great historian. School expenses are in- 
 creasing every year ; and the text-book appropriation is a 
 considerable item on the bill. How do the tax-payers like 
 the policy of buying cart-loads of text-books which are no 
 sooner bought than by reason of their inaccuracy, as well as 
 their offensiveness to a large portion of the parents of the 
 children, they have to be discarded? 
 
 It is deplorable that in cultivated New England it should 
 be found so difficult to bring together in the production and 
 the censorship of text-books a competent writer, an intelligent 
 school board, and a fair-minded publisher. 
 
 I will not multiply quotations upon the points already 
 mentioned. I think that I have already cited enough, and 
 from a sufficiently wide range of authorities, to show the 
 entire reasonableness, by the admission of learned, able, and 
 fair Protestant writers, of the Catholic objections to this 
 text-book. I submit them with confidence to the candid 
 and dispassionate judgment of the people of Dedham. 
 
 The action of our School Board in retaining this book in 
 our schools is a clear case of injustice to Catholic parents. 
 Certainly they ought not to be taxed for the purpose of 
 spreading before their children, in the guise of history, 
 statements that falsify the doctrines of their Church, dis- 
 tort its history, and hold it up to contempt. As Catholics 
 we are constantly misrepresented as seeking to introduce 
 into the schools text-books that have a Catholic coloring. 
 We seek to do nothing of the kind. We are simply asking 
 
31 
 
 that the text-books put into the hands of our children shall 
 not be such as have a distinctly anti-Catholic coloring, or 
 such as unmistakably distort the truth of history and, in the 
 words of the Advertiser, convey a contrary impression to 
 that which is "sanctioned by every Protestant writer of 
 recognized authority in Europe and America." In a word, 
 our appeal is from the lowest anti-Catholic prejudice to the 
 highest, most learned, and most reputable Catholic and Prot- 
 estant opinion. We have nothing to fear from the higher tri- 
 bunals of historic and religious culture ; it is only the clamors 
 of the ignorant and the prejudiced that we deprecate. 
 Surely the interest of no church can be served by the ig- 
 norant or careless historian, the neglectful board, or the 
 manoeuvring publisher. All that we ask is intelligence and 
 fair play. 
 
 In another issue of your paper, if I am permitted, I will 
 conclude the subject by pointing out some further grave ob- 
 jections to the text-book in question. 
 
 R. J. Johnson. 
 
 SWINTON'S INACCURACIES. 
 
 his "outlines" considered on its general merits, as an ele- 
 mentary TEXT-HOOK. NOT ONE CHAPTER OK IT DEVOTED TO 
 
 THIS COUNTRY. GEN. GRANT'S OPINION OF SWINTON. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Dec. 8, 1888.] 
 
 With your permission I now purpose to offer a few obser- 
 vations on the general merits of Swinton's much-discussed 
 text- book. I have already shown, I think, to the satisfaction 
 of all fair-minded persons, that Catholics have a just right 
 of complaint concerning Swinton's misrepresentations of the 
 history and the teachings of the Catholic Church. This 
 much, out of the mouths and from the pens of eminent 
 
32 
 
 writers, Protestant and Hebrew, I certainly established in my 
 letter last week. 
 
 Setting aside however its unfair, because untruthful, 
 treatment of the Catholic Church and its doctrines, I assert 
 that Swinton's book is a defective work, wofully lacking in 
 essential points as an elementary text-book on general his- 
 tory, and grossly inaccurate in many statements of facts re- 
 lating to civil as well as religious history. In short, I claim 
 that no intelligent parent, whether Protestant or Catholic, 
 can desire to have his children taught history from a book 
 so full of blunders; a book from which, besides, the bare 
 mention even of many important historical events has been 
 omitted. 
 
 My first point will be one in which I think no one will 
 gainsay me. I suppose there will be a general agreement on 
 the part of Americans that the United States has enough 
 importance in the history of the world to justify at least one 
 chapter being devoted to it in any text-book that professes 
 to give the " outlines ot general history." Yet this book 
 of Swinton's does not devote a single chapter to this country. 
 George Washington is generally conceded to have played an 
 important part in the history, not only of America, but of 
 civilization ; yet there is nothing in the Swinton text-book 
 to let the Dedham school boys and girls know that such a 
 man ever lived. The name of "the Father of his Country " 
 is not so much as once mentioned in its pages. Is that 
 the kind of text-book from which our children are at all 
 likely to obtain a solid and satisfactory grounding in the 
 elementary facts of history ? * Well may the Boston Beacon, 
 a well-known literary weekly, say of it : 
 
 * Mr. Swinton excuses himself in the Introduction to his "Outlines" 
 for omitting all reference to the United States by saying that pupils are 
 supposed to have become acquainted with the history of the United States 
 by previously studying other text-books, intended to precede the "Out- 
 lines." Obviously the " Outlines of the World's History," by its author's 
 
33 
 
 "A ' World's History ' that is substantially silent on the 
 United States does not deserve a place in the public schools 
 of this country. The book is intended for high schools and 
 academies. Yet its maps are so crude as not to indicate 
 longitude and latitude ; still Mr. Swinton praises them. 
 The book is without chronological tables, and otherwise unfit 
 for use." 
 
 An elementary history without chronological tables is 
 almost as great an absurdity as an elementary arithmetic 
 would be without multiplication tables. Yet it is a text-book 
 of this sort that the Dedham School Board have declared to 
 be what is wanted in the town's schools. 
 
 I venture to quote the Beacon again as to the educa- 
 tional value of this book. In its issue of Sept. 22 last, 
 that able paper said : 
 
 "Probably the worst books used in our schools are the 
 grammars of English; they do much harm, and apparently 
 no good. Next in order stand the school histories. . . . 
 Among them is Swinton's book, now under discussion here 
 in Boston. The friends of our public school seem to think 
 that Swinton's History should be retained as a matter of 
 principle. But no intelligent student of history would think 
 of defending Swinton's account of the beginning of the Prot- 
 
 own confession, is a misnomer, for it furnishes little more than the out- 
 lines of European history, and those very inadequately. Mr. Alpha Child, 
 of Watertown, N. Y., an able writer, reviewed Swinton's "Outlines" in 
 two exhaustive articles in the Boston Transcript of Feb. 4 and 8, 1889. 
 Those who desire to get the judgment of a pronounced Protestant critic 
 of intelligence on the general merits of the text-book which has so 
 strangely succeeded in gaining the approval of our learned text-book com- 
 mittee, are referred to an extract from Mr. Child's review, printed in the 
 Appendix to this pamphlet. Mr. Child has the same misconception 
 of the Catholic doctrine of indulgences as Mr. Cooke and most other 
 Protestant writers who have participated in this controversy without first 
 informing themselves of this important Catholic doctrine from authorita- 
 tive sources. Sharing Mr. Cooke's confusion of ideas as to what the 
 doctrine of indulgences is, Mr. Child does not, however, share the curious 
 blindness of Mr. Cooke and our learned text-book committee to the many 
 glaring errors and the general weakness and deficiency of Swinton's 
 " Outlines" considered simply as an elementary historical work. 
 
34 
 
 estant Reformation, the point under discussion. That ac- 
 count is hopelessly bad, and proves conclusively that Swin- 
 ton has not read the principal document of the time, Luther's 
 ninety-five theses of 1517. Whoever will read them — they 
 are translated in Dr. Schaff's Church History — cannot help 
 admitting that on Oct. 31, 1517, Luther was a pretty good 
 Catholic, and a Papist to boot. Now our schools should 
 use accurate books only." 
 
 It is not only true, as the Beacon points out, that Swinton 
 has only half stated and misstated the facts about Tetzel and 
 the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, but he has given an 
 account of the origin of the Protestant movement which not 
 only Catholics, but all educated Protestants, know to be thor- 
 oughly incorrect. Swinton states (page 320 of his "Out- 
 lines") that "The Dominican Friars, having obtained the 
 monopoly of the sale (of indulgences) in Germany, em- 
 ployed as their agent Tetzel," etc. Now as a matter of fact 
 Tetzel was not the agent of the Dominican Friars, but of the 
 Archbishop of Mainz (Mayence or Menz). Swinton pro- 
 ceeds to unfold the story of Luther and the Reformation 
 movement as follows : 
 
 " Martin Luther, Professor of Theology in the University 
 of Wittenburg, took the lead in opposing Tetzel. . . . He 
 appealed to the people and to men of letters (1517) by pub- 
 lishing ninety-five theses condemning the sale of indulgences 
 as contrary to reason and scripture." 
 
 In these few lines of print there are certainly two very 
 great errors of fact: (1) Luther, in his famous theses, did 
 not " appeal to the people and to men of letters for redress " ; 
 (2) Luther did not condemn indulgences. A non-Catholic 
 critic, before cited, says : 
 
 "In fact on Oct. 31, 1517, when Luther published his 
 theses, he was not only an orthodox Catholic, but a Papist, 
 and did not mean to be anything else. Like other reputable 
 Catholics, Luther appealed, in 1517, to the Pope, and later 
 on from the Pope to a council, to remedy the Tetzel abuse, 
 
35 
 
 which no reputable Catholic writer has ever justified. As 
 late as March 3, 1519, Luther wrote to the Pope declaring 
 his entire loyalty. In a word, Mr. Swinton's account is 
 hopelessly wrong." 
 
 Later in life Luther said that in 1517 he was " a raving 
 Papist," and that he " would have readily murdered any per- 
 son who denied obedience to the Pope." All this was 
 changed ; but when Luther published his ninety-five theses, 
 he did not protest against the Pope, or the Roman Church, or 
 any of her doctrines. His appeal was not to the people and 
 to men of letters, but to his ecclesiastical superiors and to 
 the Pope. The theses made no mention whatever of Tetzel, 
 and they distinctly asserted the truth of the Catholic doctrine 
 of indulgences. The seventy-first of Luther's theses reads 
 thus : " He who speaks against the truth of papal indulgences, 
 let him be anathema and accursed." 
 
 By way of ascertaining how far wide of the sober truth of 
 history is Swinton's version of Luther's relation to the 
 Reformation, so called, I commend Protestants who are 
 willing and desirous to get at the facts, to consult Dr. Philip 
 Schaff's "History of the Christian Church," published by 
 Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Dr. ScbafT is not a 
 Catholic ; he is a Presbyterian scholar. But of Luther's 
 theses, he says that they 
 
 I 
 
 " sound very strange to a modern ear, and are more Catholic 
 than Protestant. They are no protest against the Pope and 
 the Roman Church, or any of her doctrines, nor even against 
 indulgences, but only against their abuse. They expressly 
 condemn those who speak against indulgences. . . . They 
 imply belief in purgatory." (Page 157.) 
 
 On this it has been well observed by a Protestant writer 
 already quoted that 
 
 "If anybody had told Luther that he was a church reformer, 
 Luther would have repelled the charge with an execration. 
 
30 
 
 And throughout his life ho knew that the CImrch of God 
 cannot bo reformed by man, and that the church of man is 
 not the last importance." 
 
 Pointing out the general inaccuracy of the work, as well 
 as its special errors in regard to the account of Tetzel, 
 Luther, and the ninety-five theses, the Beacon in another 
 article says : 
 
 "On page 485 Mr. Swinton says that by the labors of the 
 brothers Grimm 'comparative philology was raised to the 
 dignity of a science.' It is not worth while to say anything 
 in our public schools about comparative philology. But if 
 anything must be said, it is right to state that Francis Bopp 
 raised comparative philology to the dignity of a science, 
 and that the Grimms confined their attention to the Germanic 
 languages. On pages 22(5 and 227 Mr. Swinton tells us that 
 'the speech which arose in the island (Britain) from the 
 intermixture of the various German dialects took the name 
 of Anglo-Saxon,' and that the Anglo-Saxons became Chris- 
 tians in the seventh century.' Now the word 'Anglo- 
 Saxon' is a much later coinage; it means English Saxon, as 
 opposed to Continental Saxon, and it does not mean a mix- 
 ture of Angles and Saxons. In fact, Anglo-Saxon is an ink- 
 horn word, and as suitable as if one were to call the people 
 of New England ' Britishers.' On the same page we are 
 told that the Franks and Goths, unlike the Saxons, adopted 
 the language and religion of Rome. The Goths were 
 Arians, not Catholics ; the Franks are to this day the purest 
 German stock. On page 483 we are told that about 1871 
 'Austria and its adjuncts formed a separate kingdom known 
 as the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' Austria-Hungary is 
 an empire, not a kingdom, and has existed for centuries 
 past. But enough has been said to show that Mr. Swinton's 
 book should not be used in our public schools, where nothing 
 but indubitable truths should ever be uttered." 
 
 I submit that I have shown what I promised to show, — 
 the generally defective character of Swinton's " Outlines " 
 as a text-book, quite apart from its demerits as a sectarian 
 work highly colored with anti-Catholic prejudice. But 
 before I leave the subject, it will bo in order to speak of the 
 
37 
 
 author as well as the book. Who is " Swinton the his- 
 torian"? The phrase has an impressive sound; it would 
 seem to be the name and description of a respectable author- 
 ity, a high-toned scholar and a man of letters. Is Swinton 
 such a man ? 
 
 For an answer to this question let us look into Gen. 
 U. S. Grant's "Memoirs." On pages 143 to 145 of volume 
 two we shall find a pen-and-ink picture of this now notorious 
 "historian," which deserves to be considered by everybody 
 who undertakes to defend the " Outlines " as either a fair 
 or a truthful book. For on those pages Gen. Grant has 
 recorded it in black and white, and insured it remembrance 
 as long as the book is read, that Swinton trespassed on his 
 confidence, broke his own pledged word of honor, and 
 played the ignoble part of a spy and eavesdropper in the 
 camp of tne Union Army. He says in his " Memoirs " that 
 Swinton reported to the Southern press his (Grant's) in- 
 structions to a member of his staff, which he (Swinton) had 
 overheard, and that, on a later occasion, the "historian" was 
 caught listening to a private conference between Gen. Meade 
 and Gen. Grant, and was forcibly interrupted in his eaves- 
 dropping. Later still, at Cold Harbor, Gen. Grant tells us 
 that news was brought to him that Gen. Burnside had 
 ordered Swinton to be shot for some grave offence he 
 had committed within Burnside's lines. Gen. Grant con- 
 cludes his remarks upon the "historian" with these words: 
 "I promptly ordered the prisoner to be released, but that 
 he must be expelled from the army, not to return again on 
 pain of punishment." 
 
 That is Gen. Grant's testimony to the character of "Swin- 
 ton the historian " ; and it is well to bear in mind that the 
 " Memoirs " in which it appears was not written in the haste 
 or heat of the moment, but more than twenty years after the 
 close of the war. Gen. Grant was not a passionate or a vin- 
 
38 
 
 dictive person ; he was, on the contrary, a singularly self- 
 controlled, calm, and magnanimous man. Yet such was the 
 deep impression which Swinton's dishonorable conduct had 
 left on his mind, that long afterward, at the close of a ri- 
 pened life, when he was writing what he knew was to be the 
 last work of his pen, a work which would be read by all his 
 countrymen, he thought that "Swinton the historian" de- 
 served to be publicly gibbeted. That was Grant's deliberate 
 and well-considered opinion of the author of the "Outlines" 
 now under discussion ; for it was only after twenty-two 
 years of reflection that he gave it to the world. 
 
 Is the man thus pilloried by Gen. Grant the kind of 
 man from whose pen we should expect either fair or truthful 
 history? Hardly. Catholics might well expect that in such 
 hands their Church would be calumniated and their faith 
 traduced. But they did not expect that the Dedham School 
 Hoard would insist, on putting into the hands and before the 
 eyes of their children the indignities offered by Swinton, the 
 condemned spy, to their religion, as if those misstatements 
 were the sober truths of impartially written history. Any 
 friend of the public schools who is desirous of their welfare, 
 and of seeing them so conducted that Catholic as well as 
 Protestant children can safely stay in them without having 
 their religious faith assailed, ridiculed, or undermined, must 
 protest against the retention of Swinton's "Outlines" as one 
 ot the text-books. 
 
 A representative Protestant paper, already quoted, dis- 
 cussing Swinton's book, pertinently says : 
 
 " Lei ns for a moment put the shoe on the Protestant foot, 
 and see just where it pinches. . . . How many Protestants 
 would wince at having Dr. Schatf's statement inserted in Mr. 
 Swinton's book, declaring that c the fact is undeniable that 
 I lie Reformation in Germany was followed . . . by a de- 
 generacy of public morals.'" 
 
89 
 
 And this paper shows that Dr. Sehaff is not alone in this 
 admission, but is corroborated by other high Protestant 
 authorities. 
 
 H Finally," it says, " we remind our renders that a book 
 intended for a text-book in the public schools must be tried 
 by tests which may not be applied to :i book for the indi- 
 vidual student. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and children 
 of all nations gather in these schools. A book which does 
 not carefully avoid all religious and national partiality ought 
 to be carefully excluded as a source of strife and division." 
 
 There are those who fear and deprecate the movement for 
 parochial schools. To such I commend the sensible words 
 of a Protestant weekly, the Christian Register, which says : 
 
 "The question of the action of the Boston School Com- 
 mittee in removing a defective text-book and reprimanding 
 an injudicious teacher, has been unnecessarily complicated 
 in public discussion with the question of parochial schools. 
 We have actually seen it assumed that the action of the com- 
 mittee was in favor of the Catholic demand for such schools. 
 On the contrary, the influence of the committee's action is 
 just in the opposite direction. It assures Catholics that the; 
 public schools shall remain unsectarian in character, that 
 their children may go to them without being compelled to 
 study ecclesiastical history through Protestant interpreta- 
 tions." 
 
 There is a suggestion in these remarks of the Christian 
 Register that is well worthy of being thought about. If 
 Catholic parents are expected to support the public schools 
 with their money, collected by the public tax-collector, and 
 contentedly to send their children to be educated in those 
 schools, the text-books used in them should at least not be 
 such as to trample on their deepest religious convictions, 
 and hold their faith up to contempt before the eyes of their 
 children. 
 
 I cannot believe, that the good sense of the community 
 will fail to perceive the absolute necessity of keeping sec- 
 
40 
 
 tarianism, of whatever kind, out of our public schools, and 
 of making a higher standard of intelligence imperative 
 among those who govern them. 
 
 © © 
 
 If I have spoken with some warmth upon this subject, it 
 has been with the warmth of conviction. The subject is one 
 that is worthy of the most serious attention of Catholics and 
 of Protestants alike. I trust that the warnings which have 
 been so clearly sounded in the non-partisan press will not 
 be allowed to pass unheeded. R. J. Johnson. 
 
 SWINTON'S HISTORY. 
 
 THE REV. GEORGE W. COOKE'S FIRST LETTER. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Dec. 22, 1888.] 
 
 My attention has been called to three articles published in 
 the Standard and written by the Rev. R. J. Johnson. 
 These articles criticise the action of the School Committee 
 in retaining Swinton's history as a text-book in the public 
 schools. At the same time, they attempt to prove that S win- 
 ton is not a man of good character, and that he is not a reli- 
 able historian., I propose to make answers to these allega- 
 tions, and to show that Mr. Johnson is mistaken in the 
 opinions he has expressed. 
 
 Swinton's " Outlines of the World's History " has been in 
 use in the Dedham High School for several years, and it has 
 always been found an acceptable book.* Last spring Mr. 
 Johnson called the attention of the School Committee to 
 Swinton's method of dealing with the Catholic Church and 
 its teachings. The book was then referred to the committee 
 
 © 
 
 on text-books for consideration, and that committee reported 
 unanimously in favor of its retention. Each member of this 
 
 * Mr. Cooke, on page 60, says that the book was not introduced till 
 " the beginning of the spring term of 1888." — R. J. J. 
 
41 
 
 committee gave the book a careful examination, and ex- 
 pressed himself as entirely satisfied with it, because of its 
 clearness of statement, its comprehensiveness, its accuracy, 
 and its impartiality. The text-book committee having thus 
 reported, the School Committee voted to retain the book. 
 
 Mr. Johnson claims that the retention of Swinton's book 
 was an act of injustice to the Catholic Church. I do not 
 agree with him in that opinion. The Catholics of Dedham 
 have always been well treated by the School Committee. 
 The sectarian question has not been raised, so far as I know, 
 in the choice of teachers. A full proportion of Catholic 
 teachers have been employed, and they have not been dis- 
 criminated against in any manner. Since I have been a 
 member of the committee the only occasions when the secta- 
 rian question has been raised have been those on which it has 
 been brought forward by Mr. Johnson himself. 
 
 Then again, is it at all probable that the members of the 
 School Committee would retain Swinton's book in order to do 
 injustice to Catholics? Probably, too, the readers of the 
 Standard will have as much confidence in the historical 
 judgment of the text-book committee as in that of Mr. 
 Johnson. The simple fact is, that the book was retained 
 because it was believed to be the best book on the subject 
 now to be had, and because it was believed to be as accurate 
 and fair as any history for schools now published. 
 
 Swinton's book must be judged on other grounds than 
 those of his relations to Gen. Grant and his connection with 
 the Civil War. This argument of Mr. Johnson has nothing 
 whatever to do with the merits or demerits of the case. 
 Does the book thoroughly answer the purpose for which it is 
 used? That is the only question which needs consideration. 
 
 Mr. Johnson quotes the opinion of the Beacon and the 
 Christian Register with reference to the worth of Swinton's 
 books ; but such authorities are of no importance in regard 
 
42 
 
 to such a question as this. They are defending their own 
 position, and care less for truth than to make out their own 
 case. The editors of those papers, very able gentlemen as 
 they are, are in no sense historical authorities on the worth 
 of Swinton's book. Let us take up some genuine historical 
 standard, and see what that has to say. Here is " A Manual 
 of Historical Literature," compiled by Prof. Charles Kendall 
 Adams, Professor of History in the Michigan University, 
 and now President of Cornell University. Its purpose is to 
 give students information in regard to the best historical 
 works ; and it is the recognized standard authority for all 
 who are interested in historical subjects. Mr. Adams is a 
 man of great ability ; and he stands at the head of the new- 
 school of historians in this country. 
 
 I propose to quote in full what Prof. Adams says 
 about Swinton's book. In speaking of general histories he 
 says that Swinton's is a very useful book for a bird's-eye view 
 of universal history. When he comes to speak of Swinton's 
 book by itself, he uses the following language : 
 
 "Prepared specially for the use of higher classes in public 
 schools, high schools, and academies, the author made no 
 original investigation in the preparation of the book ; on the 
 contrary, he appropriated with great freedom from the works 
 of others whatever seemed best suited to his purpose. Mr. 
 Swinton is not, like Freeman, a great historian, but he has 
 the knack, above almost all other men of his time, of know- 
 ing what a young scholar wants and needs. The result in 
 the book before us is a work of great and deserved popu- 
 larity. It has the extraordinary merit among school histo- 
 ries of being interesling. In the hands of a really good 
 teacher it might be less interesting than it is ; but really 
 good teachers of history are not so abundant as to make 
 this feature a serious fault. It is also admirably equipped 
 with tables, maps and illustrations. If the student or 
 general reader desires a bird's-eye view of the world's pro- 
 gress, his choice between books in English should be between 
 this and the little volume of Freeman's." 
 
43 
 
 Here is the highest historical authority we have in this 
 country commending Swinton's book as being next in impor- 
 tance to the work of the best historian of the age. If there 
 is a better book, however, why not take that? For the 
 reason that Freeman's book has no maps or other aids, so 
 important in teaching history to young people. Mr. John- 
 son quotes the Beacon to show the imperfection of Swin- 
 ton's book in maps, etc. I decidedly prefer the opinion of 
 Prof. Adams, who highly commends the tables, maps, and 
 illustrations.* 
 
 I wish also to quote the testimony of Mr. Edwin D. Mead,f 
 who has made himself well known among historical students 
 by his connection with the Old South Church historical 
 lectures. He has been for several years the leader of this 
 movement to educate the people in history ; and his work in 
 connection therewith has commended him for his wide learn- 
 ing, his impartiality, and his historical ability. His position 
 is one of entire independence, and he has written of the 
 Catholics with great liberality. On more than one occasion 
 
 * By consulting the latest edition of Prof. Adams's work the reader 
 will find that in it he has omitted all reference to the maps, illustrations, 
 and tables. In the first edition it is probable that he intrusted the exam- 
 ination of the maps and illustrations to an assistant, who failed to observe 
 their illegible, inaccurate, and altogether inferior character. Prof. Adams's 
 remark that Svvinton "made no original investigation in the preparation 
 of the book," but "appropriated with great freedom from the works of 
 others," is very true. Swinton's appropriation from the works of others 
 has indeed been very free — whole pages at a time, and one paragraph after 
 another, being thus taken. It is strange, however, that Mr. Cooke, pre- 
 sumably chairman of our learned text-book committee, should not have 
 discovered the extremely poor quality of these maps. It is calculated to 
 shake one's confidence in his knowledge of geography. As to some of the 
 illustrations, they are almost as bad. Any reader can satisfy himself of 
 the cheap quality of some of them by turning to page 130 of the " Outlines " 
 and noting the very delicate ( ?) picture there presented. There are limi- 
 tations of length necessary to be observed in writing letters for a news- 
 paper, but for which I might have pointed out to the reader the many 
 errors with which this book abounds; as it is, I must refer him to Mr. 
 Child's review in the Appendix, page 192. — R. J. J. 
 
 f See foot-note on page 55. 
 
44 
 
 recently, he vigorously protested against the sectarian spirit 
 in discussing the school question. When he comes to speak 
 of Swinton's History Mr. Mead uses these words : 
 
 "I should never have known, had not the present contro- 
 versy prompted me to a critical examination, how excellent a 
 book this little history of Swinton's is. J have been espe- 
 cially impressed by the impartiality and the rare tact with 
 which the author steers through those stormy periods where 
 Catholicism and Protestantism clashed — -the time of the 
 Huguenots and St. Bartholomew's, the time of Alva in the 
 Netherlands, the religious persecutions, now Catholic, now 
 Protestant, under Henry VIII. and Maiw and Elizabeth. I 
 should especially like to speak of Swinton's warm recogni- 
 tion of the services of the Catholic Church during the Middle 
 Ages. I should like to quote his high tribute to the monas- 
 teries, which were the arks of learning and the centres of 
 almost every civilizing influence left in those dark and troub- 
 lous centuries succeeding the breaking up of the old Roman 
 system." 
 
 With such high and unprejudiced authorities commending 
 Swinton's book, can any one wonder that I wish to retain it? 
 It is said by Mr. Johnson, however, that Swinton is not just 
 to the Catholic Church. I believe the fact is that Swinton 
 under-states rather than over-states the case against the 
 Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. I believe 
 that all the leading historians will present the case more 
 strongly than does Swinton. When I read what Swinton 
 says about indulgences and the other corruptions of the time 
 I was struck with his moderation, his desire not to be sec- 
 tarian, and his absolute regard for facts. Had there not been 
 a desire to find offence none would have been found in Swin- 
 ton's book.* 
 
 If we teach history in our public schools, are we to teach 
 truth or are we to teach something other than truth? That 
 is a question of very grave importance for consideration in 
 
 * Yet the Christian Union pronounces it " a perfectly reasonable 'com- 
 plaint." See quotation from that paper on page 51. — R. J. J. 
 
45 
 
 dealing with the young. The spirit of fearless investigation 
 into the past is the only one which can bring us the truest 
 results of history. We are not to cover up the past lor the 
 sake of our own party or sect, and we are not to warp it 
 aside from the facts in order to make our own case appear 
 well. Let us have the unvarnished truth, and let us teach 
 that without fear of its doing injury to the young. 
 
 Since the question has been raised by Mr. Johnson, I pro- 
 pose to say something at another time on the subject of in- 
 dulgences, with the purpose of showing that Swinton has 
 not been unjust to the Catholic Church, and that he does not 
 misrepresent its teachings of the Reformation era. What 
 the Catholic Church teaches now is not the question in con- 
 troversy, but what it taught at the time of Luther.* A con- 
 sensus of unbiased historians will prove that Luther had just 
 cause for the protest he made against the corruptions of the 
 church. Such a consensus will substantiate every word con- 
 tained in Swinton's History. George W. Cooke. 
 
 THE CATHOLIC POSITION. 
 
 DIFFERENCES OF FACT AND OPINION. — A BALANCING OF 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Dec. 29, 1888.] 
 
 In your issue of Dec. 22, the Rev. George W. Cooke criti- 
 cises the articles in which, in former issues of the Standard, 
 I have stated the Catholic position in the matter of the text- 
 book known as Swinton's "Outlines." 
 
 There are some differences of opinion and some questions 
 
 * On page 82, however, Mr. Cooke takes up an exactly opposite posi- 
 tion. He there declares that " the Church has not changed its doctrine of 
 indulgence since the Reformation. What it taught then it teaches now, 
 and indulgences are still sold." There is an irreconcilable conflict of 
 statements here. — R. J. J. 
 
46 
 
 of fuel between Mr. Cooke and myself. The differences of 
 opinion I am content to leave to the judgment of those who 
 have followed our controversy ; the questions of fact are 
 matters to be settled by proof. So let us first consider the 
 facts, proceeding from those of less to those of greater im- 
 portance. 
 
 1. Mr. Cooke says that Swinton's "Outlines" " has been 
 in use in the Dedbam High School for several years, and it 
 has always been found an acceptable book." As a matter of 
 t'aet, this is not a correct statement. While there may have 
 been a copy or two in the High School, this text-book has 
 not been in regular use there for several years. This is a 
 simple matter of fact : and before Mr. Cooke takes a recon- 
 naissance of mediaeval history and gives us his views on 
 "the Reformation era " and "the teachings of the Catholic 
 Church in the time of Luther," as he promises to do in the 
 closing paragraph of his letter, it would be well for him to 
 show some accuracy as to the records of our own day, and 
 to verify his statement that the "Outlines" has been in use 
 in our High School " for several years." To the best of my 
 knowledge and belief that statement is not true. 
 
 His added statement that " it has always been found an 
 acceptable book" is certainly untrue. Who is it that has 
 "always" found it acceptable? Not the Dedham School 
 Board, for that body never passed upon it until recently, 
 after 1 made objection to it. Not the Catholic parents of 
 Dedham ; most assuredly they have not always or ever found 
 it acceptable, for it never, has been, or will be, acceptable to 
 them. To whom, then, does Mr. Cooke refer as having 
 always found this book acceptable? Perhaps to himself, 
 which 1 can believe. I suspect that its author might go 
 much further in his misrepresentation of the Catholic Church 
 and her teachings, and still be found acceptable to the recep- 
 tive mind of Mr. Cooke. 
 
47 
 
 2. "The Catholics of Dedham have always been well 
 treated by the School Committee," says Mr. Cooke. This 
 statement raises what in legal phrase is termed a mixed 
 question of fact and opinion. So far as it is a matter of 
 opinion, Mr. Cooke must excuse the Catholics of Dedham 
 from accepting him as a good judge of whether they are well 
 or ill treated. No doubt he thinks he hits treated them not 
 only well, but too well ; but his standard of fair treatment 
 and ours is not the same. It has been said that a man 
 measures corn by whatever bushel he happens to cany about 
 with him for that purpose; and whenever Catholic corn 
 gets into a "no-Popery" measure, we aeed not look for it to 
 run more than three pecks to lie: bushel. 
 
 Mr. Cooke adds thai "a full proportion of Catholic teachers 
 have been employed, and they have not been discriminated 
 against in any manner." What is Mr. Cooke's idea of a full 
 proportion? Here it happens that we can test his measure. 
 The Catholics of Dedham are the parents of a full half of all 
 the children in the public schools. About one fourth of the 
 teachers arc Catholics. At this ratio, if Catholic- furnished 
 all the children they would be entitled to furnish only one 
 half of the teachers. It is evidently important to keep a 
 sharp eye on Mr. Cooke's bushel measure. Fifty per cent 
 less than a fair equality is "a full proportion," as he under- 
 stands it. A discrimination of fifty per cent against Catholic 
 teachers is no doubt very fair measure for them; perhaps 
 fairer than they would get if he were the autocrat of Dedham. 
 But why raise this issue, which has nothing to do with the 
 main points in debate? 
 
 8. Mr. Cooke says that "the only occasions when the 
 sectarian question has been raised have been those on which 
 it has been brought forward by Mr. Johnson himself." 
 This, again, is a question purely of fact. Mr. Cooke does 
 not cite a single instance when I have attempted to obtain 
 
48 
 
 any sectarian advantage for the Catholic Church or her 
 doctrines ; nor can he cite any such action as that on my 
 part. Can he name any occasion when I have sought to 
 introduce into the public schools a distinctively Catholic 
 text-book, or a text-book that was in the least degree 
 colored with Catholic doctrines or teachings ? If I have ever 
 done so, there must be some proof to show it. I invite him 
 to search the record from the time I first entered the Board 
 down to this day, and to produce any proof of my ever 
 having attempted to give a sectarian bias to its action. 
 Mr. Cooke may say, doubtless, that I have often protested 
 when Catholic children have had their faith abused by cer- 
 tain text-books being placed in their hands which held that 
 faith up to contempt and ridicule. That is true. But the 
 trouble is with Mr. Cooke's three-peck bushel for measuring 
 out justice to Catholics. 
 
 4. Mr. Cooke intimates that it is not " at all probable 
 that the members of the School Committee would retain 
 Swinton's book in order to do injustice to Catholics," and he 
 adds that " probably the readers of the Standard will have 
 as much confidence in the judgment of the text-book com- 
 mittee as in that of Mr. Johnson." Mr. Cooke's " prob- 
 ably s " are wide of the mark. The question at issue is one 
 of established fact, not of probability. It was not my 
 opinion that the School Committee was asked to accept as 
 against its own. The question of the merits of Swinton's 
 text-book is not one between the School Committee and my- 
 self, nor between Mr. Cooke and myself, as he seeks to 
 make it appear. I have not presumed to urge my own 
 opinion against that of Mr. Cooke or the Board in regard to 
 this text-book and its libel on Catholic doctrine. On the 
 contrary, I have presented opinions taken entirely from non- 
 Catholic sources. I have cited Prof. Fisher, of Yale, 
 eminent the world over as a scholarly Protestant of the 
 
49 
 
 highest authority on church history. Prof. Fisher calls 
 the Swintonian account of the doctrine of indulgences " an 
 atrocious slander." My poor judgment may not be worth 
 much, but Prof. Fisher may perhaps be entitled to measure 
 opinions with the Dedham School Board or even with the 
 redoubtable Mr. Cooke himself.* 
 
 I also referred to the leading Protestant encyclopedias, 
 including such standard works as the " Encyclopedia Britan- 
 nica,"the "Library of Universal Knowledge," the "American 
 Cyclopedia," the " Dictionary of Religious Knowledge," the 
 " Religious Encyclopedia "and McClintock and Strong's "Bib- 
 lical Cyclopedia." Not one. of these works, though they 
 are edited by scholars of the most pronounced Protestant 
 schools, — Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregation- 
 alists, — gives the slightest support to Swinton's travesty of 
 the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. Surely eminent di- 
 vines like Dr. Philip Schaff (Presbyterian) and Dr. Lyman 
 Abbott (Congregationalist) are not entirely beneath the 
 benign consideration of Mr. George W. Cooke, or of the 
 Dedham School Board. 
 
 ♦Writing in the April (1889) number of the Forum, Prof. Fisher gives 
 his judgment as to how history should be taught in the public schools as 
 follows : " The field of history is the avenue where doctrinal disputes are 
 more likely to be kindled. Of course, as between Protestants and Roman 
 Catholics, there should be in the instruction which is given, whether 
 orally or by the text-book, strict impartiality, and a studious avoidance of 
 statements that might, with good reason, give offence to the adherents of 
 either form of religion. Facts should be honestly stated, no matter where 
 they may strike ; but never in a way to make a false or one-sided impres- 
 sion, or to wound the religious sensibilities of reasonable Christians pro- 
 fessing either of the two creeds. For example, the Boman Catholic doctrine 
 of indulgences should not be erroneously defined, but should be explained as 
 the, remission, not of guilt, but of penances ; and what is meant by penances 
 should be correctly explained. The abuses connected with the disposal of 
 indulgences just before the Beformation should be referred to; but, when 
 this reference is made, the statement should be coupled with it, in justice to 
 both sides, that the Council of Trent solemnly condemned such abuses, and 
 undertook to prevent their recurrence." 
 
50 
 
 Mr. Cooke says, with an air of conscious superiority of 
 judgment, that " such authorities " as the Beacon and the 
 Christian Register are of no importance in regard to such 
 a question as this. "They are defending their own position,, 
 and care less for truth than to make out their own case." 
 This statement is made without substantiation or proof, 
 and I think the readers of the Standard will agree with me 
 in thinking that such an assertion will not enhance the writ- 
 er's strength as a fair-minded disputant. But I would re- 
 mind Mr. Cooke and your readers that the Beacon and 
 the Christian Register were not alone among the able 
 journals whose opinions I have quoted. The list of news- 
 papers whose editorial opinions prove to be "of no impor- 
 tance " when measured by Mr. Cooke's bushel, includes the 
 Boston Herald, which, unconscious of the dictum of our 
 Dedham oracle, speaks as follows : 
 
 " It shows the correctness of the action of the Boston 
 School Committee in the matter of Swinton's history that 
 nearly the whole religious press, without regard to creed, 
 sustains their position." 
 
 This opinion of the Boston Herald is borne out by the fact 
 I have already shown in former articles by quotations from 
 the Examiner and the Watchman (Baptist), the Christian 
 Register, and other religious as well as secular papers. 
 The CongregationaJist, for example, than which no stouter 
 Protestant paper is published in America, editorially said, 
 and with a clearness and manifest fairness which might have 
 appealed even to Mr. George W. Cooke : 
 
 " The question, what did the preachers of indulgences in 
 Luther's day actually represent them to be? is exciting 
 considerable interest in Boston because of the transfer by the 
 committee of a High School instructor from the department 
 of history, for teaching, among other things, that 'in 
 process of time they were represented as actual pardons of 
 guilt, and the purchaser of an indulgence was said to be de- 
 
51 
 
 livered from all his sins.' The book, Swinton's 'Outlines of 
 History,' in which this passage is found, has also been re- 
 moved from the schools. It will be seen by any one who con- 
 sults Dr. Fisher's able exposition of the subject, on the first 
 page, that the sentence just quoted is one of those inaccurate 
 and misleading generalizations which are to be found in too 
 many of our short school histories. That there were flagrant 
 abuses connected with the sale of indulgences is acknowl- 
 edged by all fair-minded Catholic historians, but that any 
 accredited authority of the Roman Church was accustomed 
 to commend these indulgences as pardons of guilt, is an 
 assertion unsupported by the facts of history. In our con- 
 troversy with Catholics, we have strong ground, and there is 
 no occasion to weaken our position by an over-statement, not 
 to say mis-statement, of the evils historically connected with 
 the Roman Church." 
 
 Mr. Cooke says : " Had there not been a desire to find 
 offence, none would have been found in Swinton's book." 
 Contrast with this the just editorial remark of the Christian 
 Union, speaking of the action of the Boston School Commit- 
 tee in excluding the book : 
 
 " When a perfectly reasonable complaint was made against 
 the untrue statement of a text-book on the subject of indul- 
 gences, Protestant prejudice was ready to be fired. Some 
 no-Popery apostles were ready to fire it." 
 
 5. We ought not, perhaps, to be astonished at the 
 graceful manner in which, as by a wave of his hand, Mr. 
 George W. Cooke delivers judgment in favor of Swinton's 
 "Outlines" and against Prof. Fisher and all the other emi- 
 nent authorities who have borne this testimony against the 
 accuracy of that text-book. At first sight it seems a trifle 
 presumptuous for one man to set his opinion against that 
 "of nearly the whole religious press, without regard to 
 creed," and in an ordinary man it would be presumptuous. 
 But Mr. George W. Cooke has had some valuable experience 
 in this line which takes him out of the category of every- 
 day critics. We must be mindful of his feat in text-book 
 
52 
 
 criticism, when in 1885, under the law requiring phj'siology 
 and hygiene to be taught in the public schools, he made a 
 lengthy and learned report to the School Committee in favor 
 of certain text-books on those subjects. The High School 
 text-book which was fortunate enough to win the favor of 
 his approval was " Hygienic Physiology," by Joel D. Steele. 
 Of this and two other books on the subject Mr. Cooke was 
 pleased to speak, in a report which he considered valuable 
 enough to print in full in the /Standard, as follows : 
 " These are the only books which I have seen which really 
 emphasize the temperance side of the subject, and give that 
 the importance which the law evidently contemplated." 
 "This series," he went on to say, "is the best adapted to 
 the needs of teachers, because the most simple and practical 
 in the information it conveys." Finally, of Mr. Joel D. 
 Steele's "Hygienic Physiology," Mr. Cooke said, with the 
 positiveness of assertion which becomes a critic of the 
 highest rank, "The concluding book is well adapted to use 
 in the High School and it imparts the kind of information 
 pupils most need to have given them." 
 
 On what grounds of merit was this praise based? About 
 a month after the promulgation of these authoritative judg- 
 ments, the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, recognized 
 as a leading authority of the medical profession, reviewed 
 this same work of Mr. Joel D. Steele's. Instead of concur- 
 ring in Mr. Cooke's verdict, the Medical and Surgical 
 Journal showed the absurdity of its statements concerning 
 alcohol, and convicted the author of contradicting himself 
 in his own pages. In the course of its criticism it further 
 said of this book : 
 
 "The sensational colored plates used to illustrate the 
 effects of alcohol on the stomach might with propriety 
 find a place in a patent-medicine almanac, but such 
 travesties upon pathology should never form a part of a 
 
53 
 
 system of education. Especially should the wretched plum- 
 pudding-like figure at the bottom of the page, entitled ' Can- 
 cerous Stomach,' have been omitted, not only on account of 
 its utter want of accuracy, but also having no connection, 
 either possible or probable, with the subject of alcohol. 
 Singularly enough, this text-book is accompanied with a 
 circular endorsed by twelve person, not one of whom is an 
 expert in physiology or hygiene ; not one, in fact, is a 
 physician." 
 
 It was perhaps unfortunate for the Boston Medical and 
 Surgical Journal that it failed to agree with Mr. George W. 
 Cooke on the merits of a text-book on hygiene. It was 
 almost as fatal to its reputation as it is to the reputation of 
 Prof. Fisher of Yale, and " nearly the whole religious press, 
 without regard to creed," to dissent from Mr. Cooke's judg- 
 ment on Swinton's statements of religious history and 
 doctrine. It is painfully evident that, alike in the domain of 
 medicine and history, there are many eminent experts who 
 have yet to learn that the supreme court of criticism sits at 
 Dedham, and that its rescripts are handed down by Mr. 
 George W. Cooke. 
 
 It is to be hoped that Mr. Cooke will draw his future 
 knowledge of mediaeval history from more authentic sources 
 than those whence he has derived his knowledge of physi- 
 ology and hygiene. 
 
 6. The rest of the differences between us is matter of 
 pure opinion. He cites Prof. Charles K. Adams as warmly 
 endorsing Swinton's " Outlines." The endorsement quoted 
 is, observe, quite guarded and general. Prof. Adams begins 
 by saying that Swinton " made no original investigation in 
 the preparation of the book " ; which may account for the 
 fact that " nearly the whole religious press, without regard 
 to creed," finds its statement ffbout indulgences to be, as the 
 Congregationalist well puts it, "one of those inaccurate and 
 misleading generalizations which are to be found in too many 
 of our short school histories." 
 
54 
 
 Prof. Adams's endorsement of the " Outlines " goes on to 
 remark that " Swinton is not, like Freeman, a great histo- 
 rian," which is indeed quite indisputable. Prof. Adams finds, 
 however, that the book is " interesting." He might have 
 added that it is neatly bound in cloth, and can be quite con- 
 veniently carried in a book-strap. That would have made 
 the eulogy a little more specific and less general. Does Mr. 
 Cooke imagine that he helps his case at all by quoting this 
 very general commendation of Prof. Adams, who, it will be 
 noted, does not even remotely allude to Swinton's statement 
 of the Catholic doctrine of indulgence, to which, evidently, 
 his attention was not directed when he wrote? Yet that, and 
 that only, is the question at issue between Mr. Cooke on the 
 one hand, and " nearly the whole religious press, without 
 regard to creed," on the other. It may be observed that 
 Prof. Adams could hardly have said less than that the book 
 was "interesting." Yet he calls this "its extraordinary 
 merit" — that it is "interesting." This recalls forcibly the 
 story of the author who sent President Lincoln a copy of his 
 book, with a request that he would kindly write him his 
 opinion of it. Mr. Lincoln good-naturedly, but cautiously, 
 complied with the request, and gave his critical opinion in 
 these words : " I have read the volume you sent me, and I 
 take pleasure in saying that for those who like such a sort of 
 book as this is, it will be exactly the sort of book that they 
 would like." I am willing to say as much as that myself for 
 Swinton's " Outlines," and Prof. Adams does not say a great 
 deal more. 
 
 What does Prof. Adams really say upon the question in 
 debate? In a long article on the public-school question, 
 Dec. 13, 1888, he says, speaking of Swinton's account of the 
 Reformation : , 
 
 " While it might not be easy to point out a single positive 
 misstatement in Swinton's narrative, the general impression 
 inevitably left upon the pupil's mind is one of strong bias in 
 
55 
 
 opposition to the Catholic Church, and in favor of Luther. 
 It may tell the truth, hut it does not tell the whole truth ; 
 and this is equivalent to saying that it tells a partial truth, 
 and presents it in such a way as at least to have the effect of 
 a partial falsehood. It preaches the Protestant doctrine ; it 
 omits to preach the Catholic doctrine." 
 
 Truly Mr. Cooke's effort to prove Swinton's hook unsecta- 
 rian has cost him much. It is a useless struggle against the 
 truth. 
 
 The opinion of Mr. Edwin D. Mead, who is the only other 
 person Mr. Cooke can iind to say a good word for this book, 
 I shall not permit myself to discuss.* 
 
 The weight of the authorities I have cited in this and my 
 former articles is not seriously shaken by the quite general 
 remarks quoted from Prof. Adams, and in no way offset by 
 the assertion of Mr. Mead. The deliberate judgment of 
 "nearly the whole religious press, without regard to creed," 
 is, as I have shown, that Swinton's statement of the doctrine 
 of indulgences is a slanderous misrepresentation of Catholic 
 faith and teaching. That is enough to justify the Catholic 
 complaint against it. To retain it in the schools of Dedham 
 is to inflict insult and injustice upon every child in whose 
 hands it is placed. 
 
 Mr. Cooke insists that Gen. Grant's opinion of Swinton 
 has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of his text- 
 
 * I cheerfully recognize the able character of Mr. Mead's pamphlet, 
 which has been so extremely useful to my opponent. But, skilful and 
 polished writer though he is, Mr. Meacl simply does not comprehend the 
 doctrine of indulgence as the Catholic Church teaches it. A Protestant 
 authority justifies me in this assertion. The Rev. C. C. Starbuck, than whom 
 there is no stifl'er champion of Protestantism, in the Christian Mirror of 
 April 20, 1889, declares Dr. Hedge's notions, and Mr. Mead's after him, 
 respecting the Roman Catholic doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, to be 
 in what Mrs. Nickleby would have called "a hopeless state of conglom- 
 eration." 
 
 I regret that Mr. Mead, who has made so candid and courageous a 
 speech, should be no better informed on the doctrines of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
56 
 
 hook. Why not? Swinton is being discussed as an historian ; 
 but has the character of a writer nothing to do with the 
 quality of his work? Is an honest author no better than 
 a dishonest one? Is it quite immaterial what the reputation 
 of an historian is for veracity? Is it true that a dishonor- 
 able, un veracious man is just as likely to write high-toned, 
 truthful history as a man with a high sense of honor and 
 a scrupulous regard for truth ? These questions answer 
 themselves, and Mr. Cooke merely trifles with the intelli- 
 gence of your readers when he pretends to say that Swin- 
 ton's character as a man of honor and truth has "nothing 
 whatever to do with the merits or demerits of the case." It 
 has a great deal to do with them. Gen. Grant shows in his 
 " Memoirs " that Swinton was an eavesdropper and a spy, a 
 man who abused the confidence placed in him, who broke his 
 plighted word, and who proved himself so utterly untrust- 
 worthy that he was adjudged worthy of the shameful death 
 awarded under military law to men who behave with conspicu- 
 ous baseness and treachery. Mr. Cooke may think it of no 
 consequence whether our school-books are written by men of 
 that stamp, or by men of strict honor and rectitude ; but as I 
 have said, this is a matter upon which there is a difference of 
 opinion. 
 
 I invite Mr. Cooke to take note of the fact that it is not 
 my opinion of Swinton's text-book that he is called upon to 
 meet. It is with the opinion of non-Catholic papers like the 
 Congregationalist and Christian Union just quoted, that he 
 is in collision. And as the Boston Herald says, "nearly the 
 whole religious press, without regard to creed," has endorsed 
 that opinion. I know and feel, and humbly acknowledge, that 
 Mr. Cooke's three-peck bushel is a very copious measure ; 
 but after all I may be allowed to doubt whether the light of 
 " nearly the whole religious press, without regard to creed,'' 
 can be successfully smothered under its inverted bottom. 
 
57 
 
 Mr. Cooke says he will hereafter write about Luther and 
 the Reformation era. He will prove that Luther did this, 
 that, and the other thing, and had good cause for doing it. 
 Mr. Cooke is welcome to educate himself in public. His 
 studies in history will be received with interest and edifica- 
 tion. But when he announces that he will undertake to 
 prove that "a consensus of unbiased historians . . . will 
 substantiate every word contained in Swinton's history," he 
 shows himself to be one of those persons — alas, too nu- 
 merous — whom it is necessary to instruct before one can 
 argue with them. "With ignorance," says Schiller, "the 
 very gods contend in vain." Let Mr. Cooke sit quietly in 
 his study for a while ; let him learn something of the history 
 of the Lutheran epoch ; and Mr. Cooke will find that he has 
 undertaken a contract which neither he nor any other man 
 can carry out. 
 
 I have now responded to the main points that have been 
 raised in the present discussion. But I cannot enter into a 
 set controversy with him, or with any other man ; and I 
 shall decline to follow him over the broad fields of Lutheran 
 history upon which he proposes to enter for the first time. 
 I shall hold him strictly to the one vital point in the debate, 
 — the doctrine of the Catholic Church in regard to in- 
 dulgences. 
 
 Swinton's " Outlines " contains this statement : 
 
 " These indulgences were, in the early ages of the Church, 
 remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins 
 had brought scandal upon the community. But in process 
 of time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and 
 the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all 
 his sins." 
 
 To say, as this statement implies, that the Catholic Church 
 ever taught that an indulgence was a pardon of sin, or a per- 
 mission to commit sin, is a libel on the Catholic Church, and 
 
58 
 
 a slanderous distortion of its doctrine. It represents the 
 Catholic Church as teaching what she never taught. It 
 travesties her tenets and caricatures the faith of her mem- 
 bers. Let Mr. George W. Cooke observe that until he can 
 show this to be a true statement of the Catholic doctrine of 
 indulgences (which every Protestant scholarly authority, and 
 rf nearly the whole religious press, without regard to creed," 
 agree in saying it is not), until then he cannot by any 
 amount of literary labor among the historians of the Lu- 
 theran epoch " substantiate every word contained in Swinton's 
 History." The statement above quoted from Swinton con- 
 tains a falsehood, and implies more falsehoods. While I 
 cannot permit myself to be drawn into controversy upon 
 irrelevant points, I await with composure and curiosity the 
 promised effort of Mr. Cooke to prove the historical truth of 
 a lie. E. J. Johnson. 
 
 A DEFENCE OF SWINTON. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE REV. GEORGE W. COOKE. 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Jan. 19, 1889.] 
 
 The debate about Swinton's " Outlines of History " is only 
 a symptom, and not the disease itself. So much has been 
 said against the use of that book in the public schools, it is 
 desirable that the cause of opposition to it have a thor- 
 ough examination. In seeking that cause it may be well 
 to look beyond the book itself, that the motives may be 
 discovered of those who oppose it. Such an examination is 
 demanded, not in the interest of Swinton's book, which is 
 quite able to take care of itself, but in the interest of the 
 public schools. 
 
 Americans believe in the public school, for it is the sus- 
 taining agent of all that is good in their institutions. Every 
 
59 
 
 attack upon the public school is an attack upon all that goes 
 to make up American freedom and prosperity. The attack 
 upon Swinton's book is simply a disguised attack upon the 
 public school, and in the interest of the parochial school. 
 Whoever examines the subject on all sides, and with an 
 unprejudiced mind, cannot well arrive at any other con- 
 clusion. 
 
 I have no prejudice against the Catholic Church.* I wish 
 it well in every good work it is doing. I thoroughly 
 believe in the public schools, however, — in their aims, in 
 their methods, and in their results. When the Catholic 
 Church attacks the public schools, and seeks to destroy 
 them, as a loyal American I am bound to oppose the Catho- 
 lic Church in that and every similar attempt which it makes. 
 In saying that the Catholic Church is opposed to the public 
 schools I appeal to the facts of history, and not to any preju- 
 dices of my own. 
 
 In what follows I appeal to facts. They are incontrovert- 
 ible. I appeal to the great historians, and to the statements 
 of the Catholic Church itself. Swinton's book is my text : 
 but what the opposition to that means can only be under- 
 stood in the light of what the Catholic Church is doing 
 everywhere in regard to the subject of education. The 
 Catholic Church does not approve of the American methods 
 of education. That is why it is opposed to Swinton's book. 
 
 * This will be readily recognized as a stereotyped phrase of the Pope- 
 haters. They are always prefacing their diatribes with declarations of 
 the love of fairness and justice. "I have no prejudice against the Cath- 
 olic Church," are words that simply express Mr. Cooke's concession to 
 this habit of making protestations of liberality. 
 
 If, in reality, he had no prejudice against the Catholic Church, he 
 would have at least abstained from grossly misrepresenting her. His 
 claim of a disposition to be fair is simply the meaningless platitude which 
 every defamer of the Catholic Church employs before making an unusual 
 display of narrowness and intolerance. — R. J. J. 
 
60 
 
 Swinton in the Dedham High School. 
 
 At the beginning of the spring term of 1888, Swinton's 
 " Outlines of the World's History " was introduced into the 
 Dedham High School.* The request for it came from Miss 
 Storms, approved by Mr. Slafter, who, at that time, had 
 never heard of any objection to the book as being sectarian 
 in its character and influence. When this request was 
 made to Mr. Crocker, then the superintendent of schools, it 
 was not possible to secure its approval immediately by the 
 School Committee. As it seemed desirable to have it at 
 once, Mr. Crocker procured a few copies of the book, and 
 its study was entered upon in Miss Storms's room. This 
 method of introducing a new book may have been irregular, 
 but it was in accordance with all the precedents of the 
 School Committee. The part taken in the transaction by 
 Mr. Slafter, Miss Storms, and Mr. Crocker is a sufficient 
 guarantee that there was not the slightest purpose of intro- 
 ducing into the High School a book not proper in its char- 
 acter or incorrect in its teachings. 
 
 Very soon after the introduction of the book a request 
 by the Rev. R. J. Johnson was made to Mr. Channell, 
 who had then become the superintendent, that Swinton's 
 book be removed from the High School until the School 
 Committee should take action upon it. This request was 
 granted by Mr. Channell, and the book was removed. The 
 text-book committee, consisting of Messrs. Cooke, Kimball, 
 and Wakefield, carefully examined the book, held a meeting 
 for its consideration, and unanimously voted to approve it. 
 When this action was reported to the School Committee, the 
 book was regularly adopted as a text-book for the High 
 
 * Yet on page 40 Mr. Cooke says the book " has been in use in the Ded- 
 ham High School for several years past." — R. J. J. 
 
61 
 
 School. At the same time, Mrs. Abrahams had used, merely 
 as a book of reference for her class in English literature, 
 two copies of Welsh's "Development of English Literature." 
 Objection was also made to that book, and the School Com- 
 mittee voted that its use should not be continued in the 
 High School. 
 
 As the reader may see by the letter of Miss Storms, pub- 
 lished in the Standard, of last week, no reference whatever 
 had been made to indulgences in her class, when the request 
 to withdraw the book was presented. Miss Storms emphat- 
 ically declares that her " definition of indulgences was never 
 asked for nor given." 
 
 During the spring term of 1888 the subject of indulgences 
 presented itself in Mrs. Abrahams's class in English litera- 
 ture. While Chaucer's " Canterbury Tales " were being 
 briefly referred to by the teacher, she said that Chaucer was 
 considered to have favored the Reformation, judging by his 
 satires on the friars and pardoners (a word used by Chaucer 
 in his poems), and by his sympathy with the Wicliffites. A 
 member of the class asked who the pardoners were ; and, on - 
 being told that they were those who sold pardons or indul- 
 gences, asked what were indulgences. The teacher defined 
 indulgences in the briefest manner, as she understood them. 
 Mrs. Abrahams in no way intruded upon the private opinions 
 of Catholics, but referred her pupils to the standard author- 
 ities. On the authority of Mr. Slafter, I am able to say 
 that on no occasion since he has been connected with the 
 Hisrh School have the beliefs of Catholics been discussed or 
 intruded upon in that school, so far as he knows. 
 
 From the foregoing statement of facts it would appear 
 that not the slightest attempt has been made by the School 
 Committee, or by the teachers of the High School, to intro- 
 duce the sectarian question into the public schools of Ded- 
 ham. If it is said that the introduction of Swinton's book 
 
62 
 
 was in itself a sectarian action, then what follows is my 
 answer to that charge. 
 
 II. 
 
 "Where Swinton's Book is used. 
 
 It has been said that a greater part of the school boards 
 of Massachusetts excluded Swinton's book from their schools, 
 "when their attention had been called to Mr. Swinton's 
 travesty of Catholic faith and teaching." * The fact is, that 
 Boston is the only place where such action has been taken ; 
 and in that city one half the members of the School Board 
 were Catholics at the time.f Swinton's History is used in 
 more than one hundred cities and towns in Massachusetts, 
 and it is used in very nearly every high school in the State. 
 It is used in the following towns and cities at the present 
 time : Brockton, Chelsea, Concord, Cambridge, Fall River, 
 Gardner, Hingham, Holyoke, Hyde Park, Hudson, Leom- 
 inster, Lynn, Maiden, Marlboro', Milford, North Adams, 
 New Bedford, Newton, Quincy, Springfield, Somerville r 
 'Salem, Watertown, Waltham, Worcester, and several others. 
 
 In the State of Maine Swinton's History is used in Bath, 
 Bangor, Castine, Lewiston, Biddeford, Saco, Waterville, 
 Portland, Calais, Houlton, and many other places of impor- 
 tance. In New Hampshire it is used in Dover, Keene, 
 Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Portsmouth, and right on 
 through the State. In Vermont it is used in Brattleboro, 
 Bennington, Montpelier, Burlington, Rutland, St. Johns- 
 bury, and in almost every other town and city. During the 
 year 1888, Swinton's History was for the first time intro- 
 duced into about twenty New England towns. These include 
 Easton, Andover, Dedham, and the Westfield Normal School, 
 in Massachusetts ; Newcastle, Gorham, Kingston, Machias- 
 
 * See foot-note on pages 17 and 18. — E. J. J. 
 f This statement is incorrect. — R. J. J. 
 
63 
 
 port, Pembroke, Greenville and the Farmington State Nor- 
 mal School, in Maine ; and Pawtucket in Rhode Island. 
 
 Swinton's History is not only popular in New England, but 
 it is quite as popular in most other parts of the country. It 
 is the most popular and best selling high-school text-book 
 now published in the United States. It is used at the pres- 
 ent time in more than nine tenths of the high schools in this 
 country ; and in a great proportion of the academies, semina- 
 ries, and normal schools where the course of study calls for 
 the use of such a book. 
 
 Whatever may be said about Swinton's " Outlines of His- 
 tory " by the newspapers, secular or religious, it is emphat- 
 ically approved by the teachers of the country. They find 
 it the best text-book on history they can procure ; and they 
 evidently accept its teachings as being correct. As a body, 
 the teachers in the high schools of the country are quite 
 likely to know what is historically true.* 
 
 III. 
 
 Swinton on the Catholic Church. 
 
 Swinton's History is remarkably well written for a text- 
 book. It is concise, graphic in style, brings out the salient 
 facts, and makes history a living reality for the pupil. | He 
 gives the dates and the leading facts, but in a manner to 
 impress them upon the pupil, and to make him feel that his- 
 tory is not a mere succession of dates and events. It is 
 
 * See closing paragraphs of Mr. Child's review, pages 200, 201. — R. J. J. 
 
 t Contrast this opinion with that of Mr. Child, whose review of the 
 book is reprinted in the Appendix, page 192. In this review Mr. Child, 
 after pointing out the many errors in Swinton's " Outlines," its omissions 
 of important matters, and its heedless blunders, declares that it comes 
 within the application of the excellent doctrine laid down by the Boston 
 Transcript, that "being false, it is not a fit text-book for American 
 youth." While giving his opinion of Swinton's style, Mr. Cooke might 
 have gone on and said with truth that the " Outlines " abounds in gram- 
 matical errors, which, in many cases, make it extremely difficult to under- 
 stand what he means to say. — R. J. J. 
 
64 
 
 written in a very attractive manner, and yet it is so arranged 
 as to be remarkably fitted for use in the school-room. Not 
 only has Swinton made a well-arranged text-book, but he has 
 grasped and mastered the great events of history so as to 
 present them in a vivid and in a highly suggestive manner. 
 He displays genuine qualities as a historian, clearness of con- 
 ception, mastery of events in their larger relations, and an 
 active insight into the more intricate and important meanings 
 of history. The book is in every way well fitted to give the 
 pupil an outline knowledge of the history of the world. These 
 qualities of ability, fairness, and historic insight should be 
 taken into consideration in deciding whether Swinton's book 
 is one which ought to be retained in the public schools. 
 
 Does Swinton misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic 
 Church? as has been charged. In answering this question, 
 it is best to appeal to the book itself. Those paragraphs of 
 Swinton's book which have been the cause of controversy 
 are on pages 319 and 320, and they will be cited in full, in 
 order that the reader may have an opportunity of judging of 
 the merits of the case : 
 
 "It happened very soon after the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century, that great controversies on matters of religion arose. 
 There was complaint at many practical abuses in the Church, 
 and at the claims of the Popes to interfere in the aftairs of 
 nations ; and there was also a growing feeling among many 
 that not a few of the doctrines which were believed, and of 
 the ceremonies which were practised, in the Church, were 
 contrary to Scripture. 
 
 "It was in this state of affairs that there arose a dispute, 
 trivial indeed in its nature, but which kindled a flame that 
 quickly spread over most of Western Europe. When Leo 
 X. came to the papal chair, he found the treasury of the 
 Church exhausted by the ambitious projects of his predeces- 
 sors. He therefore had recourse to every means which inge- 
 nuity could devise for recruiting his exhausted finances, and 
 among these he adopted an extensive sale of indulgences, 
 which in former ages had been a source of large profits to the 
 Church. The Dominican friars, having obtained the oionop- 
 
65 
 
 oly of the sale in Germany, employed as their agent Tetzel, 
 one of their own order, who carried on the traffic in a manner 
 that was very offensive, and especially so to the Augustinian 
 friars. 
 
 " One of these, named Martin Luther, professor of theology 
 in the University of Wittenberg, took the lead in opposing 
 Tetzel. Having vainly sought to procure the suppression of 
 the traffic from the Archbishop of Magdeburg, he appealed 
 to the people and to men of letters (1517), by publishing 
 ninety-five theses condemning the sale of indulgences as con- 
 trary to reason and Scripture. 
 
 "These indulgences were, in the early ages of the Church, 
 remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins 
 had brought scandal on the community. But in process of 
 time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and 
 the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from 
 all his sins." 
 
 This is Swinton's account of the origin of Protestantism ; 
 and the foot-note is the chief cause of complaint by Catholics. 
 A careful and a fair-minded reading of the whole passage, as 
 cited, together with the foot-note, ought to make it evident 
 that Swinton does not say that the Church taught, as one of 
 its doctrines, that "the purchaser of indulgence was deliv- 
 ered from all his sins." His language bears the fair interpre- 
 tation that he charged this teaching, not upon the Church, 
 but upon some of its over-zealous members. When all that 
 he says about the Catholic Church is taken into consideration, 
 and the liberality with which he speaks of it everywhere 
 else, this interpretation is the only one which can be justly 
 given to his words. With this interpretation, which ought 
 to be accepted, when there is no good reason for any other, 
 the charge against Swinton falls to the ground. A willing- 
 ness to deal liberally and honorably with a writer, as to the 
 meaning of his words, would remove all objection to the 
 teachings of Swinton's book on the part of Catholics.* 
 
 * A very complete answer to Mr. Cooke on this point will be found in 
 the editorials of the Boston Post (page 118), the Boston Beacon (page 126), 
 
(56 
 
 IV. 
 
 Swinton's Statement Endorsed. 
 
 Docs Swinton give a true interpretation of the teaching and 
 the practice of the Catholic Church in the matter of indul- 
 gences? In answer to this question I propose to cite several 
 good authorities. The following expressions of opinion 
 were called forth by the controversy over the book in Bos- 
 ton during last summer and autumn, subsequent to the dis- 
 placement of the book by the Boston School Board in June. 
 
 Mr. Edwin D. Mead, a very competent authority, said of the 
 book, in a public address, which was published under the title 
 of "The Roman Catholic Church and the School Question" : 
 
 * f I maintain that this note states the substantial truth of 
 history. But it is not true that the note affirms, as the 
 Committee says it does, that indulgences have been repre- 
 sented as ' permissions to commit sin.'" * 
 
 The same opinion was expressed by Dr. A. A. Miner, f 
 who said, in speaking of Swinton's book : 
 
 and the Congregationalist (page 119), and in the letter written by Hon. H. 
 Winn to the Boston Herald (page 12G), as well as in two notable editorials 
 in the Christian Union of Jan. 10 and 24, 1889, quoted on pages 128 and 
 129, and in an editorial in the Boston Advertiser of June 20, 1888, quoted 
 on page 121. Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, Mr. Cooke's favorite histo- 
 rian, also declares that Swinton's account of the Reformation preaches 
 " the Protestant doctrine " and "omits to preach the Catholic doctrine.'' 
 (See page 125, and his article in full on page 212.) — R. J. J. 
 
 * See foot-note on page 55, and foot-note on page 45. — R. J. J. 
 
 f In the Christian Mirror (March 23, 1889), Rev. C. C. Starbuck, a 
 clergyman of the most pronounced Protestant type, writes as follows of 
 Dr. Miner's treatment of the question: " But 1 should like to ask, are 
 there in Boston no copies of the Acts of Trent, and no authorized cate- 
 chisms? Surely a gentleman who has embarked so zealously and repre- 
 sentatively in a controversy whose very pivot is Rome's doctrine of the 
 foi-giveness of sins, ought to show a reasonable intelligence as to this 
 doctrine. But I must be permitted to say that he shows an unreasonable 
 unintelligencc, striking blindly about, merely because he has not thought 
 it worth while to ascertain Roman doctrine from authentic sources. . . . 
 Dr. Miner thus resembles a man who imagines he sees a ditch before him, 
 
67 
 
 "Its definition of indulgence is undeniably correct. Its 
 statement of the corruptions that grew up in connection 
 therewith suggests nothing that is not strictly true, on the 
 whole, but is a feeble statement of the truth." 
 
 The same position was maintained by several of the lead- 
 ing clergymen of Boston, in a petition which they signed : 
 
 " The paragraph which led to the book's objection con- 
 tained a true statement of history, on the assertion of stand- 
 ard authorities of all schools. 
 
 "(Signed) Keys. Philip S. Moxom. 
 
 David Gregg. 
 
 A. J. Gordon. 
 
 John F. Clymer. 
 
 James M. Gray. 
 
 James E. Dunn. 
 
 Nelson B. Jones, Jr. 
 
 Ezra Farnsworth." 
 
 An old and leading religious journal, the Evangelist, 
 
 June 28, 1888, made this comment on the foot-note in Swin- 
 
 ton's History : 
 
 " That seems to us a very fair statement of the facts of the 
 pardoner's trade as it existed at the time, and the Protestant 
 members of the Committee must have had other reasons than 
 its incorrectness for displacing the book." 
 
 Another able religious journal, the Congregationalist and 
 Boston Recorder, in its issue of Nov. 29, said : 
 
 "The general estimate of the Inquisition which it presents, 
 and most of its special declarations, are historically correct, 
 and ought to be taught." 
 
 The Transcript, one of the most scholarly and able of the 
 Boston daily newspapers, has repeatedly expressed itself as 
 
 and, receding, plunges into a ditch behind him. And all because he did 
 not care to look up one or two easily obtainable books. Now general 
 Protestantism suffers when we fall into these slips, as we all do, more or 
 less, and we ought to take one another up sharply over them, so as to com- 
 pel each other into a greater accuracy as to Roman Catholic affairs than 
 we are accustomed to think it worth while to cultivate." — R. J. J. 
 
68 
 
 approving the teachings of Swinton. In its issue of Oct. 1, 
 it said : 
 
 "But judging from Mr. Travis's experience, the instructor, 
 while allowed to teach that there was a Reformation, must 
 not tell his class why Luther protested against Tetzel's sale 
 of indulgences. Not only must he not do that, but he must 
 teach that an indulgence was what we know and what Martin 
 Luther knew it was not." 
 
 The Boston Record of June 20 expressed its understand- 
 ing of the subject in these words : 
 
 " The recent suppression of a history for stating a fact per- 
 fectly well known and fully proved was a partisan and unwise 
 concession to a spirit which will work mischief if indulged." 
 
 The Boston Herald, which has been quoied as strongly 
 disapproving of Swinton's History, in its issue of July 14, 
 after a careful review of the whole subject, said : 
 
 " The statement made by Prof. Swinton in his school his- 
 tory is fully sustained by all acknowledged authorities, 
 whether secular or religious, though the Roman Catholic 
 authorities generally accessible in English are rather shy of 
 giving all the facts of the case, while the Protestant writers are 
 often so sure of them that they present a very distorted record." 
 
 To these Protestant opinions may be added that of a very 
 high Catholic authority. In the Boston Globe of Oct. 6, 
 1888, was printed an interview with Vicar-General Byrne, a 
 leading Catholic official, who declared that Swinton does not 
 misrepresent the Catholic Church in what he says about in- 
 dulgences.* When asked if the doctrine that indulgences 
 permitted the committing of sin was not taught in Swinton's 
 book, the Vicar-General answered: 
 
 " Not that I can see ; though I have heard it so stated by 
 men who ought to know. I have seen the celebrated foot- 
 note only in quotation, and, judging from that, I would have 
 to absolve Swinton from this charge. It would appear that 
 it is not in Swinton's History except in so far as the imagina- 
 
 * See Vicar-General Byrne's letter on page 123. — R. J. J. 
 
69 
 
 tion and preconceived notions of Mr. Travis, the High School 
 teacher, injected into it. This is another illustration of how 
 people find in books and dogmas what is not there at all, not 
 even in germ. I defy any honest and unprejudiced mind to 
 infer this shameful doctrine from Swinton's foot-note." 
 
 Further on in the interview, the Vicar-General made use 
 of this emphatic declaration : 
 
 "One thing is certain. Swinton never charged Tetzel with 
 ffivinff this false definition of an indulgence." 
 
 The quotations just given show a remarkable unanimity 
 in declaring that Swinton is not in error in what he says 
 about indulgences and the early history of Protestantism. 
 Several of them also indicate the fact that Swinton does not 
 charge the Catholic Church with teaching that an indulgence 
 was a permission to sin. 
 
 In two or three succeeding issues of the Standard, I shall 
 discuss other phases of this important subject.* 
 
 George W. Cooke. 
 
 THE DEFENCE CONTINUED. 
 
 SECOND LETTER OF GEORGE W. COOKE. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Jan. 26, 1889.] 
 
 V. 
 
 "What is an Indulgence? 
 
 In order to understand whether Swinton has misrepre- 
 sented history or not, it is desirable that we should know 
 
 * It was in consequence of this announcement by Mr. Cooke of his in- 
 tention to continue his letters through two or three succeeding issues of 
 the Standard that I did not reply to this letter in the next number of that 
 paper, which otherwise I should have done. In view of his announcement, 
 I stood aside, and would have held my peace until he had concluded all 
 that he desired to say, if I had not felt it my duty to interrupt him for the 
 purpose of calling attention to the fact that his alleged quotations from 
 Catholic authorities were distortions and mutilations of the writers whom 
 he appeared to quote. This also accounts for the irregular order in which 
 my replies to Mr. Cooke's arguments were made. — R. J. J. 
 
70 
 
 what is an indulgence. As the standard histories are not 
 generally accessible, and as many persons are too busy to 
 consult them, I propose to quote from two or three of them 
 at some length. I do so in order that I may give a defini- 
 tion which will stand the test of ri»id historic investigation. 
 All the definitions which I now quote are from historians 
 whose works are accepted by Catholics as being fair and 
 accurate.* 
 
 I will begin with the definition given by that generally 
 approved authority, the "Encyclopedia Britanuica " : 
 
 "Indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is defined as 
 the remission, in whole or in part, by ecclesiastical authority, 
 to the penitent sinners, of the temporal punishment due for 
 sin. . . . That theory may be said to resolve itself into two 
 positions: (1) that, after the remission of the eternal pun- 
 ishment due for sin, there remains due to the justice of God 
 a certain amount of temporal pain to be undergone, either 
 before death in this world, or after death in purgatory; (2) 
 that this pain may be remitted by the application of the 
 superabundant merits of Christ and the saints, out of the 
 treasury of the Church, the administration of which treasury 
 is the prerogative of the hierarchy. . . . Indulgences arc 
 either general or particular, i. e., either open to the whole 
 Church or confined to particular localities. The most general 
 of all is that which is proclaimed in the year of jubilee. 
 Indulgences again are either plenary or non-plenary, the 
 former being a total remission of all the temporal punish- 
 ment which may have been incurred by the recipient. It 
 must carefully be borne in mind that, in Roman Catholic 
 orthodoxy, indulgence is never absolutely gratuitous, and 
 that those only can in any circumstances validly receive it 
 who are in full communion with the Church, and have 
 resorted to the sacrament of penance, in which alone, after 
 due contrition and confession, provision is made for the 
 remission of the graver penalty of sin." 
 
 * Mx\ Cooke has no right to speak for Catholics in this matter. Catho- 
 lics do not, and, of course, cannot, accept definitions of the doctrines and 
 teachings of their Church by Protestant authorities, for however fair the 
 spirit of these Avriters may be, they write entirely from the Protestant 
 stand-point. 
 
71 
 
 Prof. George P. Fisher, of Yale College, in his work on 
 
 "The Reformation," a book highly approved by students for 
 
 its accuracy and fairness, touches upon the origin and history 
 
 of the doctrine of indulgences : — 
 
 "Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been 
 a relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the 
 Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. 
 The doctrine of penance required that for each sin satisfac- 
 tion should be superadded to contrition and confession. 
 Then came the custom of commuting these appointed tem- 
 poral penalties. . . . The practice of accepting offerings of 
 money in the room of the ordinary forms of penance harmo- 
 nized with the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian 
 peoples. . . . By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument 
 of conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which 
 the grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, 
 or pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the Popes, came the 
 plenaiy indulgences, as the complete remission of all tem- 
 poral penalties — that is, the penalties still obligatory on the 
 penitent — on the fulfilment of prescribed conditions. These 
 penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence 
 obliterated them all." 
 
 During last year was published the seventh volume of an 
 extensive " History of the Christian Church," by Dr. Philip 
 Schaff, which has already become a standard authority, be- 
 cause of its learning, its judicious tone, and its marked liter- 
 ary ability. This volume treats of the Reformation, and its 
 definition of indulgences has been accepted by Catholics as a 
 correct one.* Dr. Schaff also treats the subject somewhat 
 historically : 
 
 " The difficult and complicated doctrine of indulgences is 
 peculiar to the Roman Church. It was developed by the 
 mediaeval schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Council of Trent 
 
 * This definition of indulgences has not been accepted by Catholics as 
 a correct one. See definition in the Catechism of the Council of Balti- 
 more, page 24; also that given by Maurel, page 73; as well as that of Dens, 
 page 88. The reader will notice that no mention is made in any of these 
 approved definitions of the ' ' payment of money to the church or some 
 charitable object" as a requisite for obtaining an indulgence. 
 
72 
 
 (Dec. 4, 1563), yet without a definition and with an express 
 warning against abuses and evil gains. 
 
 "In ecclesiastical Latin, an indulgence means the remission 
 of the temporal (not the eternal) punishment of sin (not of sin 
 itself), on condition of penance and the payment of money 
 to the Church or to some charitable object. It may be granted 
 by a bishop or archbishop within his diocese, while the Pope 
 has the power to grant it to all Catholics. The practice of 
 indulgences grew out of a custom of the northern and western 
 barbarians to substitute pecuniary compensation for punish- 
 ment of an offence. The Church favored this custom in order 
 to avoid bloodshed, but did wrong in applying it to religious 
 offences. . . . The practice rapidly spread on the Continent, 
 and was used by the Popes during and after the crusades, as a 
 means of increasing their power. It was justified and re- 
 duced to a theory by the schoolmen, especially by Thomas 
 Aquinas, in close connection with the doctrine of the sacra- 
 ment of penance and priestly absolution. 
 
 " The sacrament of penance includes three elements, — con- 
 trition of the heart, confession of the mouth (to the priest) , and 
 satisfaction by good works, such as prayer, fasting, alms- 
 giving, pilgrimages, all of which arc supposed to have an 
 atoning efficacy. God forgives only the eternal punishment 
 of sin, and he alone can do that; but the sinner has to bear 
 the temporal punishments, either in this life or in purgatory; 
 and these punishments are under the control of the Church 
 or the priesthood, especially the Pope as its legitimate head. 
 There are also works of supererogation, performed by Christ 
 and the saints, with corresponding extra merits and extra 
 rewards, and these constitute a rich treasury from which the 
 Pope, as the treasurer, can dispense indulgences for money. 
 This papal power of dispensation extends even to the departed 
 souls in purgatory, whose sufferings thereby may be abridged. 
 This is the scholastic doctrine." 
 
 These Protestant definitions may be supplemented or cor- 
 rected by one from a Catholic source. The standard Catho- 
 lic authority on indulgences, at least in English, seems to be 
 a work entitled "The Christian Instructed in the Nature and 
 Use of Indulgences," by the Rev. A. Maurel. I will quote at 
 some length from the chapter of this work devoted to the 
 definition of an indulgence: 
 
73 
 
 " Suppose the case of one who has had the misfortune of 
 offending God. If the sin be mortal, the injury done to the 
 Divine Majesty is grievous ; consequently, this person has 
 both lost sanctifying grace, and merited eternal chastisements. 
 But should it be merely venial, the friendship of God is not 
 lost, so that in this case he incurs only a temporal penalty. 
 In the former supposition, the sacrament of penance, or an 
 act of perfect contrition reconciles the sinner with his Crea- 
 tor, and obtains for him pardon as to the eternal punishment. 
 But since a temporal penalty is ordinarily substituted for this 
 eternal chastisement, the offender, though reconciled with 
 God, must pay that fine either in this life by means of works 
 of penance, or hereafter by the pains of purgatory. 
 
 " Blessed be God ! by an inestimable benefit, whose worth 
 and greatness are beyond expression, or as Bourdaloue 
 says, by a favor calculated to call forth all the envy of 
 demons against man, the Almighty graciously remits that 
 debt by means of indulgences. In fact, indulgences are 
 nothing else than this remission. At the very moment the 
 sinner separates himself from God by sin, God may abandon 
 and deliver him up to the rigor of his inexorable justice. 
 But far from doing this, he says to him : 'Do penance, and 
 you will thereby avert the arrows of my vengeance.' Not 
 only that, but since the reconciliation of the soul to God by 
 penance entails a length of painful sufferings which the trans- 
 gressor must undergo in order to make satisfaction, our 
 Divine Lord on that account vouchsafes to give up the strict 
 right he has to exact such a penalty. Accordingly, to sup- 
 ply the insufficiency of the sinner's satisfaction, to facilitate 
 the total expiation of his sins, and thus to complete his jus- 
 tification so to speak, through the hands of his church, he 
 holds out to him a treasure of indulgences. 
 
 "An indulgence, then, is 'a remission of the temporal 
 punishment for which the sinner remains indebted to the 
 Divine Justice on account of sins already pardoned as to their 
 guilt and eternal chastisement.' This remission is effected 
 by means of the application of the satisfactions contained in 
 the Spiritual Treasure of the Church ; it takes place outside 
 the sacrament of penance, but always in virtue of the power 
 of the keys, that is, through the medium of those empow- 
 ered to unlock and dispense this grand treasure. Hence an 
 indulgence remits neither mortal sin, nor venial sin, nor the 
 eternal chastisement; neither does it bring about or effect 
 justification ; on the contrary, it presupposes and follows it." 
 
VI. 
 The Abuse of Indulgences.* 
 
 As an indulgence is thus defined, it would appear that 
 Swinton misconceived its nature, if his statement thai it was 
 "represented as an actual pardon of guilt," applied to the 
 direct teaching of the Church, As we have already seen, 
 the Church never formulated its practice in regard to indul- 
 gences into a positive doctrine; and while Swinton states 
 what the Church aotually did, his assertion is not in harmony 
 with its teaohingS.f Bui as Swinton undertakes in his foot- 
 note to desoribe only what was performed by many Catho- 
 lics, it is necessary to inquire into what was the Catholic 
 practioe at the period when Luther posted his ninety-five 
 theses. 
 
 'The writers already quoted recognize the abuses to which 
 Swinton refers in his note, ami whieh he aeeurately describes 
 in saying- that " indulgences were represented as aotual par- 
 dons of guilt, and the purchaser ol' indulgence was said to 
 be delivered from all his sins.'* These abuses are thus re- 
 ferred to by the "Encyclopedia Britannica," in the artiole 
 already quoted : — 
 
 "The dootrine of indulgences is singularly open to misun- 
 derstanding; and in its practical applications it has too often 
 been used to sanction the most Qagranl immorality. The 
 scandalous abuses connected with the 'pardoners' trade, 
 and in particular the reckless conduct oi' the hawkers of 
 
 v N>> one denies that bad men have at times' abused Indulgences. The 
 Catholic Church acknowledges and deplores that fact; and. as soon as 
 such abuses have come to her knowledge, she has used every means to 
 reform and remedy the evil. Hoes Mr. Cooke mean to argue that because 
 Indulgences have been at times abused, therefore they OUghl to be abolished 
 altogether as in themselves bad: By the same line of reasoning, every 
 good thine would have to be abolished : for there is nothing good which 
 cannol be, and at times has not been, abused. — K. ,1. ,1. 
 
 + Why, then, on page 86, does Mr. Cooke positively assure us that " the 
 foot-note in Swinton is perfectly true in every particular"? — Li. J. J. 
 
75 
 
 papal indulgence granted l>y those who should contribute to 
 the funds for the completion of St. Peter's, Home, were, ;«h 
 is well known, very prominent among the proximate cause! 
 of the Protestant Reformation." 
 
 In speaking of the sale of indulgences at the time of 
 Luther, Prof. Fisher -ays \ 
 
 "The business of selling indulgences bad grown by the 
 profitableness of it. . . . As managed by Tetzel and the 
 other emissaries sen! out to collect, mono}- for the building 
 of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a simple bargain, 
 according to which, on the payment of* a stipulated hum, the 
 individual received a full discharge from the penalties of sin, 
 or procured the release of a soul from the flame- of purga- 
 tory. The forgiveness of sins was offered in the market for 
 
 money. 
 
 "The granting of indulgences degenerated, after the time 
 of the crusades, into a regular traffic, and became a source of 
 ecclesiastical and monastic wealth. . . . The rebuilding of 
 St. Peter's Church in Rome furnished an occasion for the 
 periodical exercise of the papal power of granting indul- 
 gences. Julius II. and Leo X., two of* the most worldly, 
 avaricious, and extravagant popes, had no scruple to raise 
 funds for that object, and incidentally for their own aggran- 
 dizement, from the traffic in indulgences. Both issued sev- 
 eral hulls to that effect." 
 
 Dr. Schaff thus describes the methods pursued by Tetzel 
 in the sale of indulgences in Saxony : 
 
 "Tetzel t ravelled with great pomp and circumstance through 
 Germany, and recommended with unscrupulous effrontery 
 and declamatory eloquence the indulgences of the pope to 
 the large crowds who gathered from every quarter around 
 him. He was received like a messenger from heaven. 
 Priests, monks, and magistrates, men and women, old and 
 young, marched in solemn procession with Songs, flags, and 
 
 candles, tinder the ringing of bells, to meet him and his 
 
 fellow monks, and follow them to the church. The papal hull 
 on a velvet cushion was placed on the high altar, a red cr< 
 with silken banner bearing the papal arms, was erected he- 
 fore it, and a larger iron chest was put beneath the cross for 
 the indulgence money. The preachers, \>y daily sermons, 
 
76 
 
 hymns, and processions, urged the people, with extravagant 
 laudations of the Pope's bull, to purchase letters of indul- 
 gence for their own benefit, and at the same time played 
 upon their sympathies for departed relatives and friends 
 whom they might release from their sufferings in purgatory 
 ' as soon us the penny tinkles in the box !' " 
 
 Leopold von Ranke is usually accepted as the greatest of 
 church historians. He is never sectarian, but he is always 
 moderate and perfectly fair.* In his " History of the 
 Papacy" he refers to the vast evil which was created by the 
 sale of indulgences, and to the worldly tendency it every- 
 where produced in the Church. This is his statement, 
 which does not exaggerate, but plainly shows how great the 
 corruption : 
 
 "The fact that the German assault on the Roman Church 
 was first directed against the abuses arising from the sale 
 of indulgences, has sometimes been regarded as mere matter 
 of accident ; but as the alienation of' that which is most essen- 
 tially spiritual, involved in the doctrine of indulgences, laid 
 open and gave to view the weakest point in the whole sys- 
 tem — that worldliness of spirit now prevalent in the Church 
 — so was it, of all things, best calculated to shock and 
 offend the convictions of those earnest and profound thinkers, 
 the German theologians. A man like Luther, whose reli- 
 gion was sincere and deeply felt, whose opinions of sin and 
 justification were those propounded by the early German 
 theologians, and confirmed in his mind by the study of Scrip- 
 ture, which he had drunk with a thirsting heart, could not 
 
 * A distinction is here necessary to be made. Milman, Von Ranke, 
 Fisher, and SchafT are all historians who view history through the lens of 
 Protestantism. They are avowed Protestant writers, who do not believe 
 in Catholic doctrines and have no sympathy with the Catholic Church, its 
 teachings, or its practices. They cannot, therefore, be quoted as Mr. 
 Cooke attempts to quotes them, as if their dicta on historical questions 
 touching the Catholic Church had that quality of judicial impartiality 
 which commends them to universal acceptance. Such is not the case. 
 Admitting their Protestant bias, they may be properly ranked by Protes- 
 tants as high-toned and fair writers, but by Catholics they certainly will 
 not be accepted as authorities on matters concerning Catholic history aud 
 doctrine. — It. J. J. 
 
77 
 
 fail to be revolted and shocked by the sale of indulgences. 
 Forgiveness of sins to be purchased for money ! This must, 
 of necessity, be deeply offensive to him, whose conclusions 
 were drawn from profound contemplation of the eternal rela- 
 tion subsisting between God and man, and who had learned 
 to interpret Scripture for himself." 
 
 Whatever the formulated teaching of the Church, the 
 people believed in indulgences as direct pardons of sin.* 
 This is very clearly pointed out by Dean Milman, another 
 able church historian, who says : 
 
 "Long before Luther this abuse had rankled in the heart 
 of Christendom. It was in vain for the Church to assert 
 that, rightly understood, indulgences only released from 
 temporary penances; that they were a commutation, a mer- 
 ciful, lawful commutation for such penances. The language 
 of the promulgators and vendors of the indulgences, even of 
 the indulgences themselves, was, to the vulgar ear, the 
 broad, plain, direct guarantee from the pains of purgatory, 
 from hell itself, for tens, hundreds, thousands of years ; a 
 sweeping pardon for all sins committed, a sweeping license 
 for sins to be committed; and if this talse construction, it 
 might be, was perilous to the irreligious, this even seeming 
 flagrant dissociation of morality from religion was no less 
 revolting to the religious." 
 
 As Dean Milman says, the very wording of the absolu- 
 tion given the purchaser of indulgence led the people to 
 believe that they were buying a full pardon for sin. This 
 may be seen in the absolution used by Tetzel, and which 
 appears in translation in Robertson's " History of the Reign 
 of the Emperor Charles V." : 
 
 "May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee and 
 absolve thee by the merits of His most holy passion. And I, 
 by His authority, that of His apostles Peter and Paul, and of 
 most holy Pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, 
 do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in what- 
 
 * If the term "the people*' is meant to include Catholics, this state- 
 ment is not true. Catholic people never believed indulgences were 
 pardons for sin. 
 
78 
 
 ever manner they have been incurred, and then from all thy 
 sins, transgressions, and excesses, how onerous soever they 
 may be, even from such as are reserved for the cognizance 
 of the Holy See ; and as far as the keys of the Holy Church 
 extend, I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in 
 purgatory on their account ; and I restore you to the holy 
 sacraments of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to 
 that innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism ; 
 to that when you die the gates of punishment shall be shut, 
 and the gates of paradise and delight shall be opened ; and 
 if you shall not die at present this grace shall remain in full 
 force when you are at the point of death. In the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." * 
 
 In the first volume of his book on " The Rise of the Dutch 
 Republic," Motley has described the practical effects of the 
 sale of indulgences : f 
 
 " The sale of absolutions was the source of large fortunes 
 to the priests. The enormous impudence of this traffic 
 almost exceeds belief. Throughout the Netherlands the 
 price current of the wares thus offered for sale was pub- 
 lished in every town and village. God's pardon for crimes 
 already committed, or about to be committed, was advertised 
 according to a graduated tariff. Thus, poisoning, for exam- 
 ple, was absolute for eleven ducats, six livres tournois. 
 Absolution for incest was afforded at thirty-six livres, three 
 ducats. Perjury came to seven livres and three carlines. 
 Pardon for murder, if not by poison, was cheaper. Even a 
 parricide could buy forgiveness at God's tribunal at one 
 
 * There is no evidence that any document, in the form here quoted, was 
 ever issued by Tetzel. The Protestant historian, Sir Francis Palgrave, 
 classifies Robertson in the list of dishonest and unfair writers. He says : 
 " Never do these writers, or their school, whether in France or Great Brit- 
 ain, Voltaire or Mably, Hume, Robertson, or Henry, treat the clergy or the 
 church with fairness ; not even common honesty. If historical notoriety 
 enforces the allowance of any merit to a priest, the effect of this ex- 
 torted acknowledgment is destroyed by a clever insinuation or a coarse 
 innuendo." — Preface to History of Normandy and England. Seepage 
 U5. — R. J. J. 
 
 f It is sufficient to put over against Motley the declaration of Prof. 
 Fisher, of Yale College: "To say that the Roman Catholic Church has 
 ever taught that the forgiveness of sins can be bought with money, is an 
 atrocious slander." (See page 147.) — R. J. J. 
 
79 
 
 ducat, four livres, eight carlines. Henry de Montfort, in ther 
 year 1448, purchased absolution for that crime at that price. 
 Was it strange that a century or so of this kind of work 
 should produce a Luther? Was it unnatural that plain 
 people, who loved the ancient church, should rather desire 
 to see her purged of such blasphemous abuses than to hear 
 of St. Peter's dome rising a little nearer to the clouds on 
 these proceeds of commuted crime?" 
 
 That the Church itself approved of what is here described, 
 I do not wish to assert ; but undeniably these things were 
 done in the name of the Church. The people believed in 
 indulgences as actual pardons of sin, and they were sold to 
 them with the assurance that they were such. 
 
 Whatever the theory of the Church, indulgences were 
 accepted as permissions to sin, and everything connected 
 with their sale confirmed this belief on the part of the great 
 mass of the people. That careful and very tolerant writer, 
 the Rev. Dr. Hedge, has put into a few words what I believe 
 is the exact truth in the matter : 
 
 " Penitence was nominally required of the sinner, but 
 proofs of penance were not exacted. Practically , the indul- 
 gence meant impunity for sin. A more complete travesty of 
 the gospel — laughable if not so impious — could hardly be 
 conceived. The faithful themselves weie shocked by the 
 shameless realism which characterized the proclamations of 
 the German commissioner, Tetzel." * 
 
 What Luther did and said can have no meaning whatever, 
 if indulgences were not generally sold " as actual pardons of 
 
 * Rev. C. C. Starbuck, a Protestant authority already quoted, in his let- 
 ter to the Christian Mirror (April 20, 1889), on this question, says: "Dr. 
 Hedge's presentation is just as nearly wrong end foremost as it could 
 easily be. It seems to have been derived from the depths of the literary 
 consciousness, and that is a very insecure dependence for accuracy in 
 presentations of Roman Catholic doctrine." Mr. Starbuck adds, that Dr. 
 Hedge's statement concerning the doctrine of indulgences " would fur- 
 nish much matter of amusement to any intelligent boy or girl who had 
 gone through DeDharbe's Catechism, or any equivalent one, under a com- 
 petent instructor." — R. J. J. 
 
80 
 
 guilt." The Reformation is without an explanation, if "the 
 purchaser of indulgence was not said to be delivered from all 
 sins." It was the universal traffic in indulgences, the open 
 and shameless sale of them as covering crime, which aroused 
 the reformers everywhere and caused the division of the 
 Church.* History cannot be gainsaid. The facts are too 
 patent to all intelligent readers. Geqrge w< Cqqk ^ 
 
 THE DEFENCE CONTINUED. 
 
 THIRD LETTER OF THE REV. GEORGE W. COOKE. 
 
 [From the Declham Standard, Feb. 2, 1889.] 
 
 VII. 
 
 Catholic Testimony to the Abuse df Indulgences. 
 
 It is not necessary to rely on Protestant authors only, in 
 order to prove that indulgences were sold as pardons of guilt. 
 The Catholic writers of the Reformation era, and since, have 
 given the same testimony as their Protestant neighbors. 
 
 The greatest scholar of that period, Erasmus, who re- 
 mained a Catholic at heart, though sometimes in sympathy 
 with the reformers, spoke of indulgences, in his "Praise of 
 Folly," as " the crime of false pardons." In writing to Colet, 
 the English scholar, he said : 
 
 " The Court of Rome clearly has lost all sense of shame ; 
 for what could be more shameless than these continued indul- 
 gences ? " 
 
 At another time he wrote : 
 
 " Everywhere the remission of purgatorial torment is sold ; 
 nor is it sold only, but forced upon those who refuse it." 
 
 * Dr. Sclian", whom Mr. Cooke considers very high authority, says, 
 on the contrary, that the Reformation would have come to pass if Tetzel 
 had never lived, and that it had no connection with indulgences. (See 
 page 151.) — R. J. J. 
 
81 
 
 A Catholic historian, Mairnbourg, thus asserts the fact of 
 indulgences being sold as pardons of guilt : 
 
 "Some of these preachers did not fail, as usual, to distort 
 their subject, and so to exaggerate the value of the indul- 
 gences as to lead the people to believe that as soon as they 
 gave their money they were certain of salvation, and of the 
 deliverance of souls from purgatory." 
 
 Maurel, in his book on indulgences, attempts to defend the 
 methods adopted by Leo X., which he claims were quite in- 
 nocent and honorable ; but he is obliged to end his statement 
 by saying : 
 
 " No doubt some shocking abuses unfortunately crept into 
 the mode of collecting or receiving these alms." 
 
 Adrian VI., the successor in the papal chair to Leo X., 
 was an honest, noble man, and did all he could to promote 
 reform in the Church. This was his testimony in regard to 
 the evils of the time, as he is quoted by Ranke and other 
 historians : 
 
 "These disorders sprang from the sins of men, more espe- 
 cially from the sins of priests and prelates. Even in the 
 holy chair many horrible crimes have been committed. The 
 contagious disease, spreading from the head to the members, 
 from the Pope to lesser prelates, has spread far and wide, so 
 that scarcely any one is to be found who does right and who 
 is free from infection." 
 
 In the Prologue to his " Canterbury Tales," Chaucer de- 
 scribes the pardoner : 
 
 " His wallet lay before him in his lap 
 Brim-full of pardons come from Rome all hot; 
 And thus with fained Mattering and japes, 
 He made the parsons and the people his apes." 
 
 The testimony of Luther, who was still decidedly a Cath- 
 olic when he nailed the theses to the church door, may not be 
 out of place here as to the way in which indulgences were 
 sold. He wrote to the archbishop to complain of Tetzel and 
 his co-workers, in these most suggestive words : 
 
82 
 
 w I complain bitterly of the fatal errors in which these men 
 are involving the common people, men of weak understand- 
 ing, whom, foolish as they are, these men persuade that they 
 Avill be sure of salvation if they only buy their letters of 
 plenary indulgence. They believe that souls will fly out of 
 purgatory the moment that the money paid for their redemp- 
 tion is thrown into the preacher's bag, and that such virtue 
 belongs to these indulgences that there is no sin which the 
 indulgences will not absolutely and at once efface." 
 
 This explicit statement of Luther's is very interesting, for 
 it tells us distinctly what at first was the ground of his com- 
 plaint, and why he attacked the sellers of indulgence. It 
 was because they were deceiving the uneducated people, and 
 making of religion a mere traffic. 
 
 VIII. 
 The Sale of Indulgences still Continued. 
 
 The Church has not changed its doctrine of indulgence 
 since the Reformation. What it taught then, it teaches now ; 
 and indulgences are still sold.* That the sale of indulgences 
 is abused now as in the time of Luther, and centuries before, 
 no one will maintain. 
 
 In Chicago, not long since, there appeared in a Catholic 
 paper, the following advertisement : — 
 
 "PLENARY INDULGENCES 
 
 " THAT MAY BE GAINED IN THE HOEY FAMILY CHURCH. 
 
 "For sodality members, on the days of meeting, on Com- 
 munion Sundays, on the feast of the assumption." 
 
 In the Boston Globe, last autumn, appeared the following 
 
 item of news : 
 
 " In all the Catholic churches throughout the world a special 
 mass and office was celebrated yesterday, by order of Leo 
 XIII., in order to further the devotion of the holy rosary. 
 
 * Yet on page 45, Mr. Cooke clearly appears to hold a contrary opinion, 
 for lie there says: "What the Catholic Church teaches now is not the 
 question in controversy, but what it taught at the time of Luther." — R. J. J. 
 
83 
 
 The month of October is especially devoted to Our Lady of 
 the Rosary, and the rosary is publicly recited every evening 
 in all Catholic churches. A plenary indulgence is granted 
 to all those who attend the devotions and comply with the 
 necessary conditions." 
 
 If a correspondent of the Christian Register can be trusted, 
 the sale of indulgences in Italy, even to-day, stands in need 
 of reformation. Augusta Larned, in the issue of that paper 
 for Aug. 16, 1888, in an article entitled "At Bologna, 
 Milan, and Como," describes a visit to the Church of San 
 Petronio at Bologna, and concludes by saying : 
 
 " By the declining light of day, I saw on the front of the 
 old church something that proved an eyesore and an offence 
 to my Protestant soul. There, boldly placarded for all men 
 to read, was the announcement that plenary indulgences 
 were sold within. I found, on inquiry, that Bologna is quite 
 the centre of this old abomination. In the little villages 
 round about a priest appears on stated occasions, rings a 
 bell, and announces to the people that full and free pardon 
 for major sins is granted for half a crown, and venial offences 
 are condoned for eighteen pence English. At least, this was 
 what I was told ; and I have little reason to doubt it. Surely, 
 Tetzel still lives, and another Luther is in great and imme- 
 diate demand." 
 
 I give the above quotation for what it is worth. If the 
 accounts which come to us from Italy, of the abject condi- 
 tion in which the common people are held in that country by 
 the priests, have any truth in them, we may well believe that 
 the old misrepresentation of indulgences still lingers.* 
 
 ♦Where does Mr. Cooke get his accounts of the " abject condition" in 
 which the common people of Italy are held by the priests ? This is un- 
 doubtedly another example of his eager credulity that forms a staple fea- 
 ture of the no-Popery leaflets. Gorres, a German scholar of high repute, 
 speaking of the influence of their religion on the Italian peasantry, says : 
 " This feeling of propriety, which restrains their natural vivacity within the 
 bounds of decorum, renders intercourse with the most uncultivated classes 
 agreeable. The ingenuous and open character of the peasantry has a most 
 becoming exterior, and elevates them far above the rustic manners and 
 
84: 
 
 The other quotations are entirely in harmony with the 
 teachings of the Church. Maurel's book on indulgences de- 
 votes two hundred pages to the various methods by which 
 they may be obtained. "Whatever the method of obtaining 
 them, the Catholic regards indulgences as perfectly trust- 
 worthy in their nature. "It is infallibly certain," says 
 Maurel, "that the faithful on earth obtain the fruit of an 
 indulgence which the Church makes applicable to the living." 
 
 Not only does the Church ensure the certainty of an indul- 
 gence, but it insists that it must be paid for by the faithful. 
 "The prelates of the Church," says Maurel, "even the popes 
 themselves, are not such absolute' masters as to be able, at 
 pleasure, and without any compensation, to remit or cover 
 the transgressions and penalties for which sinners are answer- 
 able before the Sovereign Judge." Again, we learn that, 
 " when a priest, in the tribunal of penance, absolves a peni- 
 tent from his faults and a part of the temporal penalty, he 
 does not do so without any compensation." The money thus 
 obtained is devoted to church purposes, for we are told that 
 when "the vicars of Christ" sell indulgences, " they invite us 
 to contribute towards the propagation of the faith in distant 
 pagan countries ; to take part in so charitable and holy a work 
 as the baptism of children belonging to the Chinese or In- 
 dians ; to procure the conversion of sinners through the inter- 
 cession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ; to induce the 
 people to enroll themselves in the Associations of the Blessed 
 Sacrament ; or in the confraternities of Holy Mary ; to en- 
 
 imcouthness of the corresponding class in other ^countries. Their strong 
 natural sense renders them so accurate in their judgment and so just in 
 their principles that it* we abstract positive scientitic knowledge, which 
 they cannot be supposed to possess, and look only to the relations of 
 society, little more would be necessary to transform them into noblemen 
 than to change their outward garb." This is the testimony of a scholar, 
 based on his own personal observations among the Italian people, and it 
 may with confidence be set against the trivial tattle which Mr. Cooke gives 
 us on hearsay. — R. J. J. 
 
85 
 
 courage devout pilgrimages ; to frequent the sacraments ; to 
 assist the poor souls in purgatory," etc., etc. 
 
 The Church makes it very easy to obtain indulgences. 
 For instance, every time a person recites, with a contrite 
 heart, a prescribed invocation to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, 
 he receives an indulgence for three hundred days. Every 
 time a person repeats the pious ejaculation, " My Jesus, 
 mercy ! " he obtains an indulgence of one hundred days. 
 The recitation of the " Stabat Mater," with devotion, gives 
 an indulgence of one hundred days. Whenever a person, 
 truly penitent, makes the sign of the cross, saying, "In the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
 an indulgence of fifty days is gained. An indulgence of 
 four hundred days is given to those who, being contrite in 
 heart, after confession, on Corpus Christi day, piously assist 
 at mass. A great number of similar indulgences may be 
 obtained, under like conditions. Also a large number of 
 special indulgences are given to churches, societies, and par- 
 ticular objects. One of the societies having special privi- 
 leges is the " Confraternity of the Rosary"; and those con- 
 nected with it have special indulgences granted them after 
 the recitation of prayers on the rosary. "Few confraterni- 
 ties in the Church," says Maurel, "are more extensively 
 propagated than that of the rosary or more productive of 
 salutary results. Furthermore, as the conditions exacted by 
 it are so easy to be fulfilled, every Catholic ought to be 
 delighted to enlist under its banner. The chief condition for 
 each member is to recite the entire rosary at least once a 
 week, meditating on the fifteen mysteries, accompanied with 
 some appropriate reflections." "To become a member of 
 the confraternity," we are also told, " the only formality 
 requisite is to have one's name inscribed in the registry 
 belonging to the society. A person ought to take care to 
 have his rosary or chaplet blessed by a Dominican Father 
 
86 
 
 or by a priest who may have received the power from the 
 Pope directly, or from the Very Rev. Superior-General of 
 the order of Friars Preachers. Otherwise the indulgences 
 could not be gained." 
 
 This is to he remembered in regard to indulgences, that 
 they are wholly under the control of the priesthood.* How- 
 ever benevolently used, they are a powerful lever for gain- 
 ing money. The layman must accept the priest's terms, and 
 the priest is careful to commend the wonderful efficacy of 
 the indulgence. However honest the Church may be, the 
 association oi' anything so thoroughly believed in as the 
 indulgence is by Catholics, with monetary conditions, must 
 lie always open to more or less oi' abuse. 
 
 From the facts now presented, it would appear that the 
 foot-note in Swinton is perfectly true in every particular.! If 
 one historian can confirm the statements of another, then. 
 Swintons foot-note is continued by a consensus of all the 
 competent historians. Georgia W. Cooke. 
 
 THE REV. R. J. JOHTSTSON REPLIES. 
 
 THE TRTJ ill A.BOUT [NDULGENCES. — THE CATHOLIC CHURCH N EVEB 
 TAUGHT THAT TUl'Y WKKK PARDONS OF GUILT 01! A LICENSE 
 TO COMMIT SIN. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Feb. •■>. 1889. | 
 Your readers have no doubt had as much entertainment as 
 myself in reading the recent letters by your correspondent, 
 the Rev. George W. Cooke, on "The School Controversy.'* 
 
 ♦This is utterly untrue. No priest has the power to grant an indulgence, 
 or to make any terms or conditions in relation to it. ^See page 112.) — 
 R. .1. .1. 
 
 t Nevertheless, on page 74. Mr Cooke declares with equal lirmuess that 
 Sainton's assertion is not in harmony with its (the Church's) teaching. — 
 R. J. J. 
 
87 
 
 It was not my intention to intrude upon his studies in history 
 or to offer any remarks upon their results until he had con- 
 cluded his course. But I see that he is wandering farther 
 and farther away from the point in issue between us, and 
 feel, therefore, that unless some limit be set to his cyclic dis- 
 quisitions upon unrelated topics, we shall never reach a con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Let me recall to his attention and that of the general 
 reader exactly what the point at issue is. It is simply 
 whether Swinton in his " Outlines " gives a correct definition 
 of indulgences ; that is to say, is it true that the Catholic 
 Church ever represented an indulgence as a " pardon of 
 guilt" or ever authorized or sanctioned the teaching that 
 "the purchaser of indulgence" was "delivered from all his 
 sins "? 
 
 Up to this time, though he has written several long letters 
 about and around it, your correspondent has not yet addressed 
 himself to this one vital point. I looked for him to show 
 some proof for the statement that indulgences were repre- 
 sented by the Catholic Church as "actual pardons of guilt"; 
 whether by documents issuing from the Pope, either personally 
 or by a council. I wait in vain for him to produce the first 
 fragment of evidence of this kind. Surely he must see that 
 the accuracy of Swinton's definition of indulgences, which he 
 pledged himself to show, cannot be established by anything 
 short of quotations from the authoritative utterances of the 
 Catholic Church. Again and again in his letters, your corre- 
 spondent asserts that Mr. Swinton's statement of the matter is 
 correct. Of course it is open to him to repeat this assertion 
 as often as he likes ; but it is an empty reiteration, and it 
 would not advance his argument. It is proofs and authorities 
 that we want, not assertions. 
 
 In attempting to recall your correspondent to the real n/ 
 
 question at issue, let me state once more what an indulgence 
 
88 
 
 is, as the Catholic Church teaches it. Dens and other theo- 
 logians define an indulgence as follows : 
 
 "An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment 
 due to sins remitted as to their guilt ; granted by the power 
 of the keys, externally to the sacrament, by an application of 
 the satisfactions which arc contained in the treasury of the 
 Church." 
 
 Such is the definition given by an approved theologian, a 
 definition which is substantially identical with what the 
 Church has held from the days of the early fathers down 
 through the days of the schoolmen to our own times. 
 
 To suppose, indeed, that in any state of civilized society 
 either " license of sinning," or absolution for having sinned, 
 could be publicly recognized as venal, and offered for sale 
 by the lawfully constituted authorities, would seem to be 
 little short of absurdity ; and few" persons, unless blinded by 
 prejudice, could honestly entertain the supposition. Such a 
 system, in practical operation, would be subversive of society, 
 to say nothing of religion. But your correspondent does 
 not seem to have thought it at all necessary to resort to first- 
 hand authorities. No wonder then that the discussion has 
 been unintelligent. He cannot know what the Catholic 
 Church teaches an indulgence to be, except by reference to 
 the documents in which her doctrines are declared. These 
 documents are in existence, and they were closely scanned 
 by the leaders of the Reformation, and none of them has 
 made the charge that the doctrine of indulgences was taught 
 by the Catholic Church to be " a pardon of guilt/' or that 
 " the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from 
 all his sins." The severest critics of the Catholic Church 
 have not charged her in the worst times with any attempt to 
 remove the doctrinal foundations of Christianity. From the 
 beginning to the end of the discussion by Luther on indul- 
 gences, he nowhere insists, or even intimates, that any 
 dreamed-of indulgence is a license to commit sin. 
 
89 
 
 Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, whom your correspondent 
 calls " the highest historical authority we have in this coun- 
 try," says on this point : 
 
 "Luther was so far from condemning indulgences that the 
 seventy-first of his famous ninety-five theses pronounced a 
 curse upon any one who should question their truth or value." 
 
 No reputable historian would make such a serious charge 
 against the Catholic Church without citing some support for 
 it from the recognized official teaching of the Church itself. 
 There is not, in fact, the slightest foundation for such a 
 charge, neither in the creeds, the decrees of councils, the 
 dogmatic definitions of the Popes, the catechisms, or the 
 teachings of theologians. Does any ground for it exist? 
 Tetzel's exaggerations on this subject are disputed by no one, 
 but it is to be noted that even Tetzel, in his instructions to 
 the German priesthood, enjoined on the clergy to impress on 
 the people that indulgences would do no good unless after 
 repentance and absolution. Not even Tetzel misrepresented 
 the doctrine itself; indeed, he took particular pains that the 
 doctrine should not be misrepresented. Even Dr. Schaff, 
 viewing the subject from a Protestant stand-point (page 152, 
 Vol. VI., of his "Church History"), says: 
 
 "We must judge him (Tetzel) from his published sermons 
 and his 'Antitheses' against Luther. They teach neither 
 more nor less than the usual scholastic doctrine of indulgence, 
 based upon an extravagant theory of papal authority. He 
 does not ignore, as is often asserted, the necessity of repent- 
 ance as a condition of absolution, but he probably did not 
 emphasize it in practice, and gave rise, by unguarded expres- 
 sions, to damaging stories." 
 
 In a pastoral letter, addressed to the members of his dio- 
 cese, and fixed on the door of every church where indulgences 
 were granted, Albert, Archbishop of Mayence, formally 
 declared that in order to participate in the spiritual graces 
 which the Pope offered to all, it was imperative, in the first 
 
90 
 
 instanoe, to confess their sins, and then to mourn and redeem 
 them by voluntary penance. 
 
 Prof. Fisher, writing in the Gongregationalist of July 5, 
 INNS, in an able article on indulgences, says, after explaining 
 the doctrine at sonic length : 
 
 " The foregoing explanations will show that no teacher in 
 the Church of Home, who is intelligent and honest, and no 
 good man, would regard with any other feeding than abhor- 
 rence the idea of giving a man permission to commit an act 
 which was recognized as a sin, or absolve a man beforehand 
 from the penances which would follow such an act, if he were 
 to do it and then to repent of it." 
 
 Indeed your correspondent himself, by his own quotations 
 from standard works, proves that an indulgence was not 
 taught by the Church to be "a pardon of guilt." He quotes 
 Dr. Seha If to this effect : 
 
 "In ecclesiastical Latin, an indulgence means the remission 
 of the temporal (not the eternal) punishment of sin (not of 
 sin itself), on condition oi' penance," etc. 
 
 Cardinal Wiseman, writing on indulgences, says: 
 
 " l)o 1 then mean to say, that during the Middle Ages, 
 and later, no abuse took place in the practice of indulgences? 
 Most certainly not. flagrant and too frequenl abuses, doubt- 
 less, occurred through the avarice, rapacity, and impiety of 
 men ; especially when indulgence was granted to the con- 
 tributors toward charitable or religious foundations, in the 
 erection of which private motives too often mingle. But 
 the Church ever felt, and ever tried to remedy, the evil. 
 These abuses were most strongly condemned by Innocent III., 
 in the Council oi' Lateran in 1 139 ; by Innocent IV., in that 
 of Lyons in L245 ; and still more pointedly and energetically 
 by Clement V., in the Council oi' Vienna in 1311. The 
 Council oi' Trent, by an ample decree, completely reformed 
 the abuses which had subsequently crept in, and had been 
 unfortunately used as a ground for Luther's separation from 
 the Church. But even in those ages the real force and the 
 requisite conditions of indulgences were well understood." 
 
01 
 
 I will not dwell any longer upon the historical facts of the 
 case. For those who want to know (lie truth they are plain 
 enough. For those who merely seek an occasion and a pretext 
 to abuse the Catholic Church, nothing that I could say would 
 Suffice; they will not accept such authorities, and such 
 Protestant authorities as have been already quoted, — Prof. 
 Fisher, Dr. Schaff, and the standard encyclopedias. For 
 them no historical facts would he of any avail. A corre- 
 spondent who does not know the difference Del ween an indul- 
 gence and the Inquisition, and who jumbles absolution, 
 indulgence, and penance together, will none the less confi- 
 dently write long letters on the teaching of the Catholic 
 Church in regard to any point of doctrine. A Protestant 
 minister, Rev. Dr. K. Court, of Lowell, discussing tint same 
 question with another Protestant <livin<', Rev. Mr. Black- 
 burn, in the Lowell Times of July 20, \HXH, says that 
 "Protestant historians have confounded absolution with in- 
 dulgence and indulgence with dispensation, as is well known 
 to every student of history who is also well acquainted with 
 Roman Catholic theology." There are large numbers of 
 people who know nothing about Catholic doctrines, and yet 
 who lay down the laws thereon, and expatiate upon truths 
 of which they have not a glimmering of understanding. 
 Such people say, "J do not believe in this or that, and 
 what T do not believe in is false." 
 
 Your correspondent hae had much to say about the sale of 
 indulgences. Bishop England, discussing t hi- question, says : 
 
 "As to the sale of indulgences, we allow and admit freely, 
 that bad men have committed abuses. But there is what we 
 will admit to he a mistake upon the minds of many persons 
 as to this practice. A sale means the giving of one com- 
 modity for another. .Now, money or other commodities may 
 frequently be given with particular dispositions, not to pur- 
 chase spiritual effects, which no money could purchase, hut 
 to please the Lord, and yet a spiritual advantage will be ob- 
 
92 
 
 tainod. Thus, when the Scripture informs us that 'alms-deeds 
 release from sin,' Ave do not believe the money purchases the 
 pardon of the sin in the sense ordinarily attached to sale and 
 purchase. Thus, when the prophet Daniel tells the king, 
 'Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works 
 of mercy to the poor, and perhaps God will forgive thy of- 
 fences,' we do not understand a purchase and a sale. Thus, 
 when Christian preachers exhort their Hocks to alms-deeds, 
 and assure them that ' he who giveth to the poor, lendeth to 
 the Lord, and that the Lord will repay him,' we do not accuse 
 them of selling pardons. So with indulgences. When the 
 Church tells us that by alms-deeds we may obtain the mercy 
 of Christ, to remit even the temporal punishment to which 
 we remain liable, after we have by repentance and mercy ob- 
 tained pardon of our sins, it is not a sale and purchase ; it is 
 but the application of the same principle which pervades the 
 new law and the old. 
 
 "But as alms-deeds are not the only mode pointed out in 
 the Scripture for the obtaining pardon of sins, so they are 
 not the only mode pointed out for the obtaining of indul- 
 gences. Prayer, visiting the sick, instructing the ignorant, 
 receiving the sacraments, and such like practices of piety, are 
 equally as nltns-deeds the condition of indulgences. . . . 
 We acknowledge that bad men did at different times abuse 
 the doctrine of indulgences by endeavoring to impose upon 
 the faithful in promising effects from indulgences which the 
 Church never promised. We also acknowledge that several 
 abuses of the power did frequently take place, but the Church 
 uniformly condemned the impostors and labored to suppress 
 the abuses. She, then, is not accountable for the misconduct 
 of those whom she condemns, more than any State in this 
 Union is accountable for the frauds of the villains who may 
 be found among its citizens. Nor is she answerable for 
 the abuses which she has endeavored to suppress, as the 
 State is not answerable for the pettifogging chicanery and 
 fraud which is committed under the semblance of law, but 
 which is in direct opposition to the spirit of the law, though 
 covered by tin 1 letter." 
 
 But Mr. Cooke condemns the Church for what she herself 
 condemns, and imputes to her what she herself disclaims. 
 
 Archbishop Spaulding, speaking about selling indulgences, 
 says : 
 
93 
 
 "The granting of the indulgence, even according to the 
 avowedly unauthorized practice of Tetzel, did not justify the 
 idea of a sale or traffic properly so called. The offering 
 made on the occasion was entirely free ; those who were 
 unable to contribute anything still obtained the coveted boon ; 
 and those who were able contributed according to their abil- 
 ity or will, no fixed amount being determined." 
 
 Your correspondent has much to say in his letters about 
 the corruptions of the Catholic Church in Luther's day. He 
 would almost lead us to believe that all the good people of 
 that time left the Catholic Church and became reformers. 
 He is constantly telling us of the corrupt state of morals that 
 existed in some Catholic countries during the period that pre- 
 ceded the revolt of Luther. He appears to be ignorant of 
 the fact that the reformers themselves declared that matters 
 were not improved, but were made worse, by the spread of 
 the reformed doctrines. The limits of my letter will not 
 permit any extended quotation ; but among those who testi- 
 fied on this point, Luther himself declares : 
 
 " I hold that they who have become Evangelicals have 
 become worse than they were before they received the gos- 
 pel. Unfortunately, it is our daily experience, that those 
 who live under our gospel are more spiteful, more passion- 
 ate, more greedy, avaricious, and quarrelsome, than ever 
 they were under the Papacy." (Walch's edition of Luther's 
 works, Vol. XIII., pages 2193, 2195.) 
 
 I must confess that I am at a loss to understand what the 
 motive or purpose of your correspondent can be in doing 
 such violence to the plainly expressed meaning of an author 
 as he does by omitting a qualifying clause in quoting, in his 
 last week's letter, from the Rev. A. Maurel's book on "Indul- 
 gences." He first quotes Maurel as saying that " it is infalli- 
 bly certain that the faithful on earth obtain the fruit of an 
 indulgence which the Church makes applicable to the living." 
 Now, mark the unfairness of the quotation. A complete 
 
94 
 
 sentenoe on page 32 of Mam-el's book is broken in upon at 
 a comma point, and the omitted clause that precedes the 
 quoted portion completely changes the sense of what fol- 
 lows. The violence thus done to Maurel will be shown by a 
 glance :i( the parallel columns: 
 
 mai'ki:i, as KOTILATHD Bl ?O0B 0ORB.E. HAlltEL AS I1E 18. 
 
 BPONDBNT. 
 
 "It is infallibly certain that the "All obstacles being removed, 
 faithful on earth obtain the it is infallibly certain that the 
 
 fruit o( an indulgence which the faithful on earth obtain the fruit 
 Church makes applicable to the of an indulgence which the 
 living." Church makes applicable to the 
 
 living." 
 
 The intelligent reader will at once perceive that the omitted 
 first clause in your correspondent's quotation, " All obstacles 
 being removed," makes all the difference in the world in the 
 meaning of MaimTs declaration. 
 
 Maurel, in the paragraph just before this, had said that 
 the Churoh "nevertheless confers them (indulgences) only 
 within fixed limits on certain occasions, and for legitimate 
 reasons." And Maurel, in many parts of his book, insists 
 that an indulgence is never granted except when sin has first 
 been the subject o( sincere repentance and contrition : and 
 that then it only applies to the temporal punishment due to 
 sin after the eternal guilt and punishment thereof have been 
 forgiven. On the same page from which your correspondent- 
 takes a mutilated sentence, Maurel says: 
 
 " But recollect, she (the Church) advances payment at the 
 same time she absolves; in other words, from the inexhaust- 
 ible mine or treasure composed of the satisfaction oi' Christ 
 and the Saints, she takes a portion equivalent in value to the 
 indulgence accorded, and applies it to the repentant sinner, 
 saying to him, at least in effect: 'Heboid, my child, you 
 have been released from a part, or the entire o\' the punish- 
 ment due to your sins ; your debt has been totally or par- 
 tially liquidated: Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the 
 Saints, have satisfied for you : be sure to testify your grati- 
 tude to them, particularly by the future amendment and 
 innocence of your life.*" 
 
95 
 
 How utterly unfair and misleading is your correspondent's 
 quotation of this Catholic writer! He makes him represent 
 an indulgence as a thing bought and sold for money, in view 
 of Maurel's very explicit assertions to the contrary. Again 
 he quotes from the same book on page 33 as follows : 
 " When a priest, in the tribunal of penance, absolves a peni- 
 tent from his faults and part of the temporal penalty, he 
 does not do so without any compensation." He throws the 
 last three words into large type-, evidently to convey the 
 idea that money payment is the prime condition of gaining 
 an indulgence, but again he mutilates Maurel's text and 
 meaning. He cuts a sentence in two, omitting in this case 
 its concluding and explanatory portion, which reads as fol- 
 lows : "for, to satisfy the Divine justice, he applies to that 
 soul the price of our Blessed Redeemer's precious blood." 
 And to bring out the full meaning of Maurel, J will add 
 what he says in the immediately following paragraphs : 
 
 "It is precisely the same in the case of indulgence-, because 
 through them as a means, the chief pastors of the Church 
 remit the temporal penalties due to sin, by paying them, if 
 the expression be allowable, with the satisfaction of Jesus 
 Christ and his Saints. For the inspired words of the great 
 Apostle admit of no exception : ' Without shedding of blood 
 there \* no remission.' (Heb. ix. 22.) This is also the 
 reason why the Church, in granting indulgences, by no means 
 intends to dispense us from every other obligation. Surely 
 it is not her design thereby to release us from the obligation 
 of doing penance, of carrying our cross in the footsteps of 
 Christ, and of uniting our satisfaction to his ; in fact, she 
 could not dispense us from these all-important duties." 
 
 Maurel never says one word about "the vicars of Christ" 
 selling indulgences, as your correspondent intimates. 
 
 He next quotes from page 40 of Maurel's book, and again 
 mutilates the paragraph from which he quotes. He makes it 
 appear that Maurel says the vicars of Christ "sell indul- 
 gences," and that in doing so they " invite us to contribute 
 
96 
 
 towards the propagation of the faith in distant pagan coun- 
 tries," etc. But let us read the full text of this passage 
 which he mangles from Ma lire 1 : 
 
 "Finally, it may be well to note that in granting (not 
 selling) indulgences the vicars of Christ grant (not sell) 
 them only for some pious ends that tend to advance the glory 
 of God and the salvation of souls. Thus, for example, they 
 invite us to contribute towards the propagation of the faith in 
 distant pagan countries," etc. 
 
 If your correspondent had paused in his jump from page 
 33 to 40 he would have found Maurel declaring as follows on 
 pages 36 and 37 : 
 
 "It has been objected by certain heretics, and even by 
 some Catholics unworthy of the name, that in unlocking her 
 spiritual treasures for her children, the Church merely paves 
 the way for relaxation. They have furthermore advanced 
 that the bestowal of indulgences is only a permission to sin 
 with impunity. We answer that this might be so, if, as our 
 enemies blush not to affirm, indulgence exonerated us from 
 the obligation of doing penance and of leading Christian 
 lives. But, should the very reverse be the case, then we are 
 justified in inferring that these rash, fickle-minded beings 
 blasphemously comment on what they are totally ignorant 
 of, or, at least, what they affect to ignore. We, moreover, 
 emphatically assert, that the conditions to be fulfilled in 
 order to gain indulgences would exact from most of these 
 libertines sacrifices from which their corrupt nature would 
 shrink with horror. . . . 
 
 "Yes, happily, it is beyond doubt that indulgences, be 
 they what they may, are not obtained without a spirit of 
 penance and a life of Christian virtue. As has been stated, 
 an Indulgence remits neither sin itself nor its eternal 
 penalty, but merely the temporal punishment not yet ex- 
 piated. Now this chastisement can be remitted only to 
 sinners already reconciled to God ; because, while the sinner 
 is at enmity with his Creator, there can be no indulgence 
 for him, since our Lord will never cancel the penalty of sin 
 as long as the sin itself subsists, or as long as the stain or 
 guilt is not blotted out. But, pursuant to the Catholic 
 teaching, which is expressly given down in the apostolic 
 
97 
 
 bulls, an indulgence can be acquired only by a heart that is 
 truly contrite and penitent. Vere pcenitentibus et confessis, 
 vere contritis ... by a soul in the friendship of God and 
 adorned with his grace." 
 
 These extracts certainly suffice to show that your corre- 
 spondent has grossly misrepresented the whole spirit and 
 meaning of what Maurel has written on the subject of indul- 
 gences. With these corrections of his misstatement of that 
 eminent Catholic writer, I leave him for the present. 
 
 I have left at the office of the Standard a copy of Maurel's 
 book, so that your readers may verify these extracts for 
 themselves. I reserve for later notice many other of your 
 correspondent's strange assertions on this question, and the 
 equally curious use he makes of other authorities whom he 
 quotes. 
 
 The doctrine of indulgences is, I may remark in closing, 
 one of the most frequently misunderstood and misrepre- 
 sented of Catholic doctrines. The very name " indulgence " 
 does something to mislead the non-Catholic mind. It is con- 
 stantly misconstrued to mean a compounding with sin itself, 
 and even with sin to be committed, whereas its meaning is 
 exactly the reverse, a remission, namely, after sincere 
 penance, of certain temporal penalties for sin, after the sin 
 itself and its eternal penalty have been forgiven. 
 
 Misapprehensions as grave as those may be pardoned to 
 honest ignorance ; but there is no excuse for misrepresenting 
 authorities. It is never the fair controversialist that has 
 recourse to garbled quotations. 
 
 I conclude by summarizing some of Swinton's errors about 
 indulgences. 
 
 1. Indulgences were never sold by authority of the 
 Church . 
 
 2. The Dominican friars did not obtain a monopoly of 
 the indulgences in Germany. 
 
98 
 
 3. Tetzel was not the agent of the Dominican friars, 
 but of the Archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg. 
 
 4. Luther made no serious or genuine attempt to have 
 the abuse of indulgences eliminated by the Archbishop of 
 Magdeburg, as he posted up his theses almost at the same 
 time that he sent his protest to the Archbishop. 
 
 5. Indulgences were never represented by the Church, 
 nor even by Tetzel, as pardons of the guilt of sin, or of the 
 eternal penalty. 
 
 6. The gainer of an indulgence was not said to be 
 released from all his sins thereby, nor from any of them. 
 
 R. J. Johnson. 
 
 THE FACTS ABOUT SWTNTON'S HISTORY. 
 
 LETTER OF THE REV. GEORGE W. COOKE. 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Feb. 9, 1889.] 
 
 IX. 
 
 History as taught by the Catholic Church. 
 
 The Catholics object to Swinton's w Outlines of History " ; 
 but what is it they would put in it place ? When we have 
 carefully considered that question, in the light of their own 
 interpretation of history, it is easy to see that it is not S win- 
 ton to which they object, so much as the facts, which they 
 would like to make other than they are. It is also perfectly 
 evident, in the light of their own methods of teaching, that 
 Swinton simply serves as an excuse for an attack on the 
 public schools. 
 
 "Would the Catholics substitute Anderson's "New Manual 
 of General History " for that of Swinton ? This they have 
 done in Boston ; but at the price of what dishonesty in the 
 author? This work was first published as a "Manual of 
 
99 
 
 General History," and it condemned the Catholics far more 
 severely than does Swinton, however Swinton may be 
 interpreted. In 1882 it was made over into the "New 
 Manual," and in such a way as to approve it to Catholics. 
 Every passage in the old book which condemned the teach- 
 ings and acts of the Catholic Church is omitted from the new 
 work. The old book said that under Louis IX., in France, 
 M the Inquisition was established in Toulouse, and all who 
 refused to conform to the tenets of the Church of Rome were 
 mercilessly punished." In the new book this passage is 
 omitted, because Catholics are very sensitive about the his- 
 tory of their Church. Another illustration of the changes 
 made is quite significant. It is that where, in the old book, 
 the reign of Philip II. is described as being noted for the 
 persecution of the Albigenses, and in the new as being noted 
 for the rise of the same people. 
 
 A careful comparison of the two works by Anderson 
 makes it evident that he has deliberately suppressed his own 
 opinions, in order to make a history acceptable to Catholics. 
 This appears very clearly when we consider his treatment of 
 the Reformation in the new volume. He does not attempt 
 in any way to indicate the causes of the Reformation ; these 
 he utterly ignores. Nothing is said of abuses, indulgences, 
 Leo X., or Tetzel. On page 598, in describing the reign of 
 Maximilian I. in Germany, he says : " It was in this reign 
 that Martin Luther published his famous ninety-five theses 
 against the doctrines of the Catholic Church (1517)." That 
 is the beginning and end of what he has to say about the 
 opening of the Reformation, and the causes leading thereto. 
 No explanation is given of the causes leading to Luther's act. 
 Those who have read the theses of Luther mu^t know that 
 they were not directed against the doctrines of the Catholic 
 Church, for Luther had not at this time rejected even one of 
 the doctrines. 
 
100 
 
 On page 599, Anderson informs the student that "From 
 the spread of Luther's tenets grew what is called the Refor- 
 mation. . . . Against the revocation of a decree of toleration 
 (1529), fifteen imperial cities and seven reigning princes, 
 including the Elector of Saxony, protested as being unjust 
 and oppressive ; and hence the followers of Luther were 
 afterwards called Protestants." This is what we are told 
 about one of the most momentous events in human history. 
 One page is devoted to this great period ! Why was it not 
 passed over entirely, rather than misrepresent it as Ander- 
 son has done? 
 
 It is when we look into the books prepared for the paro- 
 chial schools of the Catholic Church, that we learn how little 
 regard Catholics have for the facts of history. I have care- 
 fully examined ten of these books, including readers, geog- 
 raphies, and histories. Among these are several of the most 
 popular text-books now used in the parochial schools in this 
 country. Some of them are very good books, conscien- 
 tiously written and with an honest regard for truth ; but all 
 of them are written in the interests of Catholicism. They 
 are written with the purpose, even the best of them, of mak- 
 ing the Catholic Church appear to be the only true Church, and 
 as the only genuine cause of progress and civilization in the 
 world. In the Preface to the " Third Reader" of the Catho- 
 lic National Series of Text-Books, we are told by the com- 
 piler, Bishop Gilmour, of Cleveland, that this book, in 
 common with the other books of the series, " has one chief 
 characteristic, viz., a thoroughly Catholic tone, which will 
 be found to pervade the whole book." On examination this 
 statement is found to be true, for from first to last it is evi- 
 dent the book was prepared with the purpose of imbuing the 
 mind of the pupil with the Catholic conception of religion. 
 Saints, nuns, masses, and miracles are repeatedly the subjects 
 of the reading lessons ; and they are spoken of with the 
 
101 
 
 same confidence with which the Protestant would speak of 
 Jesus Christ. The frontispiece to this book is a picture of 
 the birds and beasts doing homage to St. Francis of Assisi ; 
 and it very well represents the general spirit of the book. 
 
 It is when we turn to the geographies and histories that 
 we learn how the Catholics deal with history in the instruc- 
 tion of their children. Sadlier's "History of the United 
 States " is a book prepared for the use of schools and col- 
 leges. In this book twenty-eight lines are devoted to Wash- 
 ington, and thirty-seven to Father Peter de Smet. Abraham 
 Lincoln has thirty lines, and nearly fifty are given to Arch- 
 bishop Hughes.* Certainly this method of dealing with his- 
 tory may have the effect of magnifying the Catholic Church ; 
 but it assuredly does not have the effect of keeping in mind 
 the true balance and proportion of history. The perspective 
 of history is utterly lost by this method, because it estimates 
 a man by the standard of his church connections, and not by 
 that of his real worth to civilization. That this book aims 
 solely at the magnifying of the Church in the minds of the 
 pupils, even at the expense of truth, may be readily under- 
 stood by reading two of its statements. They are these : 
 (1.) "The only systematic and successful attempts to civilize 
 and christianize the Indians were made by Catholic mission- 
 aries." (2.) "The Independence of the United States was, 
 in a great degree, secured by Catholic blood, talent, and treas- 
 ure." Every kind of evidence necessary to prove the falsity 
 of their statements is known to many intelligent persons. 
 They are made in the interest of sectarianism, and their false- 
 hood becomes all the more damnable for that reason. f 
 
 Another illustration of the way in which Catholics deal 
 
 * In Swinton's "World's History," the names of Washington and 
 Lincoln are not even mentioned at all. 
 
 t See note, of the Appendix, on Catholic Indian Missions, page 219; 
 also note, of the Appendix, on Catholic Aid to American Independence, 
 page 222. — R. J. J. 
 
102 
 
 frith history is afforded by Sadlier's "Excelsior Introduction 
 to Geography." This book was written by " :i Catholic 
 teacher," and it is intended for the use of those who are 
 beginning the study of geography. On page 28 a lesson is 
 devoted to the history and chief characteristics of the New 
 England States. I will quote the whole of that part of the 
 lesson devoted to the history of New England, as affording a 
 striking illustration of how Catholics use history to strengthen 
 the hold of their Church on the minds of children : 
 
 " What was the first settlement in the New England 
 States? —Jesuit Mission on Mount Desert Island (in 1612). 
 
 "By whom was the settlement destroyed? — By the 
 English. 
 
 "What people made a permanent settlement in Massachu- 
 setts in 1C20? — The Pilgrim Fathers. 
 
 "Who were they? — English Protestants; who, being 
 persecuted by their Protestant fellow country men, took ref- 
 uge in America. 
 
 * How did they act in their new home? — They proved 
 very intolerant, and persecuted all who dared to worship God 
 in a manner different from that which they had established." 
 
 This very popular book in the parochial schools never loses 
 an opportunity to magnify the Catholic Church and its priests. 
 In the lesson on the history of the United States there are 
 fifteen questions asked and answered, four of which relate to 
 Catholicism , and are as follows : 
 
 " Who were the first explorers of great portions of our 
 country ? — Catholic missionaries. 
 
 "Who discovered and explored the Upper Mississippi? — 
 Father Marquette, a Jesuit missionary. 
 
 " AY here, in many of the States, were the first settlements 
 formed? — Around the humble cross that marked the site of 
 a Catholic Mission. 
 
 "What Catholic nation very materially assisted the Amer- 
 icans during the Revolutionary War? — France. " # 
 
 That one of this series of geographies prepared for ad- 
 
103 
 
 vanced classes has the same conception of history as the 
 primary work. - On page 31 a brief history of each of the 
 New England States is given. The following is, in full, 
 what is said about the State of Maine : 
 
 "Maine, at the time of the discovery of America, was oc- 
 cupied by the Abnaki Indians. 
 
 "As early as 1012, a Jesuit mission for their conversion 
 was founded in Mount Desert Island ; but this settlement was 
 soon afterwards destroyed by the English. 
 
 "About thirty years later, the Abnakis sent a deputation of 
 chiefs to Quebec, to ask for a priest. Their petition was 
 granted ; and through the labors of Father Druillettes and 
 other Jesuits, this powerful tribe was converted. Even to 
 this day, the remnants of the tribe, occupying five villages 
 in Canada and Maine, are all Catholics. 
 
 "Maine was admitted to the Union in 1820." 
 
 On page 87 of the same book, it is asserted of Switzer- 
 land, that since 1846 "the Catholic cantons have been de- 
 prived of freedom in religious matters." This statement is 
 entirely untrue, for religious freedom is the law in all the 
 cantons, and the Catholics have all the privileges accorded 
 to Protestants. This, I suppose, is in harmony with the 
 statement of the Preface of this book, that it has been pre- 
 pared to supply a long-felt " want of a perfectly truthful 
 geography, one that would deal fairly and justly with Catho- 
 lic countries and Catholic peoples." * 
 
 Another series of Catholic text-books is the " Comprehen- 
 sive Geographies." In the second book of this series, sixty- 
 three lines are devoted to the history of the United States, 
 but thirty of them are given to the Catholic Church. This 
 is the way in which the deeds of the Church are magnified : 
 
 " .Maryland was settled by Catholics in 1634. They were 
 the first in the New World to proclaim equal rights to all 
 who professed to be Christians. 
 
 * See note, of the Appendix, on Oppression of the Catholic Church in 
 Switzerland, page 226. 
 
101 
 
 " Catholic missionaries, fired with zeal tor the conversion 
 of the [ndians, came in great numbers from Europe. 
 
 "The lives of these missionaries arc full of the most heroic 
 deeds. To convert the [ndians they endured the greatest 
 hardships and privations, and many of thorn suffered cruel 
 deaths. 
 
 " They explored the country from north to south and from 
 east to west ; discovered rivers, lakes, and waterfalls. 
 
 " They printed and published the. first hooks in America; 
 introduced the orange, the vine, and the sugar-cane at the 
 South ; raised the first wheat crops in Illinois; discovered 
 the sail springs of New York, and the oil springs of Penn- 
 sylvania." 
 
 It is not at all true, however, that equal rights in Mary- 
 land came because of the tolerant spirit of the Catholics, but 
 because they could not secure a charter on any other terms 
 than those which gave full recognition to the rights of Prot- 
 estants.* 
 
 The third hook of this series, page 13, attributes every 
 good thing which has been produced in Europe to the Cath- 
 olic Church. "All the great events that have permanently 
 influenced the world's history cluster around it, and on its 
 influence were directly or indirectly dependent." Here are 
 the eleven great labors accomplished by the Catholic Church, 
 as enumerated in this book : 
 
 " 1. The establishment of the chair of St. Peter at Home. 
 2. The triumph of Constantine. 3. The conversion of the 
 Franks. 4. The establishment of the religious orders. 
 ,"). The foundation of universities and great seats of learn- 
 ing, lb The triumph of Pope Gregory VIII. over Henry 
 IV. of Germany. 7. The crusades. 8. The extinction 
 of slavery in Europe. 9. The independence of the Italian 
 cities, secured by the resistance of Pope Alexander III. to 
 the Emperor Barbarossa. 10. The discovery of America, 
 due mainly to the profound faith of Columbus and the piety 
 of Queen Isabella. 11. Society in Europe, threatened both 
 
 * See note on Toleration in Maryland, on page 228 of the Appendix. 
 
LOS 
 
 with anarchy and despotism, by the Protestant Reformation 
 jn the sixteenth century, and by the French Revolution in Hie 
 eighteenth century, was preserved in great measure through 
 the influence of the Church, which upheld, within due lim 
 the principle of authority, as well as the right- of indi- 
 viduals." 
 
 We do not find he-re any mention of the Protestant Ref- 
 ormation as among the causes through which the world has 
 been advanced, but there are also omitted such important 
 influences a-, the Renaissance, the invention of printing, the 
 
 marvellous development of science, the great mechanical 
 inventions, the progress of popular education, and the estab- 
 lishment of methods of free inquiry in all departments of 
 knowledge. The world has been helped by such influences 
 as these, not through the aid of the Catholic Church, but in 
 spite of its opposition to them.* 
 
 Catholics are not modest, however, in putting forth their 
 claims for their Church, and Cilmour, in his "Bible History," 
 another favorite text-book in the parochial school-, ma 
 still more sweeping statements, for b< on page 298 of 
 
 that book; : 
 
 "Nearly all the present governments of Europe 
 formed during the Middle .Ages, with their languages and 
 laws. When we add to this the abolition of slavery in 
 Europe, the civilization of the barbarians, the softening of 
 manners, the elevation of women, the Magna Cbarta, trial 
 by jury, the habeas corpus, the common law, and the sanctity 
 of the home, all the direct result- of the teachings of the 
 Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, it will be seen that not 
 only the Church has been no obstacle to progress, either in 
 nee or art, but that to Catholic- is due the discovery of 
 nearly all the valuable invention- ire have. Carefully ex- 
 amined it will be seen that with the exception of the steam 
 engine and the railroad, little that is really new has been 
 discovered other than by Catholic* 
 
 note, on what Catholics have done for Science, in Appendix, page 
 232. 
 
106 
 
 These quotations have been multiplied in order to show 
 how thoroughly and constantly the Catholic text-books mis- 
 represent history in the interests of the Church. What is 
 complained of in Swinton's foot-note becomes the persistent 
 method of these books. George W. Cooke. 
 
 CATHOLIC MISREPRESENTATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM. 
 
 LETTER OF THE REV GEORGE W. COOKE. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Feb. 1G, 1889.] 
 
 X. 
 
 The main argument presented against Swinton's History 
 by Catholics is, that it misrepresents Catholicism and the 
 history of the Catholic Church. They demand historic ac- 
 curacy and the suppression of the sectarian spirit on the 
 part of Protestants. 
 
 Why should not the Catholics practise what they preach? 
 They preach accuracy and tolerance, but they do not carry 
 them into their own methods. They would seem to believe 
 that accuracy and tolerance are very much needed on the 
 part of Protestants in dealing with Catholics, but not on the 
 part of Catholics in dealing with Protestants. 
 
 In the school-books, the catechisms, and the histories 
 produced by Catholics, Protestantism is frequently and 
 grossly misrepresented. A pertinent illustration of this 
 may be found in Bishop Gilmour's ft Bible History," which is 
 " a compendium of church history for the use of Catholic 
 schools in the United States." From page 304 of this book 
 I quote two paragraphs, word for word : 
 
 "To make converts, Catholicity has ever appealed to 
 reason ; Protestantism, like Mohammedanism, to force and 
 violence. In England and Scotland, Protestantism was 
 forced upon the people by tines, imprisonment, and death ; 
 in Germany and Prussia, Sweden, and Denmark, and Nor- 
 
107 
 
 way, the same. In America the Puritans acted in like 
 manner. 
 
 " Protestantism began with r an open Bible and free inter- 
 pretation,' and has ended in division and disbelief. By the 
 above principle every one becomes judge of what he will or 
 will not believe. Hence among Protestants there are almost 
 as many religions as there are individuals, the churches 
 divided and torn into pieces, ending in infidelity and Mor- 
 monism. On the other hand, Catholicity remains ever the 
 same, because Catholicity is truth, and truth changes not." 
 
 On page 309 some of these charges are repeated in a more 
 emphatic manner : 
 
 w In the Protestant world faith is rapidly passing away, to 
 be replaced by indifference or positive hostility to religion. 
 The sects have lost their power, are divided and torn among 
 themselves, their only bond of unity being a common hos- 
 tility to Catholicity. The Protestant world seems to have 
 lost confidence in revelation to save the world, and is falling 
 back upon education, hoping that men will be saved by a 
 knowledge of science without religion, forgetting, seem- 
 ingly, that man is a spiritual being and needs religion to 
 purify and guide, and keep his unruly passions subject to 
 reason." 
 
 It is astonishing that a Church which for centuries made 
 use of the Inquisition, should charge Protestantism with 
 making converts by the means of force.* That a Church 
 
 * The implied accusation that the Church authorized the Inquisition to 
 make use of force in making converts is untrue; it is simply an anti-Catho- 
 lic campaign lie. Very extraordinary misconceptions obtain as to the rela- 
 tion which the Church held to the Spanish Inquisition. 
 
 Leopold von Ranke, whom Mr. Cooke himself (page 76) calls "the 
 greatest of Church historians," and characterizes as " never sectarian," 
 " always moderate and perfectly fair," says in his " History of the Popes " 
 (Vol. II., page 422) : " The Roman Court would not hear of conversions 
 effected by armed apostles. It was not of such methods that Christ 
 availed himself ; men must be led to the temple but not dragged into it." 
 The same author, in his work, " The Ottoman and Spanish Empires in the 
 Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," says : "The Inquisition was a royal 
 court of judicature . . . the inquisitors were royal officers. The kings 
 had the right of appointing and dismissing them. ... It was in spirit and 
 
108 
 
 guilty of the massacre of St. Bartholomew should charge 
 another with violence, is of all things strange and unseemly.* 
 And why should not Catholics look at home for infidelity 
 and unbelief? The thinking men of France, its legislators, its 
 political economists, its editors, its scientists, its writers and 
 poets, are almost without exception men who openly reject 
 what the Church teaches. It is so in Italy ; it is so in every 
 progressive Catholic country without exception. The intel- 
 ligence of the European world to-day is not on the side of 
 
 tendency, above all, a political institution. The Pope had an interest in 
 the thwarting of it; and he did so, and as often as he could. But the 
 king had an interest in constantly upholding it." 
 
 Cardinal Manning, who certainly knows what the teaching and spirit of 
 the Catholic Church is, declares that " faith is an act of the will, and that 
 to force men to profess what they do not believe is contrary to the law of 
 God, and that to generate faith by force is morally impossible." 
 
 According to these authorities (and Guizot supports Ranke), it is evi- 
 dent that the Church did not make converts by force and was not at all 
 responsible for the evil doings of the Inquisition. — R. J. J. 
 
 * This is another of Mr. Cooke's libels of the Catholic Church. There 
 is no truth in the scandalous imputation here made. The St. Bartholomew 
 massacre has been execrated by Catholics equally with Protestants. 
 
 Guizot says that when Pope Gregory XIII. learned the full truth about 
 the massacre, he expressed his horror of the deed, even to tears. (Guizot's 
 History of France, Vol. IV., page 384.) 
 
 Even the partisan Baird, of whose work the Church Quarterly Beview 
 (Protestant) says that, " On every page his innate and irrepressible sym- 
 pathy . . . with the Reformers, rather than with the Roman Catholics, is 
 open and undisguised," declares (Vol. II., page 564) that " Contrary to the 
 firm persuasion of the Protestants, who wrote contemporary accounts of 
 the massacre, we must, in all probability, . . . acquit Gregory XIII. 
 of any knowledge of the disaster impending over the Admiral and the 
 Huguenots." 
 
 J. Gilmary Shea, in his article on this subject, says that even the London 
 Athenaeum has made "the admission that the common view of St. Bai*- 
 tholomew massacre is one of the great historical errors which has been 
 transmitted from teachers to taught during a long course of years." 
 
 Summing up the whole testimony on this subject of the St. Barthol- 
 omew massacre, a Catholic writer says : "The accusation that the Cath- 
 olic Church was in any way guilty of the massacre has not only no 
 grounds, but no shadow of a ground to rest upon, and is the pure inven- 
 tion of a stupid and malignant bigotry, regardless alike of rational prob- 
 ability and of historical truth." 
 
109 
 
 the Catholic Church. This may be seen very clearly in the 
 attitude of the legislators of such countries as France, Aus- 
 tria, and Italy, countries which deal with education and all 
 kindred subjects from a purely secular point of view. It is 
 in countries such as these, where there is a nominal accept- 
 ance of Catholicism, that infidelity is working the greatest 
 evils.* 
 
 A book in use in the parochial schools is the "Modern 
 History," by the Rev. P. F. Gazeau. It gives an account 
 of the Reformation, and one that misrepresents every part 
 taken in it by the reformers. Can one read these words, 
 from pages 62 to 65, without feeling that the spirit of toler- 
 ance and historic justice is not here? 
 
 * This is another exhibition of Mr. Cooke's brilliant gift of dogmatic 
 assertion. The reader already knows with what ease and grace he makes the 
 most serious and, if true, alarming statements, without offering any proof 
 in their support. " The thinking men of France are almost without excep- 
 tion men who openly reject what the Church teaches." Who says so? Mr. 
 Cooke, of Dedham, says so. Does he cite any authority or give us any 
 statistics to confirm this very grave assertion? Naturally, this is quite un- 
 necessary. Does not Mr. Cooke, of Dedham, carry the critical and reli- 
 gious census of France about with him? Does he not know, by intuition, the 
 religious views of all the French legislators, editors, scientists, and poets? 
 And are not the rest of the " thinking men " of that country all catalogued 
 in his roomy and clairvoyant mind? Therefore, he can tell us, with a con- 
 fidence which makes corroborative authority quite superfluous, that they 
 are all anti-Catholics. " The intelligence of the European world to-day is 
 not on the side of the Catholic Church," is Mr. Cooke's decision, and it 
 would be unseemly to press for any evidence to sustain so conclusive a 
 judgment. What is the use of a mind so authoritative, a judgment so 
 conclusive as Mr. Cooke's, if, whenever he pronounces upon questions 
 like these, he is to be asked to give references and authorities? It is true 
 that writers of high repute, many of them resident in Europe (which some 
 would say was a better place of observation for this purpose than Ded- 
 ham), as well as ample statistics, declare that the Catholic Church is not 
 losing but gaining ground, not in Europe only but all over the world. 
 But when Mr. Cooke dives down into the somewhat turbid deep of his 
 inner consciousness and brings up a glittering pearl of truth, who shall 
 presume to talk about dull facts and authorities? If facts and authorities 
 are at variance with Mr. Cooke's discoveries, so much the worse for the 
 facts! — R. J. J. 
 
110 
 
 " Wicked men are always disposed to rebel against author- 
 ity. The sale of indulgences and the word 'reform' were 
 simply made the pretext by the able but unprincipled Luther 
 for the outburst of the storm that was to devastate Europe 
 and break, up the spiritual unity of Christendom. . . . He 
 caught the ear of his audience by appealing to a false spirit 
 of nationality, abusing Rome and the pope, and flattering 
 the national pride of intellect. His doctrines, of which, 
 justification by faith alone, without good works, formed the 
 basis, spread like wildfire and created immense commotion. 
 At a time when laxity of morals widely prevailed, to tell 
 men that, provided they believe in Christ, it mattered little 
 what they did, was to justify all evil actions. . . . The pre- 
 tended reformer respected the laws of morality no more than 
 those of justice: he permitted Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, 
 in defiance of the express prohibition of Jesus Christ, to 
 have two wives at the same time, nor did he himself scruple 
 to commit the double sacrilege of marrying a nun. To jus- 
 tify his enormities he said that he was inspired by Heaven, 
 and openly vented his spleen on the Sovereign Pontiff and 
 other champions of the faith. No one can peruse without a 
 blush of shame and indignation the coarse jests, the buffoon- 
 ery, and the indecencies with which his works are sullied ; 
 and it is difficult to conceive how such a leader could have 
 found followers, were it not known what power passion, 
 pride, money, and pleasure have over the human heart." 
 
 This is the man Martin Luther becomes when his history 
 is taught in the parochial schools ! No Protestant thinks 
 Luther was a perfect man, but surely he was no such man 
 as this. Genuine history has not made him thus to appear. 
 The evidence is abundant which proves he was no pretender, 
 no lover of evil, no self-seeker. He stands out in history as 
 one of the most honest, sincere, and heart-whole among men, 
 whatever may be said by Gazeau or any other writer of 
 parochial text-books. 
 
 Here is "The Catechism of Perseverance," another favorite 
 book among Catholics. It has this to say about Protestants : 
 
 "In order to know that Protestantism is a false religion, 
 or rather no religion at all, it will be sufficient simply to 
 
Ill 
 
 bear in mind : First, that it was established by four great 
 libertines ; second, that it owes its origin to the love of 
 honors, covetousness of goods of others, and the love of sen- 
 sual pleasures, three things forbidden by the gospel; third, 
 that it permits you to believe whatever you please, and to 
 do whatever you believe ; fourth, that it has caused immense 
 evils, deluged Germany, France, Switzerland, and England 
 with blood ; it leads to impiety, and finally to indifference, 
 the source of all revolutions past and present. We must, 
 therefore, be on our guard against those who preach it, and 
 cherish a horror for the books which disseminate it." 
 
 I am inclined to think these quotations prove that Cath- 
 olics write history in such a manner that their own Church is 
 made to appear always in the right. Protestantism is mis- 
 represented, its doctrines perverted, and its defects exagger- 
 ated. This being the case, it does not appear well for Cath- 
 olics to complain of Swinton. Their worst charges against 
 him, if all true, would not compare with the misrepresenta- 
 tion and sectarianism to be found in many of the Catholic 
 text-books. History is taught in the parochial schools with 
 a distinctly sectarian purpose, with a purpose of making the 
 pupils Catholics and devotedly attached to the Church. 
 
 The quotations taken from the Catholic school-books have 
 been multiplied in order to convince the reader that what 
 has been complained of in these books is a characteristic in- 
 herent in the very method of all which have been mentioned. 
 It is not so much complained that the statements put forth 
 in these books are untrue, as that they distort history by 
 neglecting its true proportions.* Have none of the Protes- 
 tant bodies done anything in the United States ? One would 
 
 * Mr. Cooke must excuse Catholics if they decline to accept his judg- 
 ment as to what is or is not a good historical text-book. A man who, 
 after carefully reading it, found Swinton's book accurate and impartial, 
 and offered to substantiate every word of it " by a consensus of unbiased 
 historians," — which, in view of the many gross errors which Protestant 
 authorities acknowledge it to contain, is an obvious absurdity, — cannot 
 expect Catholics to defer to him as a critic of any historical text-book, 
 "whether used in parochial or public schools. — R. J. J. 
 
112 
 
 not get the least idea that they had done any good work 
 whatever by the reading of these books. Everything good 
 in them, every word of praise, is reserved for Catholics. 
 For one, I am not in the least inclined to minimize the noble 
 work of the Jesuits in the exploration and development of 
 America ; but I cannot forget that others did as much or 
 more. What I believe in is, the recognition of all historic 
 truth, so far as we can find it out ; and the teaching of it to 
 our children. Let us have the truth of history, whoever it 
 may show to have been in fault in the past.* Now the teach- 
 ing of history to support our own party can be only an evil,, 
 for it perverts the mind and it takes away from history the 
 lessons it ought to teach us. 
 
 Not only did the Catholics accomplish much in the colonial 
 days of the United States, but the Puritans, the Friends, 
 the Baptists, the Moravians, and other religious bodies also 
 accomplished much. Some of these denominations, notably 
 the Friends and the Moravians, did much for the Indians ; 
 but they did it in a more peaceable and a more Christian 
 spirit than was shown by the Catholics. The Catholic text- 
 books utterly ignore these other denominations, and say not 
 one word of their good deeds. This may be an unpreju- 
 diced and truthful way of writing and teaching history ; but 
 I am not able so to understand it. To me it seems a most 
 pernicious way, and a way calculated to pervert the minds 
 of children, and to make men and women suppose that to be 
 truth which is not truth. 
 
 Then again, why should there be Catholic histories, 
 geographies, readers, grammars, and arithmetics? Suppos- 
 
 * Yes, by all means let us have the truth of history, but Mr. Cooke will 
 never succeed in palming off his crude and uninformed conceptions of " the 
 truth of history" as the genuine thing itself. "The truth of history " is 
 accessible, but Mr. Cooke has not gone to the right sources for it ; it is- 
 not to be found in the " No-Popery " leaflets. — R. J. J. 
 
113 
 
 ing every religious body prepared its own text-books, and 
 that Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Congregatioualists, 
 and Universalists, with each of the other denominations, as 
 well as Mormons, Spiritualists, and Ingersollites, all pre- 
 pared school-books to agree with their own special teachings. 
 AVe can easily conceive what this would lead to ; that it 
 would destroy the school system of the country ; that it would 
 vastly increase the ignorance with which we have to contend, 
 and that it would, worst of all, foster the spirit of sectari- 
 anism until it became everywhere the ruling power in our 
 land. This is a result Protestants do not desire. Do Cath- 
 olics desire it? It would seem so by the books from which 
 they teach their children, — books that are calculated to make 
 devoted Catholics, but not to make intelligent men and 
 women or faithful citizens of a free country. 
 
 George W. Cooke. 
 
 MR. COOKE'S LETTERS REVIEWED. 
 
 NON-FULFILMENT OF HIS PROMISE TO SUBSTANTIATE EVERY WORD 
 IN SWINTOX'S TEXT-BOOK. — REV. R. J. JOHNSON RECALLS THE 
 DISCUSSION TO THE TRUE ISSUE. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, Feb. 23, 1889. J 
 
 In any serious discussion the time comes when it is neces- 
 sary to hold one's opponent to the essential question at 
 issue, and to recall him from the side questions which have 
 no bearing upon it, but which are so easily brought into a 
 debate to the confusion of argument. 
 
 I have been an attentive reader of the letters that the Rev. 
 George W. Cooke has written in the attempted fulfilment 
 of his purpose to show "that Swinton has not been unjust 
 to the Catholic Church, and that he does not misrepresent its 
 teachings of the Reformation era," and I have been im- 
 pressed, first of all, with the dexterity shown by this adroit 
 
114 
 
 disputant in shifting the ground of controversy, so as to 
 almost completely change the issue between us. Let me 
 recall to your readers exactly what he promised in his letter 
 of Dec. 22 to- show. These are his words : "I believe the fact 
 is that Swinton understates rather than overstates the case 
 against the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation." 
 Observe, please, that it is Swinton's ease "against the 
 Catholic Church" that, Dec. 22, your correspondent calls 
 "understated." Then came his promise : 
 
 " Since the question has been raised by Mr. Johnson, I 
 propose to say something at another time on the subject of 
 indulgences, with the purpose of showing that Swinton has 
 not been unjust to the Catholic Church, and that he does not 
 misrepresent its teachings of the Reformation era. What the 
 Catholic Church teaches now is not the question in contro- 
 versy, but what it taught at the time of Luther. Aconscnsus 
 of unbiased historians will prove that Luther had just cause 
 for the protest he made aga inst the corrupt ions of the Church. 
 Such a consensus will substantiate every word contained in 
 Swinton's History." 
 
 The emphasis above used is mine. I desire to direct 
 special attention to the emphatic words ; and first, let us 
 observe just what it was that your correspondent, on Dec. 
 22, plainly had "the purpose of showing." He was to show, 
 as you see, that Swinton hud not been " unjust to the Catholic 
 Church" and that he "does not misrepresent its teachings." 
 He was to show that Swinton correctly states " what it 
 taught" — that is, the Church — "at the time of Luther." 
 
 That was the intention, and it could not have been stated 
 in clearer terms. It was the Catholic Church and its teach- 
 ings that were to be shown to be justly and fairly repre- 
 sented in Swinton's book. But in the very first letter of the 
 series in which this was to be done, I find instead that your 
 correspondent practically abandons the effort to do so, and 
 seeks to give an entirely new direction to the controversy. 
 In this first letter of the series (published Jan. 19), this 
 
115 
 
 dexterous disputant, who, a month earlier, was going to jus- 
 tify Swinton's statements about indulgences as fairly repre- 
 senting the Catholic Church's teaching, discovers instead that 
 Swinton did not mean his statements to he taken as repre- 
 senting the teaching of the Church itself at all, but only as 
 representing the teaching of "some of its over-zealous mem- 
 bers." Hear him on Jan. 19 : 
 
 "This is Swinton's account of the origin of Protestantism, 
 and the foot-note is the chief cause of complaint by the Cath- 
 olics. A careful and fair-minded reading of the whole pas- 
 sage, as cited, together with the loot-note," ought to make it 
 evident that Swinton does not say that the Church taught, as 
 one of its doctrines, that ' the purchaser of indulgence was 
 delivered from all his sins.' His language bears the fair in- 
 terpretation that he charged this teaching, not upon the 
 Church, but upon some of its over-zealous members. When 
 all that he says about the Catholic Church is taken into con- 
 sideration, and the liberality with which he speaks of it 
 everywhere else, this interpretation is the only one which 
 can justly be given to his words. With this interpretation, 
 which ought to be accepted, when there is no good reason for 
 any other, the charge against Swinton falls to the ground." 
 
 The essential difference between what your correspondent 
 promised to show us in December, 1888, and what he tried 
 to show us in January, 1881), is at once apparent. At the 
 former date he declared that Mr. Swinton had understated 
 "the case against the Catholic Church," and that his note on 
 indulgences "did not misrepresent its teachings of the Refor- 
 mation era." At the latter date your correspondent finds 
 that Mr. Swinton, in the same note, did not refer at all to 
 the teaching of the Church, but only to "some of its over- 
 zealous members." There are twenty-eight 'lays between 
 Dec. 22 and Jan. 19. It is a fair inference, and one 
 that is creditable to your correspondent's thirst for knowl- 
 edge, that during that interval he had begun to read the 
 history of the Lutheran era, and had convinced himself 
 
116 
 
 that Swinton's statements could not be defended if they were 
 taken as definitive of the Catholic Church's teaching. Hence, 
 with admirable agility, he lets himself down to the milder 
 position that Swinton's statements are all right, if they 
 are interpreted not to apply to the Church (as he said 
 on Dec. 22 last), but merely to " some of its over-zealous 
 members." Facllis descensus. The abandonment of the 
 original contention might have been made with more frank- 
 ness, but not with more facility. Mr. Cooke is hardly 
 ingenuous, but he is certainly ingenious. 
 
 Less ingenuous and not nearly so ingenious, as it seems to 
 me, is the next effort of your correspondent. Immediately 
 after insisting that Swinton's foot-note about indulgences does 
 not refer to the Church's teaching, nor correctly represent it, 
 he seeks to show that Svvinton does give " a true interpreta- 
 tion of the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in 
 the matter of indulgences." Now if a thing is black it can- 
 not be white, and if white, it is not black. Swinton no- 
 where gives an interpretation of the teaching and practice of 
 the Catholic Church in the matter of indulgences, except in 
 the foot-note complained of by Catholics as misrepresenting 
 the teaching of their Church. Now your correspondent 
 insists that this note does not charge this teaching upon the 
 Church, but only " upon some of its members." How, if 
 that be the case, can he, with any regard to reason or logic, 
 cite authorities to show that Swinton "gives a true interpre- 
 tation of the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, 
 in the matter of indulgences"? Nowhere in the "Outlines," 
 except in this note, is any definition given of indulgences ; 
 and this foot-note, we are now assured, does not refer to the 
 Church's teaching, but merely to that of " some of its over- 
 zealous members." And yet, right on the heels of this dec- 
 laration, we are invited to listen to authorities who endorse 
 Swinton as divine: " a true interpretation " of the teaching and 
 
117 
 
 practice, not of " some of its over-zealous members," but of 
 "the Catholic Church." This is the same thing as it would 
 be for a man charged with homicide to set up two conflicting 
 pleas at the same time : first, an alibi, that he was no- 
 where near the scene of the crime ; and secondly, that he 
 killed the man in self-defence. If Swinton does not state 
 the Catholic Church's teaching at all in his foot-note, that is 
 one thing. If he gives " a true interpretation " of it, that is 
 quite another thing. But your correspondent claims almost 
 in the same breath that Swinton does and does not ; first, 
 that the foot-note does not refer to the Church's teaching at all, 
 and then that it " gives a true interpretation " of that teaching. 
 
 I am sure that my readers will sympathize with me in the 
 peculiar difficulties of dealing with a controversialist who 
 faces two opposite ways at once. I will try, however, to 
 accommodate myself to the contrariety of his arguments. 
 And first, setting aside for the time being his asseveration 
 that the foot-note does not refer to the Church's teaching, let 
 us look at the authorities by which your correspondent would 
 show that the note is entirely right, and does represent with 
 fairness and justice the teaching of the Church. 
 
 Mr. Edwin D. Mead is first cited as saying "that this note 
 states the substantial truth of history." * Rev. Dr. A. A. 
 Miner is next cited as saying that " its definition of indul- 
 gences is undeniably correct." f Then follows a quotation 
 from a petition signed by several ministers and laymen of the 
 Evangelical Alliance (a body upon whose strict impartiality 
 and freedom from sectarian bias your correspondent, strangely 
 enough, omits to insist !), in which it is said that " the para- 
 graph which led to the book's ejection contained a true state- 
 ment of history." This is another square endorsement of the 
 foot-note complained of t»y Catholics for its injustice to their 
 
 * See foot-note on page 55. t See foot-note on page 66. 
 
118 
 
 faith. The petition of the Evangelical Alliance, thus referred 
 to, prayed for a restoration of the text-book in the Boston 
 schools, and gave these three reasons for this restoration : 
 
 1. The book has had a long and honorable tenure of our 
 public schools (ten years' use). 
 
 2. The paragraphs and foot-note, on account of which the 
 book has been rejected, contain a true statement of history. 
 
 l 3. The book ejected is upon the expurgatory lists of 
 books of a certain religious sect. 
 
 The Boston Post, a paper that is well known to be under 
 able Protestant editorial direction, and that cannot be sus- 
 pected of showing any undue regard for Catholic interests, 
 comments, in its issue of Sept. 29, 1888, upon these three 
 reasons of the Evangelical Alliance, as follows : 
 
 "The first and third reasons put forward by the Evangeli- 
 cal Alliance do not require much consideration. The first 
 amounts to saying that no abuse of long standing should be 
 corrected : and the third, the argument that a particular book 
 should be used in a non-sectarian school, because it is par- 
 ticularly objectionable to a certain number of our citizens, is 
 so unreasonable as to be almost humorous. The second 
 objection is not one whit more fair. It is undeniable, indeed, 
 that the foot-note stating that an indulgence has been r repre- 
 sented as a permission to commit sin," contains a true state- 
 ment o( history, for such representations have falsely so 
 been made. But how would the members of the Evangelical 
 Alliance relish the following statements in the foot-note of a 
 school text-book? — 'Luther is represented to have turned 
 reformer because he was enraged that the selling of indul- 
 gences had not been committed to his order alone/ Such an 
 account of the Reformation would, oi' course, be misleading 
 to the last degree, and yet precisely this representation has 
 been made, and not by Catholic authority either, but by an 
 English writer of world-wide reputation." 
 
 The remarks of the Post on the petition which your cor- 
 respondent cites to sustain his position leave nothing more 
 to be said on that point, and 1 pass on to the next. The 
 Evangelist is next cited by him as saying of Swinton's foot- 
 note that " it seems to us a very fair statement of the facts 
 
119 
 
 of the pardoner's trade as it existed at the time." But that 
 opinion does not so much as touch the point at issue, which 
 is, not whether the foot-note states "the facts of the par- 
 doner's trade at the time," but whether it states the teaching 
 of the Catholic Church at that time, or at any time. The 
 next quotation by your correspondent is from the .Congrega- 
 tionalist of Nov. 29, which said: 
 
 ' f The general estimate of the Inquisition which it presents, 
 and most of its special declarations, are historically correct, 
 and ought to be taught." 
 
 But this quotation in no way bears upon the disputed point. 
 "The general estimate of the Inquisition " is not what we 
 are discussing ; the doctrine of the Catholic Church on indul- 
 gences is the subject of controversy. The Congregationalufs 
 opinion on indulgences has been squarely given, however, 
 and here it is : 
 
 "The question, what did the purchasers of indulgences in 
 Luther's day actually represent them to be? is exciting con- 
 siderable interest in Boston because of the transfer by the 
 School Committee of a High School instructor from the 
 department of history, for teaching, among other things, 
 that in process of time they were represented as actual par- 
 dons of guilt, and the purchaser of an indulgence was said 
 to be delivered from all his sins. The book, 'Swinton's Out- 
 lines of History,' in which this passage is found, has also 
 been removed from the schools. It will be seen by any one 
 who consults Dr. Fisher'.-; able exposition of the subject, on 
 the first page, that the sentence just quoted is one of those 
 inaccurate and misleading generalizations which are to be 
 found in too many of our short school histories. That there 
 were flagrant abuses connected with the sale of indulgences, 
 is acknowledged by all fair-minded Catholic historians; but 
 that any accredited authority of the Roman Church was accus- 
 tomed to commend these indulgences as pardons of guilt, is 
 an assertion unsupported by the facts of history. In our 
 controversy with Catholics, we have strong ground, and 
 there is no occasion to weaken our position by an over-state- 
 ment, not to say mis-statement, of the evils historically con- 
 nected with the Roman Church." 
 
120 
 
 Your correspondent, in his letter of Jan. 19, commends 
 the Congregational ist as " another able religious journal," and 
 I am encouraged to hope, therefore, that he will give some 
 weight to its view above quoted. R. J. Johnson. 
 
 OTHER AUTHORITIES EXAMINED. 
 
 THE " CONSENSUS OF UNBIASED HISTORIANS." 
 [From theJDedhani Standard, March 2, 1889.] 
 
 In my last I reviewed some of the arguments and authori- 
 ties by which your correspondent has recently sought to 
 prove the unprovable and establish the impossible ; namely, 
 that the Catholic Church of Luther's time, or any other time, 
 represented that " an indulgence was a pardon of guilt," and 
 that " the purchaser of indulgences was said to be free from 
 all sins." In the present letter I will further discuss the 
 arguments which he draws from his citations. 
 
 The Boston Transcript is his next authority ; and but for 
 one circumstance, your correspondent would be fairly enough 
 entitled to whatever weight the opinion of that journal has. 
 Since expressing the opinion which he quoted from its col- 
 umns, the Transcript has published severely critical notices 
 of the text-book in question in its issues of Feb. 4 and 8, in 
 which many errors which it contains are pointed out. Thus 
 the Transcript has practically receded from its defence of 
 Swinton's " Outlines." As to its early position the Tran- 
 script took the same point of view as that of the Evangelical 
 Alliance. 
 
 The Boston Record is also cited in favor of Swinton, but I 
 do not find in its editorial columns for June 20 the opinion 
 attributed to it by your correspondent. But the Advertiser 
 of that date, which is the Record's morning issue, and is con- 
 ducted by the same editors, has given its opinion very em- 
 phatically to the contrary. Contrasting Swinton's " Outlines " 
 
121 
 
 with Prof. Fisher's "Outlines," the Advertiser has editorially 
 said : 
 
 " Those people who are crying out against the School 
 Board for its action in voting to drop from the list of text- 
 books Swinton's ' Outlines of the World's History,' would do 
 well to consider whether they would be willing to have a text- 
 book used in the public schools of Boston which could be 
 made the basis of a slanderous misrepresentation of the various 
 religious sects to which they are attached. ... A reader of 
 Swinton would conclude that it was the Roman Catholic 
 Church by which these indulgences f in process of time' came 
 to be f represented as actual pardons of guilt ' ; while the 
 reader of Fisher would understand that this impression was 
 created in the popular mind solely by the way in which 'the 
 business was managed in Germany at the time.' an under- 
 standing confirmed by everything that this most eminent 
 church historian has written on the subject ; an understand- 
 ing sanctioned by every Protestant writer of recognized 
 authority in Europe and America." 
 
 Your correspondent next refers to the Boston Herald of 
 July 14 last, which paper he quotes as saying that Swinton's 
 statement as to indulgences " is fully sustained by all acknowl- 
 edged authorities." But by reference to the file of the 
 Herald, for that date, I find that this opinion does not appear 
 at all in its editorial columns. It is copied from a news 
 article, into which it was injected by an anonymous writer 
 for whose views the Herald cannot be held responsible. 
 
 By what canon, either of ethics or of fair play, does your 
 correspondent come to quote a reporter's remark as if it were 
 the editorial utterance of a great newspaper? This, cer- 
 tainly, is not quite within the rules of legitimate discussion. 
 The Boston Herald is, however, on record in its editorial 
 column on this subject, as follows : 
 
 "It shows the correctness of the action of the Boston 
 School Committee, in the matter of Mr. Swinton's History, 
 that nearly the whole religious press, without regard to 
 creed, sustains their position, so far as it is plain they are 
 
122 
 
 against sectarianism in the schools. It seems to be the 
 settled conviction of different people that absolute impar- 
 tiality of creed be reached in these schools ; and now that 
 the smoke of this contest has cleared away, it is gratifying 
 to find that the School Committee has the substantial endorse- 
 ment of those who are not only quick to detect anything 
 wrong, but good weather signs of the feeling among the 
 conservative and thoughtful citizens." 
 
 The above editorial opinion of the Herald appears in an issue 
 of later date (Oct. 7) than that from which your correspond- 
 ent quotes a reporter's paragraph, so that we are certainly 
 justified in assuming that this is its best considered judg- 
 ment, if, indeed, the paragraph printed outside of its edito- 
 rial columns of July 14 can be regarded as in any sense 
 giving the opinion of the paper. 
 
 I now come to a statement of your correspondent which 
 must have amazed your readers, as it did me when I first 
 read it. He says that " in the Boston Globe of Oct. 6, 1888,* 
 was printed an interview with Vicar-General Byrne, a lead- 
 ing Catholic official, who declared Swinton does not misrep- 
 resent the Catholic Church in what he says about indul- 
 gences." This was news to me, — news of the kind to 
 which the newspapers put the familiar head-line, "Impor- 
 tant, if true." Your correspondent quotes from the Vicar- 
 General's Globe interview a passage in which he says that 
 Swinton is not open to the charge of having stated in his 
 "Outlines " that an indulgence was a license to commit sin. 
 The quotation is misleading, because it is taken out of its 
 connection with what goes before and follows after, in the 
 Globe interview-. But I will let the Vicar-General himself 
 expose the injustice which your correspondent does him. I 
 have received from him the following letter : 
 
 * It appeared in the Globe of Oct. 7, 1688. — E. J. J. 
 
123 
 
 No. 6 Allen Street, 
 
 Boston, Jan. 19, 1889. 
 Eev. R. J. Johnson : 
 
 Reverend and Dear Sir, — I notice that Mr. George W. 
 Cooke quotes rne as saying that " Swinton does not misrep- 
 resent the Catholic Church in what he says about indulgence." 
 This is not true. In the interview he quotes from he might 
 have seen that I say that " The true and all-sufficient objec- 
 tion to Swinton's 'Outlines' is, that he says, or implies, that 
 indulgences came to be regarded as pardons for sin." His 
 foot-note is, in fact, worse than this, as he says : " Indul- 
 gences came in time to be represented as pardons of sin." 
 The inevitable inference from this is that they were so rep- 
 resented by the authority of the Church. 
 
 The mistake I absolve Swinton from is the vulgar error 
 that indulgences are licenses to commit sin, which he is more 
 fortunate than some text-book compilers in escaping. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 William Byrne, V. G. 
 
 It seems to me that, in the face of such a palpable attempt 
 to misquote and distort the views actually expressed by the 
 Vicar-General, I ought to quote at some length from his 
 interview in order to show how utterly in conflict those views 
 are with the opinions sought to be put upon him by your 
 correspondent. Said Vicar-General Byrne to the Globe 
 interviewer : 
 
 "The true objection and the all-sufficient objection to 
 Swinton's book is, that he says, or implies, that indulgences 
 came to be regarded as pardons for sin that could be pur- 
 chased for money, even by those who had no notion of 
 changing their lives or abandoning their sinful courses. 
 Such a general and sweeping statement as that is not and 
 never was true. That there might be found a few here and 
 there ignorant enough and stupid enough to think so, I 
 admit. But these few do not justify any school historian in 
 making such a statement, so well calculated to shock and 
 scandalize the little ones of the Catholic faith. The injury 
 that may be done to the faith in immature minds by a gen- 
 eral statement of that kind is incalculable, and makes us 
 
121 
 
 shudder to think how much mischief this text-book may 
 have done in years gone by, and convinces us more and 
 more that the Catholic authorities of this diocese have begun 
 none too soon to take measures to protect Catholic children 
 from such false and damaging teaching. Wiry, it is one of 
 the most barefaced attempts that I ever saw, to use the pub- 
 lic schools for the purpose of bringing the Catholic Church 
 into odium and contempt, and thus play into the hands of 
 the sects, in professedly non-sectarian schools. I do not see 
 liow the true friends of the public schools — and they are in 
 the majority — can help approving of the action of the School 
 Board and sustaining that body." 
 
 In conclusion he said : " One thing is certain : Swinton * 
 never charged Tetzel with giving this false definition of an 
 indulgence." 
 
 The reader who has followed these letters in the columns 
 of the Standard will see that the last three lines of the in- 
 terview were quoted by your correspondent, omitting all that 
 goes before, and were quoted in such conjunction with the 
 paragraph that went immediately before the above quotation 
 as to leave the net impression on the reader's mind that 
 Vicar-General Byrne had said that Swinton's "Outlines" did 
 not misrepresent the Catholic Church. I forbear to charac- 
 terize this method of controversy, further than to remark 
 that it is not over-scrupulous or high-minded. 
 
 The controversy is in that stage where all attempts to 
 obscure and confuse the real and only points at issue must 
 fail. Swinton's note on indulgences makes a statement of 
 Catholic teaching and practice which is, at the very least, 
 misleading, by reason of its withholding a part of the truth 
 and only partially stating the truth at all. It thus does vio- 
 lence to the consciences of Catholics, affronts their religious 
 faith, and exposes the teachings of their Church to false and 
 libellous representation. That it does this is conceded by 
 
 * This is a slip of the interviewer's pen, no doubt. For "Swinton" 
 read " Luther" to get what the Vicar-General actually said. — R. J. J. 
 
125 
 
 the ablest Protestant writers. Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, 
 whom your correspondent has himself designated as " the 
 highest historical authority we have in this country," says 
 in an able paper (which appeared in full in your issue of 
 Jan. 12) as follows : 
 
 " The point at issue is not a mere question as to the 
 historic accuracy of Swinton's accouut of the Reformation ; 
 it is whether the account given has the color which may reason- 
 ably be regarded as inaccurate and offensive by the parents of 
 Catholic children. While it might not be easy to point out 
 a single positive mis-statement in Swinton's narrative, the 
 general impression inevitably left on the pupil's mind is one 
 of strong bias in opposition to the Catholic Church and in 
 favor of Luther. It may tell the truth, but it does not tell 
 the whole truth ; and this is equivalent to saying that it tells 
 a part of truth, and presents it in such a way as at least to 
 have the effect of a partial falsehood. It preaches the Prot- 
 estant doctrine ; it omits to preach the Catholic doctrine." 
 
 And, referring to views held by Catholic writers con- 
 cerning Luther and the Reformation, Prof. Adams says 
 further : 
 
 "That this view of the case is believed to be the correct 
 one by a great many honest minds, there is no doubt what- 
 ever ; and to compel a person who does take this view of the 
 case to send his children to a school, or to be taxed for a 
 school, where the Protestant view and the Protestant view 
 alone is taught, is as unjustifiable and absurd as it would be 
 to force Protestants into a similar position, if at some time 
 the Catholics should get the upper hand and the tables 
 should be turned. And if under such circumstances, Prot- 
 estants w 7 ould not submit, it is simply rank injustice to 
 demand that Catholics shall submit simply because the power 
 at present happens to be iu Protestant hands." 
 
 This puts^the case in its true light. It is not a question of 
 whether Tetzel and others in his day abused the doctrine 
 of indulgences and brought scandal on the Church. The 
 question is, Did the Catholic Church ever authorize, sanction, 
 
126 
 
 or in any way countenance such abuses and scandals ? Swin- 
 ton's "Outlines," as it is admitted by all the eminent Prot- 
 estant writers and scholars whom I have before quoted, 
 allows the inference to be drawn — in fact, it plainly suggests 
 the inference — that the Catholic Church did this. 
 
 That is utterly false. The Catholic Church never taught, 
 or sanctioned the teaching of, the doctrine of indulgences 
 as defined by Swinton. Your correspondent will vainly 
 try to give his note an innocent character, and to show 
 that it does not refer to the Church as such, but only to 
 " some of its over-zealous members." The ablest minds 
 of the country, as I have shown, are agreed that the note 
 leaves it to be directly and naturally inferred that the Church 
 itself was the abuser of indulgences as therein described. 
 The Boston Beacon, June 23, 1888, brings out this point 
 clearly. It says : 
 
 "Mr. Swinton's statement really conveys the idea that the 
 Catholic Church treats indulgences as actual pardons of 
 guilt, and sells them for cash. For very naturally the 
 second sentence of Mr. Swinton, being connected with the 
 first in a separate note, is understood to represent the posi- 
 tion of the Church in later ages, precisely as the first repre- 
 sents the belief of the Church in the early ages. The sentence 
 would be unobjectionable if Mr. Swinton inserted the words 
 ' by ignorant or unfriendly persons ' after the word ' repre- 
 sented.' The statement as now printed in the book is not 
 legitimate." 
 
 A fair presentation of the whole subject, showing a just 
 appreciation by a Protestant writer of the real root of offence 
 to Catholics in Swinton's foot-note, is given in a letter by 
 Ex-Senator H. Winn to the Boston Herald, Dec. 11, 1888. 
 Writing of the definition of indulgences given in the foot- 
 note, Mr. AVinn says : 
 
 "This definition offends our friends, the Catholics, we 
 understand, because it contains the basis of a false inference 
 
127 
 
 injurious to their faith, and a suppression of important facts, 
 which if the partial statement be made ought to appear. 
 
 "The words, 'these indulgences were in the early age of 
 the Church remissions of the penances' — a statement of 
 what the Church did make them — followed so closely by 
 the words ' but in process of time they were represented as 
 actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was 
 said to be delivered from all his sins,' no person being named 
 as the maker of these representations, seemed fairly to imply 
 that the Church made or authorized them. This they indig- 
 nantly deny. They state that an indulgence was not a par- 
 don for sin, nor a permission to commit sin, but a remission 
 of certain temporal punishments due to sins, after contrition, 
 and after the sin has been forgiven ; and that the Church, in- 
 stead of being responsible for Tetzel's course, disciplined him. 
 
 "We do not understand that their position as to these 
 facts can be successfully controverted. They claim, there- 
 fore, that if the book were fair to their tenets, it would state 
 them. This book is to be placed in the hands of children. 
 A nice critic might indeed say that the words do not dis- 
 tinctly allege that the Church represented these indulgences 
 to be actual pardons of guilt, though he could not say that 
 they do not imply that. But what impression would a child 
 bear away? Even the teacher (Mr. Travis) told the pupils 
 that an indulgence was a 'permission to commit sin.' He 
 gave illustrations which he states were merely to elucidate the 
 text. This shows his idea. A text-book, then, if the Catho- 
 lic position is true as to the facts, must be free from this ob- 
 scurity, and must state the important connecting circum- 
 stances if it is not unfairly to prejudice the child's mind against 
 the Catholic religion." 
 
 Ex-Senator Winn very pertinently cites the Revised Stat- 
 utes of Massachusetts (Chap. 44, Sect. 32), which forbids 
 the purchasing for use in the public schools of books calcu- 
 lated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians. 
 And, as he says, this prohibition, of course, includes book- 
 calculated to disparage the tenets of any particular body 
 of Christians. Swinton's " Outlines " does gravely disparage, 
 by a partial, colored, and misleading statement of history, 
 the tenets of the Catholic Church. 
 
128 
 
 The Boston Post is another paper of critical ability and 
 standing which, without at all adopting Catholic views, 
 clearly discerns the line of justice and fairness in this con- 
 troversy. Writing on Sept. 29, 1888, on the action of the 
 Boston School Board, the Post says : 
 
 "The committee found that the teacher in question had 
 taught that an indulgence 'is a permission to commit sin,' 
 and they found also that in a foot-note of the historical text- 
 book used in the school it was stated that indulgences had 
 been so ■ represented.' Here was an obvious wrong; the 
 teacher had given an erroneous definition, and the foot-note 
 upon which he based it was misleading. The bare statement 
 that the thing was so 'represented,' without saying where or 
 by whom, or whether correctly or not, is of course unjusti- 
 fiable." 
 
 Another Protestant authority of weight is the Christian 
 Union, edited by the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott, a learned Con- 
 gregationalist, who, with the Rev. T. J. Conant, revered by all 
 Baptists as one of their foremost scholars, edited the " Dic- 
 tionary of Religious Knowledge," a work used by tens of 
 thousands of Protestant Sunday-school teachers. This is 
 what the Christian Union of Jan. 10 says of Swinton's foot- 
 note : 
 
 "The statement embodied in the foot-note was such as to 
 convey the impression that indulgence is ' permission to com- 
 mit sin.' This impression is untrue. The Roman Catholic 
 Church does not teach any doctrine involving any permission 
 to commit sin, and any statement which gives, or appears to 
 give such an impression may reasonably be objected to, not 
 only by Catholics in interest of their faith, but by all men in 
 interest of accuracy." 
 
 And in the issue of .Tan. 24, the Christian Union dis- 
 cusses the matter at greater length, and, after quoting the 
 Swinton foot-note, delivers itself as follows : 
 
 "The Roman Catholics were clearly right in their objec- 
 tion to this statement. It is certainly misleading, if not 
 
129 
 
 absolutely unhistorical. It is true that the Committee of One 
 Hundred have issued a tract (No. 3) for the purpose of prov- 
 ing the correctness of this statement, but the quotations 
 which they have given utterly fail of their purpose. They 
 do indeed show by Roman Catholic testimony that the 
 doctrine of indulgences was abused by Tetzel, and that his 
 abuse was subsequently disavowed and condemned by the 
 Roman Catholic Church ; but not at all that indulgences were 
 ever represented by the Church or its authority as actual 
 pardons of guilt and the purchaser of indulgences as 
 delivered from all his sins. We doubt whether it will be 
 possible to find even any respectable Protestant authority for 
 authorit for n ii thGre iS CertainI ^ no Ro » lan Catholic 
 
 "If a school text-book had said that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity was in the early age of the Church the doctrine of 
 three persons m one God, but in process of time it was rep- 
 resented as the worship of three Gods, all orthodox Trinita- 
 
 doctrine of J t d T ■ T vT^ ind !^^ Ifc » true that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity has sometimes lapsed into a doctrine 
 of Tntheism, and it is true that the doctrine of indulgences 
 has sometimes been represented as the actual pardon of 
 guilt; but the Roman Catholic Church has as consistently 
 antagonized the latter perversion as the Orthodox Church 
 the former one ; and to put into the school-books, to be 
 read by young children of the Roman Catholic faith such a 
 statement, without the necessary qualifications, was to grVe 
 just offence to those whose religious faith was impliedly if 
 not expressly misrepresented. y 
 
 h™l We d i°/, 10 - Pr °F? S ? t0 enter int0 the battle of the school- 
 books and their publishers. We share the resolute purpose 
 to maintain, at every hazard, our public-school systW in- 
 tact, and to keep it free from every form of eeclesiasticl 
 control, whether Roman Catholic or Protesta^ But for 
 these very reasons we demand that we Protestants, who are 
 in the majority, shall scrupulously exclude from text-book 
 and lroiii_ teaching, every statement which may even seem 
 to do injustice to the religious opinion of the Roman 
 Catholic minority, or which shall tend to inflame their 
 religious prejudices and passions. We write these words 
 Partly m answer to several Boston correspondents who have 
 wished us to tell them wherein the complaint of the Roman 
 Catholics against the school-book was perfectly reasonable 
 
130 
 
 and in what respect the statement of that school-hook was 
 untrue." 
 
 This ahle editorial completely disposes of your corre-r 
 spondent's repeated contention that an attack on Swinton is 
 an attack on the public schools. It very clearly draws the 
 line between the two, and defends the public schools without 
 defending Swinton. 
 
 The Christian Union, as well as the other able Protestant 
 journals and authorities I have quoted, proves, beyond doubt, 
 that Swinton's book is an inaccurate and therefore an unfit 
 work to be used in our public schools. 
 
 Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, whom your correspondent 
 calls " a genuine historical standard," has condensed many 
 Catholic objections to Swinton's "Outlines" into a single 
 sentence by his declaration, "It preaches the Protestant 
 doctrine." That is all that needs to be said, or that it ought 
 to be necessary to say, to convince any man, be he Protestant 
 or Catholic, that this book of Swinton's is not fit to be used 
 in non-sectarian public schools. Why should any text-book 
 be retained that " preaches the Protestant doctrine," or any 
 other sectarian doctrine? Does it not plainly show the bias 
 of the School Committee that it persists in retaining a book 
 which " preaches the Protestant doctrine " ? Is it not evi- 
 dence enough of an intent to give an anti-Catholic coloring 
 to our public-school instruction? 
 
 In closing I may note once more that your correspondent 
 has wandered far from the question in dispute to formulate 
 other false charges against the Church in relation to the 
 Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew massacre, and other mat- 
 ters wholly unrelated to it. His statements on these matters 
 are as far from the truth as those which he makes concern- 
 ing the doctrine of indulgences, but I am not to be dragged 
 into that new and foreign field of controversy. "When he 
 has proved his first proposition, which was to substantiate 
 
131 
 
 every word Swinton has written, by "a consensus of un- 
 biased historians," it will be time enough to open a new dis- 
 cussion as to the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew massacre, 
 or any other irrelevant topic. Meantime, your readers will 
 see the necessity, if we are ever to reach a conclusion, of 
 returning and keeping to the point which we set out to 
 decide, namely, whether the Catholic Church, as Swinton 
 implies, ever represented that an " indulgence was a pardon 
 of guilt, and that the purchaser of indulgence was said to 
 be free from all his sins." K. J. Johnson. 
 
 LETTER OF THE REV. GEORGE W. COOKE. 
 
 THE FACTS ABOUT SWINTON'S HISTORY. 
 [From the Declham Standard, March 9, 1889.] 
 
 XI. 
 
 The Attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Public Schools. 
 
 Very few Protestants wish to persecute or even to misrep- 
 resent the Catholic Church. They are quite willing that 
 Catholics should worship God in their own way, and read 
 whatever version of the Bible they prefer. They will accord 
 to Catholics perfect freedom for those acts of worship which 
 to Protestants are most repugnant. It is when the Catholic 
 Church arrays itself against the public schools, and seeks to 
 overthrow our free institutions, that many Americans, as 
 Americans, and not as Protestants, feel that it is time to use 
 other methods than those of indifference. 
 
 It was not a desire to defend Swinton's " Outlines of the 
 World's History" which made so much stir in Boston when 
 that book was cast out by the School Committee of that city. 
 It was not Protestant bigotry which caused so many citizens 
 of Boston to vote for a School Committee of another sort than 
 
132 
 
 that which had ejected Swinton's History. There were 
 Protestant fanatics like the Rev. Justin D. Fulton and Presi- 
 dent , undoubtedly; but the great majority of people 
 
 were not actuated by fanatical motives. The real fear in 
 Boston was the overthrow of the public-school system by the 
 Catholic Church. There are very good reasons for believing 
 that the Catholic Church desires to put down the public 
 schools, and that it is laboring in every way possible to 
 accomplish that result. 
 
 The attack on Swinton's book is but one of many ways 
 taken to make the Catholic laity believe that they are not 
 justly dealt with in the management of the public schools. 
 It is part of a concerted attack on the schools ; an attack 
 that condemns them for teaching morality ; that calls them 
 godless, and that stabs them by asking for a division of the 
 public money appropriated to school purposes. It is not 
 purely a love for historic truth which is voiced in the con- 
 demnation of Swinton. That condemnation is part of an 
 effort to throw discredit on the public schools in every pos- 
 sible way, to destroy their efficacy, and to prepare the way for 
 the incoming of the parochial schools. I make these asser- 
 tions because the evidence for them is overwhelming, and 
 because they are justified by repeated acts and words on the 
 part of the Catholic Church. What the Catholic Church de- 
 sires, what it demands, has been well expressed by the Free- 
 man's Journal, one of its leading organs in this country : * 
 
 * The Catholic Church has no newspaper organ, leading or otherwise. 
 Without discussing the opinions quoted by Mr. Cooke from Catholic 
 journals and magazines and from Catholic writers generally, it is desirable 
 here to state distinctly that Catholic doctrines and principles can be 
 authoritatively defined and promulgated only by the supreme authority, — 
 the Roman Pontifl' and the Councils of the Church. Private versions of 
 them, whether given by individuals or newspapers, are not binding on the 
 Catholic body. They are merely the theories of those individuals or news- 
 papers, and have no weight whatever in so far as they disagree by excess 
 or defect with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Catholics look 
 
133 
 
 "Accepting things as they are, American Catholics pay 
 taxes for the support of the system which lacks the quality 
 most essential in education — Christian morality. We pay 
 taxes under protest. In order to supply what the public- 
 school system lacks, we support many schools of our own. 
 These schools save the State an immense sum yearly, — how 
 much it is easy to discover by reference to the statistics. 
 We are opposed to the defects in the public-school system, 
 not to the system itself, under present political circum- 
 stances. We mean that godless schools, without Christ, 
 without morality founded on his teachings, are impossible." 
 
 Our public schools are godless, that is, they do not teach 
 the dogmas of the Catholic Church. As they do not teach 
 a dogmatic Christianity, they must be destroyed, and the 
 Freeman's Journal tells us how : 
 
 " We want justice. We want a fair per capita share of 
 the school funds. We want to be on an equal footing with 
 our fellow-citizens, who, if they have children, receive a 
 return for the taxes they pay. Let our Protestant friends 
 awaken to the danger with which godless schools threaten 
 the American people, and join with us in insisting that the 
 school is the church of the little ones, and that it should be 
 sacred to Christ." 
 
 This demand for a division of the school funds is not in 
 itself so great an evil as is that doctrine on which it rests, 
 that the Church only should teach the young. The Catholic 
 Church says it is an outrage that the State should teach the 
 young. It arrogates to itself the claim that it alone is fit to 
 teach, and that it alone has the right and the authority to 
 teach. It says it is a sacrilege, an evil, that education 
 should be under the control of the State ; that is, that it 
 should be secular in its character, and not religious. The 
 attitude of the Catholic Church has been expressed by the 
 
 to the most approved authors of canon law for the exposition and inter- 
 pretation of the doctrine and principles of their Church, and doctrinal 
 declarations from such sources alone have authority in the Church. — 
 K. J. J. 
 
1M 
 
 Pope, in his Encyclical Letter, in which that subject is dealt 
 with : 
 
 " XLV. The Catholic Church has a right to interfere in 
 the discipline of the public schools, and in the arrangement 
 of the studies of the public schools, and in the choice of the 
 teachers for these schools." 
 
 " XLVII. Public schools, open to all children for the 
 education of the young, should be under the control of the 
 Catholic Church, and should not be subject to the civil 
 power, nor made to conform to the opinions of the age." * 
 
 In conformity with this declaration of the Pope, we find 
 the Tablet, a leading Catholic journal, using this language : 
 
 "We hold education to be a function of the Church, not of 
 the State ; and in our case we do not and will not accept the 
 State as an educator." 
 
 When a parochial school was opened in Jamaica Plain, in 
 July, 1888, Father Conaty, of Worcester, said : 
 
 " The State as educator of its citizens is a relic of bar- 
 barism." 
 
 The " Catholic Dictionary " of Addis and Arnold says on 
 this subject : 
 
 " The first and highest authority in all that regards educa- 
 tion is the Church. With her sanction it should be com- 
 menced, and under her superintendence it should be con- 
 tinued." 
 
 A leading Catholic magazine, the Catholic Review, said : 
 
 "We deny, of course, as Catholics, the rights of the civil 
 government to educate ; for education is a function of the 
 spiritual society as much as preaching." 
 
 Holding that the Church has the absolute right to educate, 
 what will Catholics do? This is what the Catholic World 
 proposed some time since : 
 
 * The Pope has never used the language here attributed to him. (See 
 page 172.)— R.J. J. 
 
135 
 
 "The Catholic Church numbers one third of the American 
 population, and if its membership shall increase for the next 
 thirty years as it has for the thirty years past, in 1900 Rome will 
 have a majority, and be bound to this country and keep it. 
 There is ere long to be a State religion in this country, and 
 that State religion is to be Roman Catholic. The Roman 
 Catholic is to wield his vote for the purpose of secur- 
 ing Catholic ascendancy in this country. All legislation 
 must be governed by the will of God, unerringly indicated 
 by the Pope. Education must be controlled by Catholic author- 
 ities, and under education, the opinion of the individual 
 and the utterances of the press are included. Many opin- 
 ions are to be furnished by the secular arm under the au- 
 thority of the Church, even to war and bloodshed." * 
 
 If the Catholic Church does triumph, what will be its 
 methods? Will it continue the public schools and grant 
 general toleration ? The answer of the Catholic Review was 
 rendered some years ago : 
 
 " While a State has rights, she has them only in virtue 
 and by permission of the superior authority, and that au- 
 thority can only be expressed through the Church. Prot- 
 estantism of every form has not, and never can have, any 
 right where Catholicism has triumphed ; and, therefore, we 
 lose the breath we expend in declaiming against bigotry and 
 intolerance, and in favor of religious liberty or the right of 
 any man to be of any religion as best pleases him." * 
 
 It does not appear that all Catholics entertain senti- 
 ments such as these. They do appear, however, to be the 
 sentiments of the Pope, the bishops, and the priests generally. 
 Many of the laity do not accept them, and it is largely 
 because they do not accept them that a more vigorous effort is 
 now being made to build up the parochial schools. Why it is 
 desirable to build them up has been expressed by a Catholic, 
 Thomas J. Jenkins, in a pamphlet called " Christian v. God- 
 less Schools." He says : 
 
 * Neither the Catholic World nor the Catholic Beview ever published the 
 remarks above attributed to them. (See pages 175 and 176.) 
 
136 
 
 "Past experience has made it evident that Catholic youth, 
 by the frequentation of the public schools, are, almost with- 
 out exception, exposed to a great danger, not only of cor- 
 ruption of morals, but also of losing faith itself." 
 
 In the public schools Catholic youth come to think for 
 themselves ; they refuse to submit to the narrow methods of 
 the Church or they cease to be Catholics. Therefore Catho- 
 lic children must be taken out of the public schools and 
 sent to the parochial schools, where they can be taught out of 
 books we have already learned to understand. Books and 
 methods which close the mind to everything not favorable to 
 the Church, make it possible to retain most of the youth in 
 the Church. In the words of Thomas J. Jenkins the Church 
 says: "The public schools are infidel and godless, and 
 must therefore be avoided." The next step is to cast out 
 those who will not submit. The same writer expresses the 
 spirit and purpose of the Church in these words : 
 
 "The line is drawn, and pastors cry to their flocks : 'Are 
 you Catholics? Come over to us and send your children 
 to Catholic schools. Are you not Catholics? Then go away 
 about your business ; we want no such black, scabby sheep 
 to infest the flock of Christ.' " 
 
 The attitude of the Catholic Church in regard to the public 
 schools was distinctly expressed in the Pope's Encyclical 
 Letter, read in all the Catholic churches of New York City 
 on Sunday, Feb. 17. In that letter the Pope said : — 
 
 " There is no ecclesiastical authority left in them ; and 
 during the years when it is most fitting for tender minds to 
 be carefully trained in Christian virtue, the precepts of re- 
 ligion are for the most part unheard." 
 
 But can the Catholic Church compel its members to send 
 their children to the parochial schools ? it is asked. The an- 
 swer may be found in a book called " A Full Catechism of 
 the Catholic Religion " : 
 
137 
 
 " Every one is obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, 
 to become a member of the Catholic Church, to believe her 
 doctrine, to use her means of grace, and to submit to her 
 authority." 
 
 While the Catholic remains a Catholic, that is, while he 
 accepts the infallible authority of the Church, he must be- 
 lieve that his salvation, his eternal happiness, depends on 
 his submission to its authority. If he refuses to send his 
 children to the parochial schools, the means of salvation are 
 withdrawn from him. This is not a mere Protestant inter- 
 pretation of what Catholics believe and teach ; but more 
 than once this threat has been held over the heads of those 
 who offered disobedience. During the year 1888, in Chicago, 
 there appeared in the Church Calendar, this admonition : 
 
 "a warning to parents. 
 
 " If you send your children to the public school they will 
 not be prepared for their First Communion. Henceforth, 
 there will be no special First Communion class for children 
 that go to the public schools. If you want your children to 
 make their First Communion, you must send them to the 
 Catholic school, where the instruction is given. It will not 
 do to send them for a month or two at Easter time, but they 
 must be two years at the Catholic school before they will be 
 admitted to the First Communion class. This is according 
 to the decree of the diocese, and it will be carried out." 
 
 What does this mean ? Does it not mean that those chil- 
 dren sent to the public schools cannot become Catholics, and 
 that therefore they cannot be saved? It also meaus, does it 
 not? that the chief object of the parochial school is to pre- 
 pare children for the communion and for membership in the 
 Church. To confirm this conclusion, we have the dictum of 
 Cardinal Antonelli : 
 
 "It is better that children grow up in ignorance, than that 
 they should be educated in such a system of schools as the 
 State of Massachusetts supports. The essential part of edu- 
 
138 
 
 cation is the catechism ; and while arithmetic and geography 
 and other similar studies may be useful, they are not essen- 
 tial." * 
 
 The conclusion has been forced upon me, that the opinions 
 which I have here quoted make a distinct issue between the 
 public schools and the Catholic Church. The whole drift of 
 the discussion of the last year, which has developed that antag- 
 onism, has also forced upon me the conclusion that Swinton's 
 " Outlines of History " is a mere makeshift, and that the real 
 point of attack is the public schools themselves. This conclu- 
 sion is confirmed by the attitude of the Council held a year or 
 two since in Baltimore, the utterances of priests and journals, 
 and by the efforts made to discredit the public-school system. 
 For one, I think it time to take up the gauntlet thus thrown 
 down, and to defend the public schools with uncompromising 
 energy. f In attacking the public schools the Catholic Church 
 attacks all which they produce, liberty, free thought, a free 
 
 * This is an improbable and wholly unverified story, resting upon the 
 mere say-so of an anti-Catholic writer. (See page 174.) — R. J. J. 
 
 t Such talk as this has lately been very fittingly characterized by the 
 Boston Herald as "Protestant buncombe." Don Quixote tilting at his 
 windmills was not a quainter figure than Mr. Cooke's " taking up the 
 gauntlet" and " defending the public schools " with his "uncompromis- 
 ing energy." A little uncompromising common-sense would enable him 
 to see that the Catholic Church's assault on the public schools is purely 
 a figment of his overheated imagination. The Catholic Church attacks 
 no schools, whether public or private; she simply declares that our pub- 
 lic schools as at present managed are unfit for the education of Cath- 
 olic children ; she only seeks Catholic education for Catholic children ; she 
 makes no attack upon any of our institutions, and expects that non-Cath- 
 olic parents will educate their own children according to their own convic- 
 tions. If Mr. Cooke really desires to defend and strengthen the public 
 schools, he will do well to abandon abuse, avoid clap-trap about " taking 
 up gauntlets," cease arraying himself in feathers and war-paint against the 
 Catholic Church, and devote his " uncompromising energy " to promoting a 
 policy of fairness and justice, not only with regard to text-books, but in 
 everything else that pertains to the conduct of our common schools, and 
 seeks to make them acceptable to parents of all religious denominations. 
 
139 
 
 press, and equal rights. The Pope says, in his Encyclical 
 Letter, already quoted : * 
 
 " I anathematize all who maintain the liberty of the press 
 and all advocates of liberty of speech, which is the liberty of 
 perdition." 
 
 Do we wish to have this assumed authority made actual 
 in this country ? The only way to prevent it is to maintain 
 the public schools with vigor and in a tolerant spirit. 
 
 George W. Cooke. 
 
 ERKORS CONCERNING INDULGENCES. 
 
 THE REV. R. J. JOHNSON EXPLAINS AND REFUTES SEVERAL 
 POPULAR ERRORS CONCERNING THEM. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, March 23, 1889.] 
 I had hoped to have been able by this time to say " Finis " 
 to the discussion concerning Swinton's text-book ; but some 
 of the statements of your correspondent, the Eev. Geo. W. 
 Cooke, oblige me to address the public again through your 
 columns, because I feel that some of the grosser misrepre- 
 sentations of Catholic faith and practice which he has intro- 
 
 * This is simply the regulation no-Popery rant and cant. Seriously to 
 answer these wild and incoherent railings against the Catholic Church, as 
 the assailant of "liberty, free thought, a free press, and equal rights," is 
 beneath the dignity of rational discussion. These charges are senseless 
 in themselves, and they have no evidence to support them. The passage 
 alleged to be quoted by Mr. Cooke from an Encyclical of the Pope was 
 never written or published by any Pope. Mr. Cooke's railings against 
 the Catholic Church, and the quotation with which he supports them, are 
 equally untrue. His airy assertion that the complaint of Swinton's " Out- 
 lines " is a mere makeshift, and that the real point of attack is the public 
 schools themselves, has no facts to sustain it, and reputable Protestant 
 journals have repudiated it. The Christian Union well disposes of it by 
 saying, speaking of the action of the Boston School Committee in exclud- 
 ing the book : " When a perfectly reasonable complaint was made against 
 the untrue statement of the text-book on the subject of indulgences, Prot- 
 estant prejudice was ready to be fired. Some no-Popery apostles were 
 ready to fire it ! " 
 
140 
 
 duced in his letters — though without relevancy to the origi- 
 nal issue between us — ought not to go unchallenged. 
 
 Your correspondent prefaced his letter of Jan. 19 last by a 
 quite uncalled-for protestation of his loyalty and devotion to 
 the public schools. In his opinion, "the attack upon Swin- 
 ton's book is simply a disguised attack upon the public school 
 and in the interest of the parochial school." I am not in the 
 least tempted to enter the broad field of irrelevant contro- 
 versy to which this assertion invites me. In this discussion 
 the public schools are not the object of attack by any one. 
 But there is a strange incongruity in the champions of 
 Swinton's text-book undertaking to pose as the special and 
 exclusive defenders of the public schools. If anybody can 
 be fairly charged with pursuing a course calculated to weaken 
 and injure the public school, these champions are the very 
 people against whom such an accusation may with some show 
 of reason be made. It requires no great insight to see that 
 it does not and cannot tend to strengthen the general con- 
 fidence in our common schools to insist upon placing in them 
 text-books which give just and grave offence to the religious 
 convictions of the parents of a full half of the children who 
 attend them. 
 
 If, indeed, there existed in any quarter a desire to " under- 
 mine the public schools,'" as the phrase goes, the persistent 
 efforts of those special "friends of the public schools" to 
 force perverted and distorted history, written with a manifest 
 anti-Catholic bias, into the reluctant hands of Catholic chil- 
 dren, need not be deprecated or opposed. If he will reflect 
 on this view of the case, your correspondent will perceive 
 that he is in danger of being suspected by some over-zealous 
 Protestant of being " a Jesuit in disguise." Giving him 
 credit, however, for sincerity in protesting his devotion to 
 the public schools, I will suggest to him that the very best 
 way he can show it is by helping to exclude from them all 
 
141 
 
 text-books that are untruthful, unfair, and offensive to a 
 large body of parents. The contrary course will surely 
 imperil the public schools. Prof. Charles Kendall Adams 
 pertinently remarks that "disaster must follow such a policy, 
 simply for the reason that if there is any one thing to 
 which a man will not submit it is to have his children taught 
 religious doctrines which he believes to be at once false and 
 pernicious." 
 
 It is impossible for me to follow your correspondent in all 
 his gyrations. He has sought in his letters, however, to 
 sustain his position — that every word contained in Swinton's 
 History is substantiated by a consensus of unbiased histo- 
 rians — by citing several historians. It must be remembered 
 that of the Reformation, its causes and its results, there 
 always have been, are now, and in the nature of things 
 always must be, two views — the Catholic view and the 
 Protestant view ; and if Protestants will not accept the Cath- 
 olic view of the Reformation, neither can they expect to force 
 their view of it upon Catholics. 
 
 Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, whom your correspondent 
 has placed at the head of Protestant historical authorities, 
 puts this point very incisively when, after remarking that 
 Swinton's "Outlines" "preaches the Protestant doctrine," 
 and does not preach the Catholic doctrine, he says : 
 
 " To any one who has received his knowledge of the 
 Reformation solely from that combination of careless schol- 
 arship and slovenly enthusiasm known as D'Aubigne's 'His- 
 tory of the Reformation,' this statement may seem hardly 
 correct ; but every one who has looked more carefully into 
 the history of this period knows that there is a side of the 
 question of altogether another color." 
 
 Your correspondent has undertaken to expound the doc- 
 trine of indulgences as taught by the Catholic Church, but 
 every Catholic will recognize this exposition as a caricature of 
 
142 
 
 the real teaching of his Church. In his efforts to explain indul- 
 gences, your correspondent cites, it is true, some ver}' good 
 authorities on the subject, but it is evident that in quoting 
 them he has utterly failed to grasp their meaning. It is well 
 to impart useful information, but it is at least prudent, if 
 not just, to obtain it before endeavoring to communicate it. 
 The only Catholic author he cites, who has written ex- 
 pressly on the subject, is Maurel, whom he has completely 
 misunderstood, and whose writings he has quoted only in a 
 mutilated form, as I showed in a previous letter. The rest 
 of what he says on indulgences is taken mostly from those 
 anti-Catholic pamphlets which are issued by the Committee 
 of One Hundred and other " no-Popery " literature of the 
 day. Following these misleading lights, he imputes to the 
 Catholic Church what she herself most emphatically con- 
 demns. It is indeed inevitable that when a man writes on a 
 matter of which he knows nothing, he should say some 
 very absurd things. This has been exactly the misfortune 
 of your correspondent. For example, along with many 
 other false statements, he makes one as follows : 
 
 " It is to be remembered with regard to indulgences that 
 they are wholly under the control of the priesthood. How- 
 ever benevolently used, they are a powerful lever for gain- 
 ing money. The laymen must accept the priest's terms, and 
 the priest is careful to commend the wonderful efficacy of 
 the indulgence." 
 
 In this one short paragraph there are three distinct 
 errors : 
 
 1. Indulgences are not under the control of the priest- 
 hood. 
 
 2. They are not a powerful lever for gaining money. 
 
 3. The laymen must not accept the priest's terms. 
 Your correspondent violates the decencies of discussion 
 
 when he insults his fellow-citizens with such a gross misrep- 
 
143 
 
 reservation of their religious belief and practices as is con- 
 tained in this paragraph. 
 
 1. Catholic theology teaches that a priest has no power, 
 unless by virtue of a special faculty, to impart to any one 
 the benefit of an indulgence. 
 
 2. Indulgences are not a powerful lever for gaining 
 money. A priest, or any one else, is forbidden under the 
 severest penalties from receiving even so much as one cent 
 for an indulgence, I will borrow the excellent phraseolooy 
 of a learned writer, and say that it is not taught, never was 
 taught, is not believed, never was believed, and never can 
 be believed by any Catholic that indulgences can be bouo-ht 
 or sold or be in any sense an article of traffic. No money 
 can purchase an indulgence, for an indulgence can be 
 obtained only by faith, repentance, confession, absolution, 
 prayers, alms-deeds, and other good works. Every Catho- 
 lic knows that to offer money for it would argue a disposition 
 on his part that would make it impossible, while he retained 
 that disposition, for him to gain an indulgence. No one can 
 gain an indulgence while in sin, and it follows that indul- 
 gences are not at any price profitable things to purchase ; for 
 the .mere attempt to purchase one is simony, which is of 
 itself a grave sin, and would render the would-be purchaser 
 unfit to receive an indulgence. He who should offer money 
 to pay for an indulgence would receive for answer, " Thy 
 money perish with thee." This point is clear and certain, 
 that the mete attempt to buy or sell an indulgence would 
 render it null and void. The priest who would attempt to 
 sell an indulgence would be guilty of a great sin, and would 
 expose himself to the severest penalties which the Church of 
 which he is a minister could infiicL upon him. 
 
 But in order to gain some indulgences, you say, one has to 
 give alms. To whom? very pertinently asks the author of 
 "Popular Errors concerning Politics and Religion." Do the 
 
144 
 
 alms go to Rome or to the priests or to the benefit in any way 
 of those by whom they are granted ? No. The alms are given 
 to the poor ; they go to relieve actual distress, or to some 
 charitable or religious object. Why must these alms be 
 given in order to gain some indulgences? Because the 
 Church teaches that an indulgence is granted only on the 
 performance of some good work, whether it be prayer, or 
 mortification, or alms. 
 
 But perhaps it may be said that it was not so in Luther's 
 time. Yes, it was. In all times the Church has had the 
 greatest horror of the sale of holy things. She has issued 
 decrees, either by her Councils, or through the mouths of 
 her Popes, which ordained that those who commit simony 
 (so called from Simon Magus) shall be treated as heretics. 
 This was done long before Luther was born. We may take 
 as examples the Council of Constance, and the Council of 
 Lyons. Numerous Pontiffs also prohibited such abuses 
 under pain of the severest punishments. What more could 
 the Church do to prevent such abuses from being committed? 
 
 3. The averment of your correspondent that the Catholic 
 layman must accept the priest's terms as to indulgences, or 
 any other Catholic doctrines, has no basis whatever in fact, 
 and is a typical expression of a common misconception on 
 the part of Protestants as to the relations of the Catholic laity 
 to the Catholic priesthood. Protestants are constantly dis- 
 closing their belief that the Catholic laity are deprived of all 
 freedom, and are mere slaves to their priests and the Pope. 
 Nothing, says an eminent Catholic writer, is further from 
 the truth ; priests are the ministers of the law to Catholics, 
 but not the law itself. Catholic faith and morals are not pri- 
 vate or arbitrary things. They are catholic, public, and 
 taught openly to all the faithful. They are all contained in 
 the Catholic catechism, and there can be no departure from 
 them, nothing varied in them, nothing added to them, nothing 
 
145 
 
 taken from them. These doctrines may not be equally well 
 known by all the faithful, but the Church has always equally 
 possessed and known them, and they have always and every- 
 where been taught to her children, and in their substance 
 known and believed by them all. Having been so known 
 and believed, they have formed alike in the church teaching 
 and in the church believing, the law of the Catholic con- 
 science, to which the pastors are as subject as their flocks, 
 and which teachers no more than believers can alter. Cath- 
 olics therefore are not compelled to accept the priest's terms 
 in regard to indulgences, or any other doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, for them there is no slavery to persons, whatever 
 their rank or dignity — whether Pope, bishop, or priest. 
 
 Nearly all the Protestant historians quoted by your corre- 
 spondent on indulgences condemn what the Catholic Church 
 herself condemned — the abuse of indulgences. Only two of 
 them, Robertson and Motley, seem to give any color to the 
 charge that the Church herself authorized or sanctioned such 
 abuses. As far as any of these Protestant historians have 
 avoided the slanders of the Catholic Church retailed by 
 former writers, Catholics yield them due respect, without, of 
 course, being bound to accept either their historical judg- 
 ments or their doctrinal views. But the reader will doubt- 
 less remember that your correspondent at the outset of this 
 discussion made the pompous declaration that he would sub- 
 stantiate every word contained in Swinton's History by a 
 " consensus of unbiased historians." 
 
 On what principle does he include in his list of " unbiased 
 historians " the names of Robertson and Motley ? 
 
 As to Robertson's * " unbiased " writing, he has been con- 
 victed by that candid Protestant authority, Dr. Maitland, 
 of misrepresentations of the Catholic Church in almost all that 
 he has written concerning her and her teaching. Your cor- 
 
 * See foot-note, page 78. 
 
146 
 
 respondent quotes from Robertson the form of absolution sold 
 by Tetzel. An eminent divine has said, " Verify your refer- 
 ences." Had your correspondent followed this advice and 
 consulted the original of this document, he would have found 
 that he has not quoted it as it is, but only as it has been 
 mutilated. i In the original this document is entitled : "Form 
 of Absolution that has been preceded by confession." He 
 has overlooked the words " prasmissa confessione," which 
 appear in the heading of the " Forma," and which mean that 
 the absolution must be preceded by a good confession. 
 
 The alleged form of absolution quoted by your corre- 
 spondent is manifestly a mutilated and distorted version of the 
 original document. Besides, as Dr. Brownson says : 
 
 " Absolution and indulgence are very different things. An 
 indulgence affects only a certain temporal punishment that 
 remains to be expiated after the absolution is given, or the 
 external guilt is pardoned ; it is rather a commutation than a 
 remission of even that temporal punishment which, if not 
 commuted or borne here, must be expiated hereafter in pur- 
 gatory. There is in fact no form of indulgence ; there are 
 conditions of gaining an indulgence, but there is no certifi- 
 cate given to the effect that we have obtained it. If we have 
 sincerely complied with the conditions prescribed by the 
 Pope we gain it; but whether or not we have gained it, 
 neither we nor the Church can know in this life without a 
 special revelation." 
 
 Again, your correspondent quotes from the historian Mot- 
 ley. That scholarly and polished writer has many charming 
 qualities, but impartiality and fairness towards the Catholic 
 Church are not among them. His bias against the Catholic 
 Church is so notorious that Archbishop Spaulding said of him : 
 
 " Motley is a partisan of the most decided character ; he 
 writes, it would seem, more to sustain a favorite thesis than 
 to vindicate the truth of history. His readers have very 
 little opportunity to see the other side, though every one 
 knows that most historical questions have two aspects, which 
 the professed historian should give, or at least refer to." 
 
147 
 
 On this point your correspondent should have consulted 
 his favorite historian, Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, whom 
 he describes as " the highest historical authority we have in 
 this country," and in another as standing " at the head of 
 the new school of historians in this country." (See his let- 
 ter of Dec. 22 last.) Prof. Adams writes of Motley's " Rise 
 of the Dutch Republic" as follows : 
 
 "The judicious reader labors under the impression that 
 there is another story to be told. The author's aversions are 
 so strong, and his predilections are so extreme, that they seem 
 often to have taken absolute possession of his judgment. 
 . . . Throughout the history William of Orange is Motley's 
 idol and client. In his behalf he has certainly made a mag- 
 nificent plea ; but it is a plea and not a decision." 
 
 An ample reply to the charge in your correspondent's 
 quotation from Motley that the Catholic Church sold pardons 
 of sins for money, is the emphatic statement made by Prof. 
 Fisher, of Yale — a church historian of the first standing and 
 one whose high rank among Protestant scholars is not open 
 to dispute — and which is editorially quoted in the Boston 
 Advertiser of,May 12, 1888. 
 
 "To say," says Prof. Fisher, " that the Catholic Church ever 
 taught that permission to commit sin can be bought for 
 money is an atrocious slander." 
 
 All such railing accusations against the Catholic Church 
 may be set down as "campaign lies" which even Luther 
 scorned to make use of. 
 
 But it would appear from another part of his letter of Jan. 
 26, that your correspondent even is not so entirely confident 
 of Swinton's accuracy and fairness as he was when he set out 
 on his voyage of historical discovery. After quoting the 
 Rev. A. Maurel's definition of an indulgence as that of the 
 standard Catholic authority, he remarks chat : 
 
 " As an indulgence is thus defined, it would appear that 
 
148 
 
 Swinton misconceived its nature, if his statement that it was 
 represented as an actual pardon of guilt applied to the direct 
 teaching of the Church. As we have already seen, the 
 Church never formulated its practice in regard to indul- 
 gences into positive doctrine ; and while Swinton states what 
 the Church actually did, his assertion is not in harmony with 
 its teachings." 
 
 By what rule of reasoning does your correspondent pre- 
 sume, in the very same sentence in which he thus admits the 
 Catholic objection to be well grounded, to say that " Swin- 
 ton states what the Church actually did " ? In the very next 
 sentence he adds that " Swinton undertakes in his foot-note 
 to describe only what was performed by many Catholics." 
 Surely he cannot fail to perceive the difference between 
 " what the Church actually did " or authorized as a Church, 
 and " what was performed by many Catholics " only, without 
 her authority and against her teachings. And this, I repeat, 
 is the vital part of the whole discussion. Swinton's foot- 
 note leaves it to be understood that the Church herself 
 authoritatively sanctioned the selling of indulgences as 
 "actual pardons of guilt," which your correspondent now 
 concedes the Church did not do. He now insists that Swin- 
 ton's foot-note only bases his representations of indulgence 
 as "actual pardons of guilt "on "what was performed by 
 many Catholics." But the whole trouble with the foot-note 
 is that it does not make this distinction at all, but conveys 
 the contrary inference against the Catholic Church. 
 
 Now, is it not clear, by your correspondent's own admis- 
 sion, that Swinton's statements are false? If, as he here 
 distinctly says, Swinton's " assertion is not in harmony with 
 its (the Catholic Church's) teaching," what possible excuse 
 can he have for the assertion that every word of Swinton is 
 substantiated by " a consensus of unbiased historians " ? The 
 whole point for which I contend is distinctly yielded by him 
 in this admission that Swinton's assertion is not in harmony 
 
149 
 
 with Catholic teaching. That is exactly the objection to his 
 assertion, and that is one of the chief objections to his book 
 — that it asserts Catholic teaching to be what it is not now, 
 was not in Luther's time, never was at any past time, and 
 never will be at any time to come. Every scholar, Protes- 
 tant or Catholic, knows it to be the fact that the Catholic 
 Church has never taught what Swinton represents her as 
 teaching, and every man who is not a scholar can know it by 
 consulting the standard encyclopedias edited by Protestants 
 of every denomination. Even your correspondent him- 
 self now concedes in so many words that Swinton's "asser- 
 tion is not in harmony with its (the Church's) teaching." 
 Why, then, does he prolong his tirade against the Catholic 
 Church, dragging in all manner of side questions, and rais- 
 ing clouds of controversial dust, all to defend a position 
 which, by this concession, he has abandoned so completely 
 that it is no longer defensible? He says, and truly, that 
 Swinton's statement is not in harmony with Catholic teach- 
 ing. Clearly, then, it distorts and falsities Catholic teaching, 
 and clearly it is unfair and unjust to Catholics to distort and 
 falsify the teaching of their Church to their children, in 
 schools that are professedly non-sectarian. That is all that 
 I have contended for from the first. 
 
 Everything your correspondent has written outside of this 
 one vital point is irrelevant ; it simply does not bear upon 
 the matter in dispute. 
 
 Towards the close of the same letter your correspondent, 
 speaking of the abuse of indulgences, says : 
 
 "That the Church approved of what is here described, I 
 do not wish to assert ; but undeniably these things were 
 done in the name of the Church." 
 
 This is precisely the offensive feature of the foot-note in the 
 "Outlines," that it fastens upon the Church, by implication, 
 the responsibility for things that " were done in the name ot 
 
150 
 
 the Church," and were condemned by her. But where is the 
 institution, or where is the individual, who in common fair- 
 ness can be held accountable for all the things that may be 
 dene in its or his name? The man who forges your name to 
 a note gets? it cashed in your name. The rascal who per- 
 sonates you at the ballot box votes in your .name. The 
 impostor who collects money from charitable persons by 
 presenting bogus letters from highly respectable citizens 
 commits his frauds in their names. Shall they be, therefore, 
 set down as sanctioning the swindle ? To put a case more 
 nearly parallel in church history, witches were at one time 
 hanged in Massachusetts in the name of religion ; Quakers 
 were at one time scourged in the same name. Suppose, then, 
 a foot-note in a school text-book of history that should leave 
 it to be inferred by the pupils that the hanging of witches 
 and the whipping of Quakers were distinctly authorized and 
 inculcated by the teaching of the Protestant Church at that 
 time. Would that be fair or truthful ? Would not Protes- 
 tants demur to a foot-note of that kind ? 
 
 Your correspondent closes his letter of Jan. 26 with an 
 extremely positive declaration as to the causes of the Refor- 
 mation. "The Reformation," he asserts, "is without an 
 explanation, if the purchaser of indulgences was not said to 
 be delivered from all sins." "It was," he adds, with equal 
 positiveness, " the universal traffic in indulgences, the open 
 and shameful sale of them as covering crime, which aroused 
 the reformers everywhere, and caused the division of the 
 Church." That history cannot be gainsaid is your corre- 
 spondent's final declaration. True enough, " history cannot 
 be gainsaid " ; but your correspondent's studies have scarcely 
 qualified him, as yet, to be a judge of what history says. 
 Prof. Fisher, acknowledged as a Protestant authority of 
 the first rank, says (page 2, " Reformation ") : 
 
 " Notwithstanding that three centuries have since elapsed, 
 
151 
 
 the real origin and significance of the Reformation remain a 
 subject of controversy." 
 
 Dr. Schaff (page 155, " History of the Christian Church ") 
 says : 
 
 " The Reformation would have come to pass sooner or 
 later, if no Tetzel had ever lived, and it actually did break 
 out in different countries without any connection with the 
 trade in indulgences, except in German Switzerland, where 
 Bernhardin Samson acted the part of Tetzel, but after Zwin- 
 gli had already begun his Reformation." 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that Dr. Schaff, as well as Prof. 
 Fisher, reads history on this point in quite a different 
 way from your correspondent. Who shall decide when 
 doctors disagree? Are not Prof. Fisher and Dr. Schaff 
 as likely to be right as to the causes of the Reformation as 
 your correspondent? For my part, I must think so. 
 
 Still I agree that " history cannot be gainsaid " ; certainly 
 not. I wish your correspondent would not try to gainsay 
 it, as he does when he asserts that every word contained in 
 Swinton's History is substantiated by a " consensus of un- 
 biased historians." R. J. Johnson. 
 
 TRAVELLERS' TALES. 
 
 HOW SCANDALOUS STORIES ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND 
 CLERGY ARE SENT FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, March 30, 1889.] 
 
 In your issue of Feb. 2, your correspondent, the Rev. 
 George W. Cooke, continues his labored effort to show that 
 Swinton's " Outlines of History " gives a true and fair repre- 
 sentation of the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. Not only 
 does he insist that the teaching; of the Catholic Church made 
 
152 
 
 he pardon of sins a matter of sale and traffic in the time of 
 Luther, — which I have already shown to be untrue, by the 
 testimony of Protestant scholars of the first rank, — but he at- 
 tempts to prove that even to this day the sale of indulgences is 
 still carried on. In support of this new slander of the Catho- 
 lic Church and her teaching your correspondent quotes a letter 
 written from Bologna, Italy, to the Christian Register, in 
 which the writer (a lady) asserts that she had seen " some- 
 thing that proved an eyesore and an offence to my Protestant 
 soul " — on the front of the Catholic Church at Bologna — " the 
 announcement that plenary indulgences were sold within." 
 
 In quoting this Italian letter your correspondent naively 
 remarks that "if a correspondent of the Christian Register 
 can be trusted," then these scandalous things are still going 
 on at Bologna. Your correspondent has a short memory, or 
 he would not make any "if" in this case ; he would know 
 positively that the Christian Register cannot be trusted, 
 because he himself said so in a letter written to the Standard 
 no longer ago than Dec. 22, 1888. On that date your corre- 
 spondent annihilated the Christian Register along with the 
 Boston Beacon, in the following crushing manner : 
 
 "Mr. Johnson quotes the opinion of the Beacon and the 
 Christian Register with reference to the worth of Swinton's 
 book ; but such authorities are of no importance in regard to 
 such a question as this. They are defending their own posi- 
 tion, and care less for truth than to make out their own 
 case." 
 
 Having thus completely destroyed the character of the 
 Christian Register, even in its editorial columns, no longer 
 ago than last December, it is very amusing but not at all 
 convincing to find your correspondent quoting from the mere 
 news columns of the same paper, in February, to sustain a 
 grosser and a more direct and explicit charge against the 
 Catholic Church than even Swinton makes. 
 
153 
 
 The Christian Register's correspondent never saw what 
 she described as having seen on the front of the church at 
 Bologna ; not that I care to charge her with having written 
 what she knew to be untrue, but certainly she wrote, to take 
 a charitable view, her hastily and loosely formed impressions 
 of what she saw, and added to it a considerable amount of 
 hearsay which she eagerly accepted as true. It is quite cer- 
 tain that she did not see on the front of the old church at 
 Bologna, or of any Catholic Church in the world, "boldly 
 placarded for all men to read . . . the announcement that 
 plenary indulgences were sold within." What she did see, 
 no doubt, was the announcement of the indulgence proclaimed 
 by Pope Leo XIII. on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of 
 his ordination. That indulgence was proclaimed throughout 
 the world, and was published, not only in Bologna, but in 
 Boston, and also right here in Dedham. I have a copy of 
 this document, and I send it with this letter to the Standard, 
 hoping that space may be found to publish it, so that all your 
 readers may read it for themselves and see just what it says. 
 There is not one word in it about selling indulgences or any 
 mention of money payment for them. Yet on a misunder- 
 standing of this document the Christian Register's corre- 
 spondent sends back from Italy to Boston a wretched hotch- 
 potch of hearsay to the eifect that indulgences are being sold 
 and that " full and free pardon for major sins " is being 
 " granted for half a crown " in Bologna, while " venial offences 
 are condoned for eighteen pence English." Thereupon your 
 correspondent eagerly seizes upon this farrago of nonsense 
 and quotes it as if it were " confirmation strong as holy writ " 
 of his contention that the Church not only was in Luther's 
 day, as Swinton asserts, but is still, engaged in selling par- 
 dons for guilt. 
 
 The reader will note that the Christian Register's corre- 
 spondent, after retailing these scandalous stories of pardons 
 
154 
 
 sold for money, frankly admits that thej' - are all hearsay, and 
 that she has no actual knowledge of them whatever. She 
 says : " At least this was what I was told ; and I have little 
 reason to doubt it." If this mere hearsay "gave a shock to 
 [her] my Protestant soul," should not the possibility that, 
 by repeating it, she might be guilty of bearing false witness 
 against her neighbor, have shocked her Protestant soul still 
 more severely ? Observe the unconscious disclosure of pre- 
 conceived opinion and ingrained prejudice which this con- 
 fession makes. In effect this Protestant lady travelling 
 abroad says: "While in Bologna I heard a great many 
 shameful stories about the Catholic Church. I don't know 
 that they are true, but this is what I was told, and I have 
 little reason to doubt it." In other words, she went to Italy 
 prepared to hear just such things ; and, therefore, as soon as 
 she heard them she believed them to be true. She proves 
 herself to be one of those travellers who form their judg- 
 ments on the idle rumors and floating gossip that reach their 
 ears, and who look not with their eyes but with their 
 prejudices. 
 
 This habit of mind is in no way peculiar to the correspond- 
 ent of the Christian Register ; it is quite common among 
 Protestants who travel in Europe, and who, though respect- 
 able, intelligent, and well-informed persons on general mat- 
 ters and things, cannot observe Catholic ceremonies and 
 customs without carrying away the strangest misconceptions 
 of their meaning, and the most erroneous impressions of 
 their character. 
 
 I have conversed with several persons who have visited 
 Bologna and the church of San Petronio within the past few 
 years, and they all assure me that they neither saw nor 
 heard of any sales of indulgences or pardons such as the 
 Christian Register's correspondent describes — admittedly on 
 hearsay. Their positive denial of such occurrences is noth- 
 
155 
 
 ing more or less than I had felt assured of, for in my own 
 mind I was perfectly satisfied that clergymen, upon whom 
 this strange and malignant charge is attempted to be fast- 
 ened, would not, for -they could not, be guilty of an act 
 which their religion not only forbids, but the perpetration of 
 which would surely expose them, not only to the just indig- 
 nation and abhorrence of all Catholics, but also to the heavi- 
 est penalties which that Church of which they are ministers 
 could inflict upon them. 
 
 Protestant visitors to Catholic countries necessarily record 
 their observations under the disadvantage of being unin- 
 formed as to Catholic belief and practices which they 
 attempt to state and describe. They fall, to begin with, 
 into the error of assuming that, because they have good 
 general intelligence and yet cannot understand Catholic 
 faith and practice, which they have never sought to learn, 
 therefore those who have been brought up in the Catholic 
 faith and practice from their very infancy are as ignorant 
 about them as they are themselves. The story is told of 
 two English ladies who, at great expense of time and trouble, 
 learned the language of France and then went to that country 
 to finish their education. Landing at Havre, one of these 
 ladies remarked to the other, with amazement, that the very 
 fishwomen and porters were speaking French quite fluently. 
 It had not occurred to her that she was now in France, and 
 that these people had used and understood the French language 
 from their cradle. It is related of a very wise Englishman 
 that he once crossed over to France and stayed there less than 
 a week, and that when he got home he declared that he had 
 always disliked the French, but now that he had seen them 
 and knew just what they were, his antipathy was confirmed. 
 He had, he said, found them so ignorant and obstinate that 
 they could not be persuaded to call things by their right 
 names ; it was like being at Babel ; if you asked for a shovel 
 
156 
 
 they brought you a horse ; they called a hat a " chopper." 
 and gave the nickname of "ding-dong" to turkeys. It is on 
 much the same arbitrary principles that Protestants of gen- 
 eral intelligence and liberality of thought often pass judgment 
 on Catholic practices, of the grounds whereof they have no 
 knowledge. It is much to be desired that our Protestant 
 friends might more generally assume that our common 
 Creator has given to Catholics the same share of understand- 
 ing as he has given to themselves ; that they would remember 
 that the Catholic Church has gathered within its membership 
 a fair proportion of the men of genius, learning, and piety, 
 as well as of men of common-sense. If they would do this 
 they would not be heard so often passing supercilious de- 
 cisions against Catholic doctrines which they have never 
 examined, and against Catholic practices which, in view of 
 their early education, training, and environment, we know 
 it is impossible that they should understand. A little more 
 reading of Catholic authors would help greatly in clearing 
 away the misconceptions which are continually being formed 
 and expressed by otherwise intelligent Protestants on the 
 subject of the Catholic Church and its teachings. We are 
 all familiar with that type of traveller who, for the purpose 
 of making Englishmen laugh and filling his own purse, runs 
 rapidly over this great country with a note and sketch book, 
 and returns at a month's end to turn our alleged peculiarities 
 into ridicule, while he gives no account whatever of those 
 substantial things which actually make up our national life 
 and character. Imagine a history of the United States com- 
 piled exclusively from the records of our criminal courts ; 
 these courts are, no doubt, a part of American life, but they 
 do not afford a fair basis to judge the whole life of the nation 
 by. Conceive of a foreigner — and there have actually been 
 suc h — who made up his estimate of the political condition 
 of America from the statements of our own partisan political 
 
157 
 
 writers, quoting them liberally from our daily journals as 
 his authorities. Would the portrait of American political 
 life thus drawn be accepted as anything more than a villa- 
 nous caricature? Assuredly not. Yet it is notorious that 
 the history of the Catholic Church is read by Protestants of 
 your correspondent's type, from the pages of authors who 
 have written history in exactly that spirit and by precisely 
 such methods. 
 
 The manner in which the average tourist in Europe ac- 
 quires his notions of Italy, and of Catholic teaching, is well 
 illustrated by Bishop England's experiences on his journey 
 to Rome. He travelled in secular dress, so that he was not 
 readily recognized as a priest. But he was easily known to 
 be a foreigner, and was set down by the Italians whom he 
 met on his journey as being English. In conversation with 
 the guides and his fellow-travellers, he was given the most 
 extraordinary accounts of the Roman clergy and of Catholic 
 practices. On inquiry, however, he found out that one of 
 the most amusing occupations of the cicerones was to recount 
 to each other the manner in which they imposed on the 
 credulity of English travellers by telling them the most ex- 
 travagant tales, and thereby earning handsome fees. They 
 were always anxious to give as much of the most grateful 
 food as he could take to a good gull, from whom they 
 expected ample employment, and "John Bull," as they 
 called all English-speaking travellers, was always quite dis- 
 posed to feast upon the scandals of the Catholic Church ; 
 wherefore, as such foul offal seemed to be the most agreeable 
 to his palate, an abundant supply was always provided. 
 And this is the society into which most of our travellers are 
 thrown. Thus they receive their "first impression of 
 Europe." So that, in fact, all the falsehoods which they 
 produce are not fictions of their own imaginations. The 
 Bishop adds that he could relate several instances where 
 
158 
 
 some of these worthies contradicted their own statements to 
 himself, and apologized for them, when they discovered who 
 he was. 
 
 In his eagerness to fasten the charge of selling indulgences 
 upon the Catholic Church by anything that comes to his 
 hand — the hearsay testimony of the lady correspondent at 
 Bologna, or any other equally worthless tittle-tattle — your 
 correspondent quotes an advertisement from a Chicago 
 paper of "Plenary indulgences that maybe gained in the 
 Holy Family Church," and a news item from the Boston 
 Globe, in which it was announced that a "plenary indul- 
 gence" would be granted to those who attended certain 
 devotions "and complied with the necessary conditions." 
 But to what purpose does he quote such newspaper items? 
 Is it to prove that indulgences are still proclaimed and 
 granted by the Catholic Church? No one denies it. Of 
 course they are still proclaimed and granted to those " who 
 comply with the necessary conditions," and so they will be 
 to the end of time. But does this prove that they are sold? 
 Does it prove that they are " pardons of guilt," or a license 
 to commit sin ? There is not one word in the advertisement 
 or the news item which your correspondent quotes, as if he 
 had thereby made a great discovery, about the sale of an 
 indulgence, nor in any way suggesting that one could be 
 procured for money. 
 
 Of course I do not expect your correspondent to believe 
 the truth of Catholic doctrines, but I do ask that Catholic 
 children shall not have text-books that traduce them thrust 
 into their hands to study from. 
 
 I know many excellent, amiable, and virtuous Protestants. 
 I hold the doctrines which they believe, to be founded in 
 error in many cases. But I would sooner lose my power 
 of speech, if I know myself, than offer to any one of them 
 such a gross insult as is offered to Catholics in the asser- 
 
159 
 
 tion that their Church makes a traffic of God's forgiveness, 
 and issues for cash licenses to commit sin. Much less, as a 
 member of a school board, would I force a book containing 
 such an insulting statement into the hands of his children. 
 
 I cannot understand how any intelligent and well-read 
 Protestant can yield to the unfounded delusion that Roman 
 Catholics can purchase licenses to commit sin, or buy with 
 money pardon for sins committed, as Swinton's text-book 
 falsely asserts. If such were really the fact there could be 
 no security in the State of Massachusetts for life, liberty, 
 property, or peace. It is, indeed, astonishing that some Prot- 
 estants who ought to be well informed should persist in 
 asserting, against all evidence, that the Catholic Church 
 makes indulgences a traffic in sin. In this land of freedom, 
 where men so eagerly seek after truth, it shocks and afflicts 
 us to find it charged in widely circulated publications that 
 Catholic priests may give permission to commit certain 
 crimes at fixed prices. No such infamous principle was ever 
 taught by our Church in any country. It is a principle 
 which would overthrow all religion, and subvert the whole 
 social order. No person holding such a principle should be 
 tolerated in any country ; because if he thought that by a 
 certain money payment, and of moderate amount too, he 
 could obtain the consent of Heaven to any crime he desired 
 to commit, or its pardon for any that he had committed, no 
 one would be safe from his hatred, his malice, or any of his 
 selfish lusts. May God forgive those who, for their own 
 purposes, thus misrepresent us to our fellow-citizens and 
 bear false witness against us, thus perpetuating error and 
 enmity ! 
 
 Your correspondent remarks that the doctrine of indul- 
 gence is very apt to be misunderstood, in fact is misunder- 
 stood by the common people. Yet is it any more liable to 
 misinterpretation, and hence to abuse, than the Protestant 
 
160 
 
 ■doctrine of justification by faith alone, which to uneducated 
 minds may seem to absolve them from the obligation of 
 avoiding sin and doing good? Every Christian sect, so far 
 as I know, teaches that the repentant sinner will obtain par- 
 don fromlGod whenever he appeals to him for mercy in the 
 spirit of true contrition. The great mass of Protestants 
 believe that, where sinners are truly repentant, "the blood 
 of Jesus will cleanse them from all sin," and save them from 
 liability to punishment. The first of the thirty-nine articles 
 of the Church of England declares that " they are to be con- 
 demned who deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly 
 repent." If Protestants argue that an indulgence is com- 
 monly understood asji " pardon of guilt and a license to com- 
 mit sin," may not the argument, with equal reason and force, 
 be retorted on themselves in the form of a contention that 
 Protestantism ofiers'still easier terms of forgiveness ? Is not 
 the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone fully as 
 liable to be misunderstood and misinterpreted as the Catholic 
 doctrine of indulgence, which requires not only repentance, 
 but also confession and satisfaction ? 
 
 I feel that this discussion has already reached, if indeed it 
 has not passed, all useful limits, and has doubtless become 
 wearisome not only to the editor, but to the readers of the 
 Standard. It has necessarily been dull because the charges 
 of your correspondent have been answered so many times 
 before, and my task has been that of re-thrashing old straw. 
 I shall, therefore, ask your indulgence for but one or two 
 more letters, in which I propose to note a few further mis- 
 statements in your correspondent's letters. Having done 
 that, I shall gladly leave the whole matter to the judgment of 
 fair-minded readers, for I am satisfied that they must clearly 
 see that, in the words of the Christian Union, "Swinton's 
 statement may reasonably be objected to not only by Catho- 
 lics in the interest of their faith, but by all men in the 
 niterests of accuracy." R. J. Johnson. 
 
161 
 
 SOME SIDE ISSUES. 
 
 PAROCHIAL SCHOOL BOOKS AND THEIR CRITICS. — A GLANCE AT 
 MR. EDWIN D. MEAD'S PAMPHLET. 
 
 [From the Declham Standard, April 6, 1889.] 
 
 In his letters published in your issues of Feb. 9 and 
 16 last, Rev. George W. Cooke seeks again to change the 
 venue, as lawyers phrase it, by makiug an onslaught upon 
 certain text-books in use in Catholic parochial schools. 
 This, like much he has said in all of his letters, is a digres- 
 sion from the point at issue, which is, simply, whether or 
 not Swinton's "Outlines," in its statements of Catholic doc- 
 trine and practice, does violence to the religious faith of 
 Catholic parents and subjects them to outrage in the persons 
 of their children. What is taught or left untaught in private 
 schools, whether Catholic or Protestant, and whether good 
 or bad text-books are used in such private schools, is clearly 
 not pertinent to this simple question. Your correspondent, 
 though he is not the profoundest of logicians, sees this no 
 doubt as clearly as anybody. He drags in the parochial 
 schools, and their text-books, as he has dragged in so many 
 other foreign topics, by way of raising a cloud of dust, ex- 
 citing prejudice, and so obscuring the actual question which 
 we set out to discuss. It is the tactics that were adopted by 
 the counsel in the old story, who said that when he was de- 
 fending a client who had no case, he simply abused the 
 plaintiif. 
 
 It has pleased your correspondent to make extensive quo- 
 tations from various text-books in use in Catholic parochial 
 schools, quotations which he says are extremely inaccurate. 
 The casual reader, noting his copious extracts from these 
 Catholic text-books, as well as from various learned authors 
 who have written on the subject of indulgences, would 
 
162 
 
 naturally suppose that your correspondent had delved deep 
 into the literature of this question. The evident desire of 
 your correspondent, aside from his primary purpose of 
 arousing ill-feeling against the Catholic Church, is to convey 
 an impression of the wide range of his reading and the ex- 
 haustive character of his study of the subject under discus- 
 sion. His imposing superstructure of learning is based, 
 however, upon a very slight foundation of actual research. 
 Most of his quotations from Catholic text-books will 
 be found marshalled in Mr. Edwin D. Mead's pamphlet 
 entitled "The Roman Catholic Church and the SchooL 
 Question," a pamphlet which is for sale at the Boston 
 bookstores at fifteen cents a copy, while the rest of his learn- 
 ing is derived from still cheaper anti-Catholic compositions. 
 If any of your readers will buy a copy of Mr. Mead's bro- 
 chure they will discover in its pages the sources of the rich 
 streams of learning with which they have been lately re- 
 freshed by your correspondent. They will see how, by 
 the trifling investment of fifteen cents, your correspondent 
 has found it easy to display a wealth of erudition and a 
 luxuriant scholarship of which he had not heretofore been 
 suspected. Shining thus with brilliant though reflected 
 light, would it not have been a graceful thing to have given 
 the original luminary some little credit, if it were no more 
 than a passing mention of Mr. Mead's name ? 
 
 Any one who thinks it worth the while (and the fifteen 
 cents) to get a copy of Mr. Mead's pamphlet will find, more- 
 over, that while your correspondent has carefully culled from 
 its pages what the author has to say in criticism and depre- 
 ciation of Catholic text-books, he has, with a characteristic 
 monocular blindness, omitted all that Mr. Mead says in their 
 praise. For example, on page 9 of this pamphlet, which has 
 fitted your correspondent out so nicely with the ready-made: 
 garments of research, Mr. Mead wrote as follows : 
 
163 
 
 " If any of you are in doubt about the patriotism of your 
 Roman Catholic brethren, you have only to examine the text- 
 books — the histories, the reading books — used in the paro- 
 chial schools. "Whatever criticism is to be passed upon some 
 of these books — and I have a good deal to say about some 
 of them presently — the lack of the patriotic element in them 
 cannot be recorded. Many of these books ring with patri- 
 otism. The reading books are as full of patriotic selections 
 as most of the reading books used in the public schools. They 
 ring too with the spirit of democracy. The history of Ireland, 
 for these two long centuries, and the character of its institu- 
 tions from which most of the Catholic emigrants of America 
 have escaped, have not been such as to make any of them 
 very enthusiastic for monarchies and aristocracies, and they 
 are not enthusiastic and do not teach their children to be. 
 However much f divine right ' of bishops there may be in the 
 books, there is no 'divine right' of kings. There is much 
 sharp condemnation of tyrannies, much warm approbation of 
 free institutions. Towards this American republic there is 
 especially a feeling of gratitude of a toleration such as Roman 
 Catholics have enjoyed in no Protestant country in Europe. 
 There are also pretty constant reminders of the intolerance 
 and the disabilities under which Catholics have suffered in the 
 Protestant world for the last two centuries. And is it to be 
 wondered at ? When we reflect upon it, it is a sorry history." 
 
 Again Mr. Mead says, speaking of two histories in use in 
 parochial schools : 
 
 "Here is a history — a history of the world, by John 
 MacCarthy, a book of the same scope as Swinton's — to 
 ■which I wish to pay almost unqualified praise. . . . An 
 exceedingly good book too is Hassard's ' History of the 
 United States.'" 
 
 In quoting from this pamphlet your correspondent appears 
 to have indeed purposely ignored certain passages which it 
 contains. "What are those passages? They are those in 
 which Mr. Mead speaks of the partisan feeling excited by 
 the discussion of Swinton's text-book, deplores what he justly 
 describes as "a mass of violent Protestant extravagance, 
 
164 
 
 misrepresentation, exaggeration, and abuse " on the subject,, 
 and proceeds as follows : 
 
 " This sort of thing we want to see eliminated from the 
 present controversy. In an account of the work of Bishop 
 England, of South Carolina, in one of these Catholic read- 
 ing books, the writer remarks : ' He soon discovered that 
 the Americans, though bitterly prejudiced against Catho- 
 lics, were yet disposed to be just and even generous. Their 
 hatred of the Church arose from utterly false notions con- 
 cerning her histories and doctrines ; and unfortunately the 
 Catholics possessed no means of correcting these erroneous 
 views. The press was in the hands of Protestants, who 
 made use of it to disseminate the most injurious and absurd 
 statements concerning the Church. The great majority of 
 the people had never seen a priest, had never heard a Catho- 
 lic sermon, had never entered a Catholic church, and had 
 nothing to rely upon but the false traditions which they or 
 their ancestors had brought from England.' I believe that 
 this is still an accurate description of multitudes of Amer- 
 ican people. I hope that it is not a description of any 
 Boston woman now preparing to vote on the school ques- 
 tion. If any such is within sound of my voice, I advise 
 her to indulge in no general talk about the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church until she has read at least one good book 
 which authoritatively represents it, until she has read, if she 
 can get nothing better, some of these histories and readers 
 used in the Catholic schools. There is much to criticise in 
 these books, but I think that nine Protestants out of ten will 
 be chiefly surprised at the worth that is in them." 
 
 This, and much more in the same vein, Mr. Mead says in 
 his pamphlet, besides the critical and derogatory things con- 
 cerning Catholic school-books which your correspondent 
 quotes with such gusto. But it was not for such passages as 
 these that your correspondent was looking. He was search- 
 ing in true partisan fashion only for the things that told on 
 his side. 
 
 What relevancy, however, have the merits or demerits of 
 text-books used in Catholic parochial schools to the question 
 we are supposed to be discussing, namely, the accuracy,. 
 
165 
 
 fairness, and justice of Swinton's statements concerning the 
 Catholic Church and her doctrines ? If it is true that inferior 
 and inaccurate text-books are used in parochial schools, I am 
 sorry for it, and I hope they will be||removed ; but, even if 
 such be the case, does that in any way justify the use of 
 inferior, inaccurate, and unfair text-books in the public 
 schools of Dedham? Assume, for the moment, that paro- 
 chial school books are not what they should be. Is that any 
 reason why our public school books should be faulty too? 
 The argument sought to be made apparently is that Catholic 
 parochial schools teach history with a strongly Catholic col- 
 oring, and therefore that the public schools are warranted 
 and justified in teaching history with a strongly Protestant 
 coloring. 
 
 Surely it is not necessary to point out the fatal weakness 
 in this argument. Protestants are not taxed to support the 
 parochial schools. Catholics are taxed to support the public 
 schools. Protestant children do not go to the parochial 
 schools, and therefore cannot have their religious faith 
 offended by the historical text-books used there, however 
 strong their Catholic coloring may be. Catholic children do 
 attend the public schools, and their religious faith is affronted 
 and assailed when text-books are forced upon them that have 
 a strong Protestant coloring. Suppose that Protestant par- 
 ents were taxed and made to pay for the purchase of the 
 Catholic text-books in use in the parochial schools, and 
 were besides obliged to send their children to those schools 
 to study from those books. Would they not say, and very 
 properly, that it was an outrageous affront to put upon them 
 and their religious convictions ? Yet that is exactly what 
 Catholic parents are forced to submit to every day in the pub- 
 lic schools. They must support them, they must send their 
 children to them, and they must submit to have text-books 
 full of anti-Catholic coloring put into their children's hands-. 
 
166 
 
 And insult is added to injury in this case by the solemn 
 assertion that the Protestant views and the Protestant inter- 
 pretations of history which these text-books present are the 
 real facts of history. From the Catholic stand-point this is an 
 assumption utterly at variance with the truth. 
 
 In this same letter of Feb. 9 last, it is evident that your 
 correspondent desires to decoy me into a controversy over 
 Anderson's " Manuals of History." His enthusiasm is charm- 
 ing, but I must decline to follow him into a discussion of 
 those or any other text-books, except the particular one in 
 hand. I am not in the least concerned as to the merits of 
 Anderson's " Manuals," nor have I any book to advocate as a 
 substitute for Swinton's. It is quite immaterial to me what 
 text-book is used, so long as it is one that is fair and truthful 
 and does no violence to the religious faith of the pupils. 
 
 The Anderson text-books, however, having been repre- 
 sented by your correspondent as written in the interest of 
 Catholics, their author may be properly allowed to speak for 
 himself. In the following letters, addressed by Mr. Ander- 
 son to prominent members of the Boston Committee of One 
 Hundred, that gentleman's reply to his critics is given : 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Brooklyn, Dec. 14, 1888. 
 Rev. Dr. James M. Gray : 
 
 Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of yours of the 11th inst. in 
 reply to mine of the 6th, in which I took exception to your 
 course and statements in regard to my two "Manuals of 
 General History," charging that these statements were "mis- 
 leading," and that they did me "great injustice," which 
 charge I am obliged, though with regret, to reiterate ; and be- 
 sides that, to say, that the assertion that my book was " Roman- 
 ized," meaning that it was altered to accommodate the text 
 to the peculiar views of the Roman Catholic Church and its 
 adherents, is utterly untrue. My book was written for the 
 common schools of the United States, and was designed to 
 be fair toward the peculiar views of all — favoring none and 
 
167 
 
 offensive to none. This, it seems to me, who was for many 
 years connected with the public schools of the city of New 
 York, is the only proper course to pursue. 
 
 You are well aware that history may be written, indeed is 
 usually, from a Protestant or Catholic stand-point ; but a 
 manual to be used by both Catholic and Protestant pupils 
 should be strictly impartial ; and all moot points that cannot 
 be so stated in a brief manner, as to give a fair consideration 
 to both sides of the argument, should necessarily be omitted. 
 Certainly one side should not be stated as if there were no 
 other view taken. I am a Protestant myself, but this course, 
 it seems to me, is the only correct one to take in the prepa- 
 ration of text-books for our common schools, which, if they 
 are to be preserved at all, must be absolutely non-sectarian. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 John J. Anderson. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Brooklyn, Dec. 8, 1888. 
 Hev. J. B. Dunn : 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 6th postmarked the 7th, 
 was received this evening. It was evidently prepared for 
 publication as you intimate. It is not a reply to either of 
 my communications to you. 
 
 On the 15th of last month you publicly asserted that 
 the " Baltimore Council three years ago put both Anderson 
 and Swinton on the index expurgatorius, but since that time 
 the former has been Romanized, etc." That assertion is not 
 true. To a fair criticism of my book I can have no objec- 
 tion, but I do not propose to submit to misrepresentation. 
 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 John J. Anderson. 
 
 It is not necessary that I should add anything to these 
 explicit statements of Prof. Anderson. In this corre- 
 spondence I have been insensibly led on until I have far- ex- 
 ceeded the limits within which I intended to confine myself. 
 
 I will trouble your readers with one more letter only, 
 which will, I think, suffice to make perfectly clear the griev- 
 ance of Catholic parents in this matter. Vicar-General 
 
168 
 
 Byrne, of whom your correspondent speaks as a high Cath- 
 olic authority, and whom he has quoted as saying that 
 Swinton did not misrepresent the Catholic Church on the 
 subject of indulgences, very distinctly and forcibly states the 
 offensive character of Swinton's foot-note in these words : — 
 
 "The injury that maybe done to the faith in immature 
 minds by a general statement of that kind is incalculable, and 
 makes us shudder to think how much mischief this text-book 
 may have done in years gone by. . . . Why, it is one of the 
 most barefaced attempts that I ever saw, to use the public 
 schools for the purpose of bringing the Catholic Church into 
 odium and contempt, and thus play into the hands of the 
 sects, in professedly non-sectarian schools." 
 
 That the reality of this grievance is now appreciated by 
 all fair-minded readers of these articles I have little doubt. 
 In that belief I will, therefore, after sending you one more 
 letter to clear up a few points in the discussion that seem to 
 call for a final word, leave the whole matter with confidence 
 to the tair judgment of the people of Dedham. 
 
 R. J. Johnson. 
 
 A LAST KEJOINDER. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE REV. GEORGE W. COOKE.* 
 [Erom the Dedham Standard, April 13, 1889.] 
 
 I read in your paper that Rev. R. J. Johnson is about to 
 bring his letters to a close. As his style, his manner of 
 treating his subject, his sophistry, his mud-throwing, refute 
 him at every point, it is undesirable that I should reply to 
 his lucubrations. For the sake of those who have given my 
 articles a patient reading I wish to say, however, that my 
 
 * The points of this letter are replied to in the introductory remarks 
 (pages 1 to 15). — R. J. J. 
 
169 
 
 article on the parochial schools and what is taught in them 
 was not taken from Mr. Mead's pamphlet. I read Mr. 
 Mead's pamphlet, I agree with him, and he did undoubtedly 
 suggest several points of which I made use in my article ,- 
 but beyond that I was not indebted to him. I read the 
 books from which I quoted, and what I quoted was copied, 
 with one exception, word for word from the books them- 
 selves, and not from Mr. Mead. If any one cares to take 
 the trouble to compare my article with Mr. Mead's pamphlet 
 he will see that I quoted several paragraphs not used at all 
 by him. Should any one wish to go further, I have the 
 books in my study and they can be consulted there. 
 
 Mr. Johnson charges me with garbling Maurel's book on 
 indulgences. I quoted with great care, word for word, 
 nearly a column of the Standard, from that book, in order 
 that I might not misrepresent the position of the Catholics. 
 The limit of space assigned me by the editor did not permit 
 of my quoting the whole of the sermon and interview of 
 Vicar-General Byrne, as I should have been glad to do. In 
 fact, every charge brought against me of misrepresentation 
 is absolutely false.* 
 
 Once more, in my introduction I distinctly stated my pur- 
 pose to go beyond Swinton's book in what I should write, 
 taking that book simply as a text. In describing the 
 parochial text-books I spoke of some of them as being very 
 good, as they undoubtedly are ; but the best of them has as 
 
 * If mere denial were equivalent to disproof, this would clear Mr. 
 Cooke. But the garbled quotations from Maurel, the misrepresentation 
 of Vicar -General Byrne's interview, and the manufactured quotations 
 from the Pope's Encyclical, the Catholic World, the Catholic Review, and 
 Cardinal Antonelli, remain unexplained, unjustified, and unjustifiable. 
 The challenges to verify them made to Mr. Cooke over three months ago 
 (April 13, 1889) also remain unanswered and unanswerable. Of what 
 avail is his denial in the face of these facts? See Vicar-General Byrne's, 
 letter on page 123; also see pages 93-97 as to Maurel, and pages 171-17& 
 as to these spurious quotations. — R. J. J. 
 
170 
 
 its main purpose to magnify the Catholic Church. That of 
 itself condemns them. All intelligent people to-day wish to 
 see the world without being compelled to use the spectacles 
 of the Catholic or any other denomination. 
 
 I detest all religious controversy. I have nothing against 
 the Catholic Church as a church ; I should prefer to praise 
 it rather than to condemn it.* What I detest is sectarianism 
 wherever found, and the attempt to push the interests of a 
 sect by unfair and unjust methods. So far as the Catholic 
 Church attends to its legitimate work as a spiritual guide of 
 the people, I have no controversy with it. When it begins 
 to meddle with the public schools, I can no longer remain 
 quiet. I say, hands off from the schools. 
 
 George W. Cooke. 
 
 BEARING FALSE WITNESS. 
 
 ALLEGED QUOTATIONS FROM THE POPE'S ENCYCLICAL LETTER, 
 AND FROM OTHER CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES SHOWN NOT TO BE 
 GENUINE. — SOME DIRECT CHALLENGES TO TEST THEIR TRUTH. 
 — THE REV. R. J. JOHNSON'S CLOSING LETTER. 
 
 [From the Dedham Standard, April 13, 1889.] 
 
 The patience of your readers must have been severely 
 tried by this long and discursive discussion ; but I may 
 reconcile them to this further tax upon their forbearance if 
 I say at the start that I propose to write the welcome word 
 " Finis " at the end of this letter and trouble them no more 
 on this exhausted subject. 
 
 It has been well said that misrepresentations do not cause 
 any lasting injury, because they always lead people to inquire 
 
 * From this assertion of Mr. Cooke, there seems to be ground of hope 
 that he may yet — like Balaam, who began by cursing and ended by bless- 
 ing — appear as the eulogist of the Catholic Church. To this desirable 
 end it only remains that he should become instructed in its history and in 
 its doctrines. — R. J. J. 
 
171 
 
 into the facts, and inquiry develops truth. I feel that the 
 misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine and practices by your 
 correspondent, the Rev. George W. Cooke, have in this way 
 at least been fruitful of good, for they have provoked inquiry 
 and given an opportunity for the correct statement of many 
 things concerning the Catholic Church and its teachings which 
 have been heretofore widely misunderstood. 
 
 Your correspondent has assumed the airs of profound lit- 
 erary research by parading quotations from Catholic school- 
 books which he has taken at second hand from Mr. Mead's 
 pamphlet. More than this, in his letter of March 9, he poses 
 as if he were on terms of familiarity with the Encyclicals of 
 the Pope ; and when he descants upon " the attitude of the 
 Catholic Church " as " expressed by the Pope in his Encycli- 
 cal Letter," and proceeds to quote what purports to be the 
 language of that historical document, the average reader 
 may well exclaim, " Here indeed is a learned and scholarly 
 controversialist ! Here is a scholarly disputant who goes to 
 the original documents in the case, and draws his informa- 
 tion straight from the fountain-head of historical facts. He 
 is not only acquainted with the Protestant authorities on the 
 subject, but is familiar with all that Catholic writers have 
 said upon it in Catholic magazines, periodicals, and else- 
 where." Alas ! how many are the illusions of which the 
 reader is likely to become the victim in following the dis- 
 quisitions of a writer like your correspondent ! He appropri- 
 ates whatever excerpts come in his way, without verifying 
 them, and I suspect I should be within the mark if I said 
 without being able to verify them by consulting the docu- 
 ments in the original language in which they were written 
 and published. It is the common habit of hasty and hence 
 unskilful writers to seize upon quotations ascribed to emi- 
 nent authorities just as they happen to find them in the 
 pamphlets of the period, and to use them as their own. In 
 
172 
 
 this way such writers often put into the mouths of distin- 
 guished authors words which those authors have never used, 
 and thus their own ignorance of the subject is laid bare. 
 Such a habit obviously places any controversialist at the 
 mercy of the slip of another's pen ; and when that pen 
 •chances to be the pen of a partisan hack, writing to order 
 and for the express purpose of putting a certain desired gloss 
 on the facts of history, to the end that his employers may 
 feel that they have got their money's worth, we can easily 
 see to what depths of garbling, distortion, and even down- 
 right forgery a controversialist may come, who thus depends 
 upon what I may call the literary slop-shops for his quota- 
 tions. The partisan leaflets and pamphlets issued by the 
 anti-Catholic repositories, the anonymous communications 
 sent to daily papers, and the " no-Popery " tirades delivered 
 by demagogues masquerading on public platforms and in 
 pulpits, are the necessary resort of ill-equipped disputants 
 who are unable to forge their own arguments out of honest 
 materials collected from the storehouses of historical truth. 
 Their data hold the same relations to standard authorities as 
 that which the contents of the barrel at one's back door hold 
 to the larder : they are simply the leavings and sweepings 
 of literature, unsavory, malodorous, and serviceable only to 
 the wandering dog. 
 
 From such receptacles your correspondent has produced 
 the following alleged quotations from the Pope's Encyclical 
 Letter : 
 
 XLV. " The Catholic Church has a right to interfere in 
 the discipline of the public schools, and in the arrangement 
 of the studies of the public schools, and in the choice of the 
 teachers for these schools." 
 
 XLVII. "Public schools, open to all children for the 
 education of the young, should be under the control of the 
 Catholic Church, and should not be subjected to the civil 
 power, nor made to conform to the opinions of the age." 
 
173 
 
 You will observe that these paragraphs are given in quo- 
 tation-marks, as if they were the actual and exact words of 
 the Pope. Now, the fact is that the Pope has never used any 
 such language. There is no Encyclical of the Pope contain- 
 ing these propositions. If your correspondent can find any 
 Encyclical of the Pope containing them, or either of them, 
 I invite him to publish them in the Standard, at regular ad- 
 vertising rates, and send the bill to me. He will never find 
 such words in any Encyclical. In ascribing them to the Pope 
 he has simply been the victim of the rummaging habit ; he has 
 •delved among the literary offal of anti-Catholic repositories, 
 and he palms off what he has thus collected as if it were well- 
 authenticated historical fact. • 
 
 It will evidently be giving him information to say that the 
 propositions which he designates as numbers 45 and 47 are 
 not to be found in any Encyclical at all, either in the shape 
 in which he has misquoted them from some one else who had 
 first mis-translated them, or in any other shape. They are 
 evidently misquoted from the syllabus which was attached to 
 the Encyclical Letter, "Quanta cura." Your correspondent 
 again assumes to quote from the same letter as follows : 
 
 "I anathematize all who maintain the liberty of the press, 
 and all advocates of liberty of speech, which is the liberty of 
 perdition." 
 
 And again I say that this language is not to be found in 
 any Encyclical Letter of the Pope. I challenge your corre- 
 spondent to produce a true copy of any letter containing the 
 words which he attributes to the head of the Catholic Church. 
 If he can find an Encyclical in which these words appear, let 
 him publish this also in full in the Dedham Standard, at 
 advertising rates, and send the bill to me. It is a com- 
 monly circulated slander upon the Catholic Church that it 
 condemns the freedom of the press. Most assuredly it does 
 not condemn the lawful liberty either of speech or of the 
 
174 
 
 press, but only that unlawful and wanton freedom which is 
 unjust and licentious. It is obvious to every reflecting mind 
 that the liberty to print or say anything or everything is the 
 most hurtful of liberties. And do the laws of the United 
 States themselves lay no • restrictions upon the freedom of 
 speech and of the press? Have we not a law of libel, a law 
 against using threatening language, a law against perjury, a 
 law against blasphemy, and a law against obscene literature? 
 Was not the Anarchist paper which incited to violence and 
 murder seized and suppressed by the Chicago police? There 
 is a difference as to what the Church tolerates in the use of 
 language and what the State tolerates, and there well may be 
 a difference, because the Church deals with the domain of 
 conscience and the State with the domain of social order. 
 But the fundamental principle that prescribes limits to the 
 freedom of the press and of speech is recognized by both 
 authorities alike. 
 
 Again, your correspondent affects to quote from Cardinal 
 Antonelli. What does he make that distinguished prelate 
 say ? That " it is better that children grow up in ignorance 
 than that they should be educated in such schools as the 
 State of Massachusetts supports," etc., giving these words 
 and those that follow in quotation-marks as the actual words 
 of Cardinal Antonelli. I deny that these words appear in 
 any well-authenticated public deliverance or utterance of that 
 cardinal, and I challenge your correspondent to justify his 
 quotation of them as if they had thus appeared. If he 
 responds to this challenge, and produces any letter, speech, 
 address, or other public utterance of Cardinal Antonelli, in 
 which this language occurs, I invite him to publish that also 
 in the Dedham Standard, at advertising rates, and send the 
 bill to me. 
 
 But this is not all. In his pseudo-quotations from the 
 Pope's Encyclical Letter, your correspondent shows plainly 
 
175 
 
 that if he has ever seen that document he is not able to trans- 
 late it any more than to understand it. His alleged citations 
 are so ludicrous a travesty of the text that it is hard to read 
 them and keep from laughing. It is not the Pope's Encycli- 
 cal, but Mr. Cooke's, that your readers have had quoted for 
 them ; and it is not even Mr. Cooke's original Encyclical. 
 He has so distorted the sense of the Pope's language that I 
 should be at a loss to discover what he thought he was trans- 
 lating, only that I can see plainly that this preposterous 
 translation is not his work at all, but is taken bodily from 
 the literary garbage boxes. Upon the whole, however, these 
 disquisitions of your correspondent on the strength of his 
 untruthful citations from the Pope, and from Cardinal Anto- 
 nelli, will serve a useful purpose. They show his inability 
 to give an accurate statement of facts, a limitation for which 
 he is not to blame, for he did not make himself. But they 
 show something that is worse than incapacity ; they show 
 that he does not argue with any regard for justice and truth. 
 Throughout your correspondent's letters there is an offen- 
 sive imputation to Catholics of lack of patriotism and sus- 
 picion of their loyalty to American institutions. To sustain 
 these imputations your correspondent quotes what he alleges 
 to be utterances of the Catholic World and of the Catholic 
 Review, in which these periodicals are made to say that the 
 Catholic Church aims at ascendancy in this country, the con- 
 trol of all legislation, and the suppression of individual as 
 well as newspaper opinion. These are the exact words 
 which your correspondent pretends to quote from the Cath- 
 olic World: 
 
 " The Catholic Church numbers one third of the American 
 population, and if its membership shall increase for the next 
 thirty years as it has for the thirty years past, in 1900 Rome 
 will have a majority, and be bound to this country, and keep 
 it. There is ere long to be a State religion in this country, 
 and that State religion is to be Roman Catholic. The Roman 
 
176 
 
 Catholic is to wield his vote for the purpose of securing- 
 Catholic ascendancy in this country. All legislation must 
 be governed by the will of God, unerringly indicated by 
 the Pope. Education must be controlled by Catholic au- 
 thorities, and, under education, the opinion of the individual 
 and the utterances of the press are included. Many opinions 
 are to be furnished by the secular arm under the authority of 
 the Church, even to war and bloodshed." 
 
 Now if your correspondent has in fact found the foregoing 
 words in the Catholic World, he knows, of course, where he 
 found them, and he can give us the number, volume, date, 
 and page of that magazine in which they appeared. I call 
 upon him to give us those particulars, so that the truthful- 
 ness of his quotation may be established. And unless he 
 thus justifies his quotation, he will stand convicted of having 
 fabricated it out of whole cloth. To manufacture writings 
 for the purpose of condemning the writer to whom such man- 
 ufactured writings are attributed, is called in law by a very 
 ugly name. In England at the present time they call it 
 Pigottism, after the man who, being exposed in this kind of 
 work, took refuge from his shame in suicide. 
 
 Again, your correspondent quotes the following declara- 
 tions as from the Catholic Review: 
 
 "While a State has rights, she has them only in virtue 
 and by permission of the superior authority, and that author- 
 ity can only be expressed through the Church. Protestant- 
 ism of every form has not, and never can have, any right 
 where Catholicism has triumphed ; and, therefore, we lose 
 the breath we expend in declaiming against bigotry and in- 
 tolerance, and in favor of religious liberty, or the right of 
 any man to be of any religion as best pleases him." 
 
 Now, I say again that if the above words were found by 
 your correspondent in the Catholic Review, he knows where 
 he found them. I demand from him the volume, page, and 
 date of the Catholic Review in which those words are to be- 
 
177 
 
 found ; and in default of his furnishing them I charge him 
 with having framed this alleged quotation to suit his own 
 purposes. 
 
 Can there be anything worse in argument than to invent 
 evidence and put it into the mouths of witnesses who never 
 gave it? Is there any possibility of honest discussion with 
 an opponent who imputes language to Catholic writers which 
 they have never used ? The recognized canons of honorable 
 controversy are outraged when spurious quotations are thus 
 called into service. And if such base coin is to be circu- 
 lated in lieu of the honest currency of genuine quotation, 
 how is it possible that the general reader should be led to a 
 just conclusion? I call upon your correspondent to publicly 
 verify these pretended quotations. Unless he can, they must 
 be nailed to the counter as counterfeits and forgeries. 
 
 No doubt Catholic journals and magazines, like others, 
 have at times said unwise things ; but I never heard of a 
 lunatic being at the head of a Catholic paper or magazine, 
 and none but a lunatic would have admitted such stuff to his 
 pages as that which your correspondent alleges he has quoted 
 from the Catholic World and the Catholic Review. The 
 sentiments attributed by these alleged quotations are repug- 
 nant to all the principles and teachings of the Catholic 
 Church, and I repudiate them as the coarsest conceivable 
 travesty of Catholic sentiment and opinion. Why did not 
 your correspondent verify these quotations, before rushing 
 into print with them? When he started out, his promise 
 was that he would prove his case by appealing to a " con- 
 sensus of unbiased historians " ; and here behold, he is ten- 
 dering us second-hand quotations, snatched from the ready- 
 made no-Popery literature of the day, unverified and 
 un verifiable. From "a consensus of unbiased historians" 
 to counterfeit quotations accepted on credit from anonymous 
 letter writers and pamphleteers and fished out of the other 
 
178 
 
 common sewers of falsehood and forgery, is a tremendous 
 drop. Your correspondent has made it. The Catholic 
 Church, of course, can no more be held accountable for a 
 wild or foolish utterance by a Catholic paper than the Unita- 
 rian Church for the utterances of your correspondent in this 
 controversy ; and this latter responsibility is one, surely, 
 that no charitable person would impute. Much less can the 
 Catholic Church be held responsible for quotations of words 
 falsely purporting to be from Catholic publications. 
 
 I suppose that your correspondent is, in this instance, as 
 in the others already pointed out, a victim to his unfortunate 
 practice of borrowing his quotations from unveracious pam- 
 phleteers. I have no doubt that he obtained these alleged 
 quotations by cutting them, without credit and without veri- 
 fication, from the letter of an anonymous correspondent in the 
 Boston Transcript, the writer of which had enough sense of 
 decency not only to withhold his name but also to give the 
 date of the Catholic World and of the Catholic Review from 
 which the quotations are said to be taken. From the same 
 anonymous letter your correspondent has also obtained his 
 quotation from the Catholic Review ; and from other columns 
 of the same paper he has appropriated (and again without 
 giving credit) his Chicago announcement of indulgences, and 
 his extracts from the Chicago Church Calendar. This is the 
 secret of your correspondent's imposing display of literary 
 research ; and it also furnishes a key to his peculiar concep- 
 tion of what constitutes a " consensus of unbiased historians." 
 It has been left for him to show that " unbiased historians'' and 
 anonymous correspondents of daily papers are the same 
 thing. 
 
 But what does the Catholic World really say ? I find in 
 its columns (Vol. XX., pages 623, 624, 625) an able and 
 exhaustive article entitled "Religion and State in our Repub- 
 lic," which directly deals with the subject of the relation of 
 
179 
 
 the Catholic Church to the institutions of this country, and 
 which expresses views that are totally at variance with those 
 which your correspondent imputes to it. The following are 
 a few extracts from this article : 
 
 "Without any question . . . the Catholics of this country 
 are agreed in the conviction that the Republican institutions of 
 the United States are the best and only possible ones for our 
 country. They have no desire to subvert them, and there 
 has never been any conspiracy against them except in the 
 malicious or deluded brains of fanatical and anti-Catho- 
 lic writers and speakers and of the crowd which they have 
 duped. Genuine Catholics will never conspire against our 
 government and laws, but will always be true and loyal 
 American citizens. If the majority of the people, or the 
 whole people were to become Catholics they would not use 
 their power to subvert our American institutions, or substi- 
 tute for them those of any European nation. On the con- 
 trary, nothing could happen which would secure the perpe- 
 tuity of the Republic and promote its political prosperity and 
 glory with anything like the influence which the Catholic 
 religion would exercise in producing such desirable results. 
 . . . But what would be the action of Catholics if they should 
 ever become the majority, in regard to requiring or prohibit- 
 ing by law those things in which the Catholic conscience differs 
 from the Protestant and non-Catholic standard of right and 
 wrong? It is always necessary in such cases for all parties 
 to exercise the greatest forbearance, moderation, and fairness 
 towards cne another, in order that these questions should 
 have a peaceable solution. Therefore those violent and 
 fanatical or selfish demagogues, both clerical and lay, who 
 seek to exasperate the non-Catholic citizens of this country 
 against their Catholic fellow-citizens, are the most dangerous 
 enemies of the public peace. We appeal to all candid, im- 
 partial, intelligent American citizens to say who are they 
 who seek to fan the embers of strife into a flame ; are they 
 Catholic leaders or are they the chiefs and orators of a vio- 
 lent, sectarian, anti-Catholic party? Our Catholic citizens, 
 if fairly treated, will always respect the rights of their fel- 
 low-citizens. . . . They will never seek to tyrannize over 
 their fellow-citizens, to establish their religion by force, or 
 compel any one to do those things which are required only 
 by the Catholic conscience." 
 
180 
 
 These are the actual opinions and sentiments of the Catho- 
 lic World. The reader will see how far they are from 
 expressing a desire to establish an intolerant control over 
 non-Catholic thought and speech. 
 
 After attributing to the Catholic World these illiberal ;md 
 intolerant views which it never expressed or held, your cor- 
 respondent naively asks w T hether " if the Catholic Church 
 does triumph," it will continue the public schools and grant 
 general toleration. 
 
 This is quite outside of the question which we are sup- 
 posed to have been all this time discussing ; but your corre- 
 spondent drags it in, as he has dragged in so many other 
 extraneous matters, for the manifest purpose of stirring slum- 
 bering prejudices and exciting the latent fires of bigotry. 
 The question was answered early in the history of the coun- 
 try, by the State of Maryland, founded as a Catholic colony, 
 where the Catholic Church was distinctly in the ascendant. 
 The broadest toleration was granted to the non-Catholic peo- 
 ple of Maryland, by the Catholic authorities, and no greater 
 liberty of religious opinion and worship has ever been enjoyed 
 on this continent. 
 
 Brownson, an eminent Catholic writer, emphatically de- 
 clares in his works (Vol. X., page 238) that the very prin- 
 ciples of the Catholic religion require us "to assert and main- 
 tain as broad a toleration as our American Constitution 
 guarantees.'' And again (Vol. XVIII., pages 362 and 363) : 
 
 " No Catholic writer has ever written that ' religious liberty 
 is only to be endured till the opposite can be established with 
 safety to the Catholic world,' or that 'the Catholics of Amer- 
 ica are bound to abide by the interpretation put upon the 
 Constitution of the United States by the Pope of Rome.' . . . 
 All we ask for our Church, we have said over and over 
 again, is f an open field and fair play.' We demand for her 
 as a right, which the State and all individuals are bound to 
 respect, full liberty to profess and practise her faith and dis- 
 
181 
 
 •cipline ; and what we claim for her in face of the civil 
 authority, or of secular society, we have uniformly expressed 
 our readiness to concede to the sects, nay, if it were neces- 
 sary, to defend for them." 
 
 One more point and I am done. Throughout your cor- 
 respondent's letters, as I have said, there is a studied and 
 systematic effort to impute to Catholics lack of patriotism 
 and disloyalty to American institutions. There is unfortu- 
 nately a class of controversialists, of whom your corre- 
 spondent is typical, who cannot conceive of a patriotic 
 citizen except as a man who necessarily holds the same 
 religious and political views as themselves. Yet it will be 
 obvious to less egotistical minds that a man may love his 
 country and its institutions, and be a good citizen in the full- 
 est sense of the term, without accepting Swinton's text- 
 book, or accepting your correspondent's coarse conceptions 
 of Catholic teachings and practices. Disagreement with Rev. 
 Mr. Cooke is not the same thing as disloyalty to the Consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States. The notion that the 
 refuting of his errors and the information of his ignorance is 
 the same thing as treason to the American flag is merely a 
 whiff of that abnormal conceit which breathes like a strong 
 perfume throughout his letters on this subject. Catholic 
 citizens have, indeed, no occasion to protest their loyalty to 
 this country ; they have proved it on hundreds of battle- 
 fields, during our Civil War, and sealed their devotion to it 
 with many thousands of their lives. 
 
 At the Catholic Total Abstinence Convention held in 
 Boston last August, Bishop Keane, President of the Catholic 
 University, eloquently resented the slanderous insinuation of 
 your correspondent's letters, and expressed the sentiment of 
 loyalty to America and her institutions which every Catholic 
 citizen shares. He spoke as follows : — 
 
182 
 
 " I declare before God and before man that the Catholic 
 Church looks upon our country and liberty and institutions 
 with a mingled love and admiration. [Applause.] Here, 
 in the presence of the American people and in the sacred 
 shadow of that shrine to American liberties, I say that that 
 man who says that in the aims of the Catholic Church there 
 is anything antagonistic to the principles of our govern- 
 ment, — that man lies. [Tremendous applause."] It is 
 a comfort to know that not every lie is an intentional viola- 
 tion of the truth. [Laughter and applause.] There are 
 lies that come only from ignorance ; and as our blessed Lord 
 said, I say, 'Forgive them, for they know not what they say.'" 
 
 Nothing remains for me to say, except to thank the editor 
 
 of the Standard for the generous courtesy with which he has 
 
 given me the use of his space for a full statement of my side 
 
 of the case, and the readers of the Standard for their 
 
 patience, upon which, indeed, I feel that I have trespassed 
 
 too long. And with these acknowledgments I leave the 
 
 whole matter in dispute between JRev. Mr. Cooke and myself 
 
 to the fair and dispassionate decision of all my readers, and 
 
 especially of the citizens of Dedham. 
 
 R. J. Johnson. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 A PLEA FOE TOLERATION. 
 
 THE UNWISE CRUSADE OF THE PROTESTANTS. A DISPASSIONATE 
 REVIEW ON THE SCHOOL CONTROVERSY BY MR. HENRY WINN. 
 
 [From the Boston Herald, Dec. 8, 1888.] 
 
 The public-school question demands the attention of every 
 citizen who looks beyond the temporary expedients which 
 partisans, political or religious, adopt to effect their ends, at 
 the higher expediency of conducting public affairs in the 
 interests of civil liberty. Unlike our ancestors, we have had 
 no struggle to establish the rules of action on which our lib- 
 
 Do 
 
 erties depend, and we forget their value. Freedom of reli- 
 gious opinion, without the interference of any agent, teacher, 
 or official, in the pay of the State — liberty of worship in 
 short is, as classed by Lieber, one of the primordial rights 
 of man. Forgetting this, a considerable body of the Prot- 
 estant clergy and laity seem to have entered into a mad 
 scheme to elect a majority of the School Board, which shall 
 be distinctively Protestant, and force an issue as to what 
 denomination shall control the board, where no doctrinal 
 religion should be tolerated. The following seem to be the 
 salient facts. 
 
 In May last Swinton's " Outlines of the World's History "" 
 was taught in the English High School. This work, in stating 
 the incidents of the Reformation, recites that Pope Leo X., 
 to raise money, adopted an extensive sale of indulgences, 
 which, in former ages, had been a source of large profit to the 
 
184 
 
 Church ; that, the Dominican friars, having a monopoly of the 
 sale in Germany, employed an agent, Tetzel, one of their 
 own number, who carried it on in a manner very offensive, 
 especially to the Augustinian friars, which agent one of them, 
 Martin Luther, took the lead in opposing. In a foot-note 
 under these statements Swinton gives this definition : 
 
 "These indulgences were, in the early ages of the Church, 
 remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins 
 had brought scandal on the community. But in process of 
 time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and 
 the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all 
 his sins." 
 
 This definition offends the Catholics, we understand, be- 
 cause it contains the basis of a false inference, injurious to 
 their faith, and a suppression of important facts, which, if 
 the partial statement be made, ought to appear. The words, 
 "These indulgences were in the early ages of the Church 
 remissions of the penances " — a statement of what the 
 Church did make them — followed so closely by the words, 
 " But in process of time they were represented as actual par- 
 dons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was said to be 
 delivered from all his sins," no person being named as the 
 maker of these representations, seem fairly to imply that the 
 Church made or authorized them. 
 
 This they indignantly deny. They state that an indulgence 
 was not a pardon for sin, nor a permission to commit sin, 
 but a remission of certain temporal punishment due to sins, 
 after contrition, and after the sin had been forgiven, and that 
 the Church, instead of being responsible for Tetzel's course, 
 disciplined him. 
 
 We do not understand that their position as to these facts 
 can be successfully controverted. They claim, therefore, 
 that, if the book were fair to their tenets, it would state 
 them. This book is to be placed in the hands of children. 
 
185 
 
 A nice critic might indeed say that the words do not dis- 
 tinctly allege that the Church represented these indulgences 
 to be actual pardons of guilt, though he could not say they 
 do not imply that. But what impression would the child 
 bear away? Even the teacher told the pupils that an indul- 
 gence was a "permission to commit sin," giving illustrations 
 which he states were merely to elucidate the text. This 
 shows his idea. And the committee say that the examina- 
 tion papers of the boys reveal in their minds erroneous and 
 even grotesque notions on the subject. A text-book, then, if 
 the Catholic position is true as to the facts, must be free from 
 this obscurity, and must state the important connected cir- 
 cumstances, if it is not unfairly to prejudice the child's mind 
 against the Catholic religion. 
 
 The law of Massachusetts (Pub. Stats., Chap. 44, Sect. 32) 
 plainly forbids the School Committee " to direct to be pur- 
 chased or used in the public schools, school-books calculated 
 to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians." 
 This includes, of course, books calculated to disparage the 
 tenets of any sect, for disparaging one favors another. A 
 text-book may not even set out truths marshalled in a way 
 w calculated " to have the prohibited effect. 
 
 How, in the light of these facts and this law, the commit- 
 tee could do otherwise than to strike the book from the list 
 as they did, when the question was raised, we leave to any 
 fair man to determine. And yet a Protestant junta proposes 
 that every man who so voted is to be ostracized from the 
 board, without the benefit of clergy. 
 
 Nor is this all. The teacher, as a special committee 
 found, not only told the pupils that an indulgence was a per- 
 mission to commit sin, but later added : " Should a murderer 
 be brought before a judge he would only have to put his 
 hand in his pocket and produce indulgence papers to be par- 
 doned." Also, " you pay so much money in advance for 
 
186 
 
 leave to commit certain sins." And when a Catholic pupit 
 objected, this teacher among other things said, " Well, you 
 would make a kind of penance out of an indulgence." "I 
 may be wrong, however, I was not there and did not go to 
 Mr. Tetzel and ask how T much I would have to give to kill 
 Mr. Jackson's cow, or to put an iron steeple (staple?) 
 before a railway train and throw a number of people into 
 eternity." 
 
 Is it strange that when the law is so nice as to forbid in 
 the schools even oral comment on the Bible, the Catholics 
 should revolt at this treatment and begin to inquire whether 
 they had any rights that Protestants were bound to respect ? 
 
 It did result in a protest from Father Metcalf. But the 
 School Committee only changed the teacher from mediaeval to 
 ancient history, without change of rank or salary. How 
 was this mild action received by the ultra-Protestants? Did 
 they have one word of condemnation for the conduct of the 
 teacher ? Did they not rather organize and demand that the 
 Swinton History be restored because it had been used ten 
 years, and because, as they alleged, the foot-note contains a 
 " true statement of history," without traversing the allegation 
 that other truth was suppressed, or that the book " was cal- 
 culated to favor the tenets" of the Protestants, contrary to 
 law? 
 
 And when the School Committee could not lawfully comply,, 
 did they not declare war upon them and organize a commit- 
 tee to boycott them? Did they not, fresh from their own 
 private sectarian schools, enter into nice disquisitions as to 
 how they could by means of the State lawfully shut up the 
 sectarian schools of the Catholics, and force Catholic children 
 into this kind of public training, appealing to the old plea 
 of State necessity, under which tyrants have for ages sup- 
 pressed the liberties of their subjects? 
 
 Were not proposals made so intemperate that a fair writer 
 
187 
 
 cannot quote them without injustice to the more discreet? 
 Did they not, well knowing the opposition of the Catholics 
 to woman suffrage, and apparently confident that they could 
 use this weapon without being struck back, by reason of the 
 Catholic conscience on the subject, hale out from 10,000 to 
 15,000 women from their congregations to register and beat 
 the School Committee ? The writer at least was informed 
 that 5,000 had been assessed before a probable Catholic 
 appeared. Usually but a few hundreds vote. 
 
 Finally, when the excitement reached a fever, some of the 
 younger Catholics, against the advice of leaders, began to 
 organize the women sympathetic with their cause. They 
 thronged the City Hall. The writer inquired of many why 
 they came. They all replied in various terms : " Because 
 the Protestant women were banded together to drive Catho- 
 lics from the School Board, aDd Catholic teachers from the 
 schools." 
 
 The vices of a thousand years ago have been heaped at 
 the doors of the Catholics of Boston. The fever may be 
 judged from the style of the pastor of our most conservative 
 church. He declares : " Amid the awful predictions with 
 which the canon of revelation closes, not a single ray of scrip- 
 ture hope can be found to gild the destiny of papal Rome. 
 A dense, unbroken cloud of portentous judgment lowers 
 upon its horizon. No other light meets the eye of the 
 observer than the glare of an awful thunderbolt, and no 
 other sound breaks upon the ear than the glad shout of the 
 universe, which tells of everlasting overthrow." And this 
 is the " ice " of Park Street ! 
 
 And yet the Catholics seem calm. With rare exceptions 
 they have shown the judicial temper and moderation needed 
 on the School Committee to a far greater extent than their 
 adversaries. 
 
 At what; do we complain? Not that women vote, which 
 
188 
 
 is their indubitable right. It is at making the Catholic faith 
 a bar to nomination where no religion ought to be consid- 
 ered, evidenced by a ticket without a Catholic on it, put 
 forth on the flimsy plea that Catholics hold over ; at the 
 attempt at sectarian teaching not condemned ; at the attack 
 on the committee for doing what seems right, at least what 
 they deemed right ; at the bitter discussion ; the demand to 
 restore the book, right or wrong : the successful attempt to 
 prevent the nomination of every man who opposed, no mat- 
 ter how conscientiously ; at the organized effort to bring out 
 women, who never would have thought of voting, to carry a 
 religious test which never ought to be made. 
 
 A few comments on this wretched controversy seem 
 demanded, and the first is that the whole matter was trivial, 
 affording no grounds for this Protestant crusade. If a son 
 of Rev. Dr. Moxom had been instructed in the public school 
 that the Baptist Church had a habit of insuring immunity to 
 train-wreckers for cash, or if a text-book carried that impli- 
 cation, we might expect storms in the Protestant horizon ; 
 but we should call it puerile if, on rectification of the wrong, 
 all Catholic Boston were lashed into fury, and bands of angry 
 priests were marshalling armies of women to storm the Prot- 
 estant citadels. 
 
 Next it emphasizes the folly of holding the Catholic citizen 
 responsible for all the doctrines of the Church. Suppose it 
 does advance theories inconsistent with paramount loyalty to 
 the State, even requiring superior fealty to Rome. We can 
 only deal with the overt act of the citizen. We have no 
 rio-ht to ostracize him till he has shown that his doctrines 
 unfit him for his duties. And, dealing with facts, have men, 
 as Catholics, shirked from our armies, refused our levies, 
 demanded immunity for crime, or done anything to weaken 
 the fabric of society? In countries distinctively Catholic 
 does the Church rule the State ? Does the Pope rule Italy 
 
189 
 
 — the clerical party control France ? If not, whence our 
 fears ? 
 
 Again, this mad projection of religion into the school ques- 
 tion alienates the friends of the public schools among the 
 Catholics. A great part of the Catholic laity have always 
 defended our schools ; they do to-day, and send their chil- 
 dren there. But they will not continue to do so if we per- 
 mit the books which we place in their children's hands, and 
 the teachers who explain them, to cast odium on things they 
 deem sacred ; if we, when a committee rectifies the wrong, 
 brandish our arms in the air, declare Rome to be the mother 
 of harlots, try with an army of women to force back the ob- 
 jectionable book, and boycott every committee-man, Catholic 
 or otherwise, who objects to such tactics. 
 
 Another important point is that the children in the public 
 schools of this very class, whose religion is to debar them 
 from seats in the school management, must far outnumber 
 the children of those who are making this disturbance. 
 Such have been the pernicious theories and resultant prac- 
 tice of the native Americans in Massachusetts in the rela- 
 tions of the sexes, and the individuation of woman, that 
 with eight times more in proportion of the youthful and 
 child-producing population absent in the West in 1850 than 
 in 1880, the average birth-rate to natives was 22.12 to each 
 one thousand people per annum then, while in the five years 
 ending 1880 it was only 15.44. The lowest rate in the lead- 
 ing states of Europe during the twenty years ending 1879 
 was 26 per 1,000 in France. This means extinction; and 
 we find that while in 1880 there were 902,354 living in 
 Massachusetts who were born of native parents, the number 
 had fallen in J 885 to 855,491. The Puritan race has com- 
 mitted hari-kari and steadily wends its march to the grave. 
 But the birth-rate to the foreign born in Massachusetts was 
 49.52. Whatever may be the truth of her tenets, it is to 
 
190 
 
 the eternal honor of the Catholic Church that while the 
 Protestant clergy are powerless to stem the current of the 
 hour, — nay, often jump into its swim, — Rome throws her 
 arms, like the sacred circle of Richelieu, about the homes of 
 her people, and lifts her lamp to light an undiminished 
 throng down the pathway of future generations. 
 
 We know of no returns showing the relative number of 
 children belonging to the different religious sects in the 
 public schools ; but we may get some idea from the fact that 
 the children born to native parents in Boston in the five 
 years ending 1880 who are now, so far as living, from eight 
 to thirteen years of age, were 14,804, while the number 
 born to foreigners here was 25,530, those of mixed parent- 
 age being 9,428, and of parentage not stated, 2,984. Giving 
 the natives half those of mixed parentage and their share of 
 the rest the numbers stand : Of native parentage, 20,613 ; 
 of foreign, 32,133. But this is not fair to the foreign ele- 
 ment. For of the natives (among whom are the native 
 parents referred to) 112,525 are the immediate children of 
 foreigners, mainly young Irish-native people. Allowing 
 that they are only twice as prolific as the other natives, 
 while the foreign element is more than three times, the chil- 
 dren of this period of pure native stock may be counted as 
 7,669 against 45,077 of the foreign element, or about one 
 seventh of the whole. It is true the foreign element are not 
 all Catholic. 
 
 But the persons of Irish parentage alone in Boston exceed 
 all of native parentage by nearly 13,000. And to admit 
 that the people engaged in this crusade who have stricken 
 every Catholic from their tickets, as well as every commit- 
 tee-man who voted against restoring the Swinton book, 
 represent one quarter of the children of Boston entitled to 
 use public schools, would strain the probabilities. 
 
 If, when the now inevitable hour of Catholic supremacy 
 
191 
 
 in voting power shall come in Boston, the voters sympathiz- 
 ing with that faith shall exclude every Protestant from their 
 ticket, and every man who has shown a disposition to be 
 fair to the Protestants by votes in the board, they will not, 
 indeed, be practising the precept of doing as they would be 
 done by, any more than the Protestants are doing, but of 
 doing as they have been done by. If these excited clergy- 
 men and their female friends had been led by the Jesuits 
 themselves, they could hardly have served their purpose 
 better than by engaging in this proscription at the ballot 
 box, this building up of parochial schools by rendering the 
 public schools obnoxious to Catholics contrary to law, this 
 kindling of a religious fervor in Catholic ranks by the reflex 
 fires of denunciation — this attempted advantage, which to 
 the Catholic must appear a foul one, in the use of woman 
 suffrage. 
 
 In the arena of woman suffrage itself the Catholic leaders 
 must indeed be far-seeing if, when it is used as a weapon 
 against their religion, they do not retaliate. Should they 
 do this unitedly, the Protestants of this city would be 
 snowed under so far as to be lost. The excess of foreign 
 females over males was two and a half times greater in pro- 
 portion in 1880 than among the natives. The Catholic 
 women would not only be far better united, but a far greater 
 number would come to the polls if the Church should so de- 
 termine. The political power of the priests would be ex- 
 alted even more than that of our clergy, and only a rare self- 
 abnegation rejects the present prize for the permanent good 
 of their people. 
 
 Our Puritan stock will not recognize their changed condi- 
 tion, but act as if their control were to be perpetual. They 
 will not recognize their loss of numbers till they are counted 
 among the scattering. They may, indeed, secure a tempo- 
 rary lease of power by using the arm of the State to deprive 
 
192 
 
 of self-government these people in Boston who outvote 
 them by denying to them, as they have, the right to tax 
 themselves, to choose their own police, — and by the other 
 expedients annually urged at the State House, — which would 
 leave Boston less free than Berlin. But even that must end. 
 For the same causes that have left them so far behind here 
 are operative through the State as well. The same relative 
 decline shows there. If they cling to their idols, they have 
 only the poor privilege to be buried with them. 
 
 Prudence, then, if nothing more, should open their eyes 
 to the truth that these two great religions should live to- 
 gether in amity. If, as we proudly feel, there is a splendor 
 in the fire of John Knox defining to queens their right to 
 rule, the Jesuit Bourdaloue in the days of arbitrary power 
 painting a sinner with the details of his vices to the haugh- 
 tiest monarch in Europe and thundering in his ear, "Thou art 
 the man," is not to be called the son of a " harlot," even to 
 spite his mother church. 
 
 Each seeks the same end — the salvation of men through 
 Christ. Each is largely adapted to the wants of its people. 
 Why, then, quarrel, like differing doctors over a dying 
 patient, when a sinner enters heaven by either gate? 
 
 Henry Winn. 
 
 SWINTON'S "OUTLINES" REVIEWED. 
 
 SOME OF ITS GLARING ERRORS BOTH OR OMISSION AND COMMIS- 
 SION EXPOSED BY A PROTESTANT CRITIC. 
 
 [From articles by Mr. Alpha Child, of Wateitown, N. Y., in tho Boston 
 Transcript, Feb. 4, 1889.] 
 
 Pupils taking up Swinton's " Outlines of the World's His- 
 tory " are supposed to have become acquainted with United 
 States history, from his books intended to precede the 
 " Outlines " in the school course. This is his explanation 
 why the share this country has had in the world's history 
 
193 
 
 has no place in the supposed all-comprehending "Outlines," 
 except in a few places where some allusion to it is unavoid- 
 able through contact with European events. Mr. Swinton 
 then starts out with his own idea of what history is, and, of 
 course, what the method of instruction should be. He 
 declares that in the higher schools it " should be to give the 
 learner a general view, of human progress " ; to show him 
 ft what have been the great steps in human progress ; the 
 discoveries, . . . advances in thought, etc., that have carried 
 forward civilization." He informs us that " it has to do with 
 but one grand division of the human family, namely, the 
 Caucasian or white race." After assuring the learner that 
 " the Caucasian is the only truly historical race," Mr. Swin- 
 ton confesses that " peoples outside the Caucasian have made 
 some advances in civilization," and he instances the Chinese, 
 Peruvians, and Mexicans, each simply by name, and with 
 that he drops those three nations and their doings entirely 
 out of account for the rest of his book, because, he says, 
 " their civilization was stationary." The Japanese are like- 
 wise ignored, although they had been in open intercourse 
 with the world twenty years when the book was in prepara- 
 tion, and had shown remarkable progress ; nor does a word 
 appear of their extraordinary experience with European 
 civilization three centuries ago. Of Egypt and Chaldea, 
 too, Mr. Swinton says, " They grew up and remained in a 
 great degree apart from the rest of the world, having no 
 considerable influence on the main current of history," just 
 as was the case, he might have added, with each and every 
 other nation of antiquity, until Greece had got well along, 
 and so have left out all the rest of them ; but, mindless of his 
 own restricting qualifications, he soon inflicts upon the pupil 
 the name and period of each of the twenty-six dynasties of 
 Egypt, ending 332 B. C. Now, if there is anything Mr. 
 , Swinton detests in the guise of teaching, it is "a mere biog- 
 
194 
 
 raphy of kings or the record of battles and sieges, of dynas- 
 ties and courts," and " an array of isolated facts and dates," 
 which, he affirms, his book does not contain; yet open it 
 where you may, and within twenty pages, one way or the 
 other, you run into just such a dry registry as he has 
 described. Begin on page 285, for instance, and see how 
 you are rushed along from the Carlovingian kings through 
 the Franconians, catching a glimpse of the Hohenstaufens 
 and a touch of the headache on the way, until you fetch up 
 against the Austrian branch of the Hapsburg tree and are 
 swung off into the long reign of Frederick III., which, as 
 Mr. Swinton says, "carries us through the Middle Ages," 
 and very much out of breath. 
 
 Go on eight pages farther, through sections of the reign- 
 ing families of France, Germany, and England. He calls 
 this passage "political outline"; it is little else than a cata- 
 logue of kings ; this little else, however, gives the learner one 
 remarkable piece of information — that " with the deposition 
 by Parliament of Richard II., the Plantagenet line went 
 out." Went out? How so? If those three Lancastrian 
 kings who followed — the son, grandson, and great-grand- 
 son of John of Ghent — were not as' regularly Plantagenets 
 as Richard II., will Mr. Swinton, or any one of the thirty- 
 two thousand Bostonians who are supposed abroad to have 
 voted to restore his book to the schools, please explain why 
 not? And the "roses" of the other color also; Richard 
 III. was assuredly a lineal Plantagenet. 
 
 But we must not yet lose sight of those nations of 
 antiquity; for although Mr. Swinton introduces several of 
 them to us, only to kick them down-stairs for not belonging 
 to "the only truly historical race," he still holds the pupils' 
 noses down upon the grindstone of antiquity until they are 
 half-way through the book. And he does not allow them to 
 suspect there is a single doubtful point in history, from the 
 
195 
 
 deluge down, except where he says that "in the prehistoric 
 age we hear of the Pelasgi, who seem to have been an Aryan 
 race." He announces straightly his own views as to all 
 other peoples being Aryan or not, with sublime disregard of 
 everlastingly different theories. Out of all excusable pro- 
 portion, the first part of his book is given to alleged origins, 
 tribal offshoots, wars, migrations, conquests, bleudings, and 
 mythical traditions of nationalities which, at their disappear- 
 ance, had made no more " steps in human progress" than 
 the Chinese, Japanese, Aztecs, or ancient Peruvians, all of 
 whom the Boston school student may infer he should disdain 
 to notice, because this book tells him "their civilization was 
 stationary." Let me beg such of those students as may 
 chance to read this to occupy some of their spare time perus- 
 ing the works of one Prescott, deceased, a Bostonian, on 
 the civilization and achievements of the ancient Mexicans 
 and Peruvians ; and to acquaint themselves with John L. 
 Stephens's archaeological researches in Central America and 
 their results, and see if they do not find some ''outlines of 
 history " as valuable as Mr. Swinton's information that 
 Charlemagne "dined off four dishes, and of roast venison 
 newly killed and served up to him on the spit," or that 
 Oliver Cromwell had a Ions; nose. ("I will fight with him 
 upon this theme until my eyelids will no longer wag"; for I 
 have seen a cast of Cromwell's face, in the mint at Philadel- 
 phia, and the nasal protuberance is nothing more than an 
 ordinary one ; but this is a study by itself — the " outlines " 
 of Cromwell's nose.) 
 
 Because the Romans began by suckling a wolf and im- 
 proved upon themselves till they were able to build tremen- 
 dous aqueducts, should the history pupil be deprived of the 
 means of judging for himself as to the progress the Peruvians 
 must have made to construct aqueducts incomparably stu- 
 pendous to those of Rome ? It can hardly be supposed they 
 
196 
 
 entered upon their career tunnelling mountains of rock for 
 aqueducts; perhaps they couldn't so much as find a she- 
 wolf to begin with. The contributions to the world's his- 
 tory from all the peoples of the entire American continent, 
 past and present, are excluded from Swinton's " Outlines, "" 
 except incidentally in a very few instances as already men- 
 tioned. The eastern empire of Rome gets but little better 
 attention, because, if we are to believe Mr. Swinton, its 
 thousand years were devoid of progress ! But it is of no 
 consequence that that empire preserved the learning of 
 Greece and Rome through the Dark Ages ; that the code, 
 which is the basis of European law at the present day, was 
 established by Justinian ; that Justinian, through his con- 
 quest of Italy, gave the first impulse to the growth of west- 
 ern civilization ; that learned men from Constantinople, upon 
 its capture by the Turks, were mainly instrumental in the 
 revival of enlightenment throughout the West. More might 
 be said of what the eastern empire did, taking " a general 
 view of human progress," which we are told is the scope of 
 the book. And where it tells the pupils that "the great 
 feature of all the Oriental nations is their unprogressiveness," 
 the teacher of the class should know enough to protest that 
 the Phoenicians, who certainly were Orientals, were the 
 world's pioneers in navigation, commerce, and the spreading 
 of useful industries, and that through the Arabians we get 
 most of our exact sciences. 
 
 [From the Boston Transcript, Feb. 8, 1889.] 
 
 Swinton's " Outlines " is a book of 487 pages. Its first 
 200 pages, or thereabout, — except those devoted to Greece 
 and Rome, where history is too plain for the wayfaring man 
 to err, — are largely rilled with ethnological suppositions 
 relative to various alleged branches of the Aryan language- 
 
197 
 
 stock and their foggy career, set down as veritable history, 
 with some apparent confusion of ideas as to the Aryan 
 migration into Europe. It is not until the class has gone 
 through with 232 pages of antiquity, more or less vague, 
 that it reaches the beginning of the empire under Charle- 
 magne, and not until he gets to page 305 does the pupil 
 come to the year 1500. Keeping in view the compiler's 
 statement that his plan is to show the learner " what have 
 been the great steps in human progress, the discoveries, . . . 
 advances in thought," and so on, " that have carried forward 
 civilization," and knowing that all such development, except 
 a few incipient conditions for it, has come about in the past 
 four centuries, what can be thought of a "method of teach- 
 ins;" that tries to crowd it all into the now remaining 182 
 pages of the book? A little more than one third of it 'is 
 made to cover all modern history, from the discovery of 
 America to, and including, the Franco-German war. If 
 anything like study of the work is done, with the number of 
 other studies usually undertaken, a whole school year might 
 be gone before a class could get within sight of the sixteenth 
 century. 
 
 Of necessity, therefore, the "general view of human prog- 
 ress," during the only four centuries that have seen any 
 human progress to speak of, has to be sparingly and insuffi- 
 ciently given. "It is the brilliant figure of Spain that first 
 attracts our attention at the beginning of modern history," 
 says Mr. Swinton to his attentive pupils ; and directly there- 
 upon he treats them to one of his favorite doses of royal 
 relationships among the European courts four centuries ago 
 to show who was Charles V. There is but a mere sugges- 
 tion of the great overflow of the Spanish nationality into the 
 New World, all the way from California to Patagonia ; and 
 the series of revolutions in our country that terminated three 
 centuries of Spanish and Portuguese domination on this con- 
 
198 
 
 tinent, and erected a line of republics from Mexico to the 
 Argentine, are apparently "crowded out for want of space," 
 as the newspapers sometimes say. Anyway, so far as this 
 book is concerned, the school pupil is cut off from any 
 knowledge of those truly "great steps in human progress." 
 The empire of Brazil — the nation having the largest contig- 
 uous territory of all in the world except Russia and the 
 United States — is not so much as named, I believe; nor is 
 the continent of Australia. Ten pages having been occu- 
 pied with Assyria, there is room in the modern-history sec- 
 tion for only ten lines to tell of the British conquest of India, 
 bringing a hundred million people in contact with the forces 
 "that have carried forward civilization." The settlement of 
 Australia and New Zealand by "the only truly historical 
 race," adding so widely to the civilized area of the globe, is 
 not noticed at all. The gold discoveries of California and 
 Australia, and their turning to those lands such streams of 
 civilization as cannot be pictured elsewhere in modern his- 
 tory, are other events and movements of which those who 
 learn from Swinton's "Outlines" are left in ignorance. But 
 look back over the pages of time before Christ and after, 
 and see the proportion of them occupied with comparative 
 nothings and nobodies that had no more to do with "ad- 
 vances in thought that have carried forward civilization" 
 than all the eclipses of the moon in the Silurian period. 
 
 The reign of James I. of England " was not marked by 
 what are called great events," says this school historian. It 
 has been commonly supposed that the production of an 
 authorized version of the Bible, by translation, was some- 
 thing that helped to "carry forward civilization," but no allu- 
 sion to that work can be discovered. A page or so is cov- 
 ered with talk about the ungainly personal appearance and 
 mental obliquities of that sovereign, but not a word appears 
 of the one achievement that alone makes his reign historical. 
 
199 
 
 The South Sea Bubble gets a good description, but if John 
 Law's old swindle is an outline of history, why not " Old 
 Hutch's " wheat corner of last August ? The rectifying of the 
 calendar was a much more important adjustment than many 
 things that are duly explained, and it was effected solely by 
 and for "the only historical race"; but when the pupil has 
 left school and sees the puzzling letters O. S. or N. S. he 
 will know nothing of the change from old style to new by 
 anything Swinton's " Outlines" have told him. 
 
 Turning for a moment to the primary one of the two histo- 
 ries of the United States, by the same educator, which are 
 supposed to have educated the pupil in regard to this country 
 before he starts upon the more extensive " Outlines," I do not 
 turn six leaves before I tind it stated that the first steamer 
 to cross the Atlantic was the " Savannah," from New York to 
 Liverpool. It is not a great matter, but if it is worth teach- 
 ing it is worth stating correctly ; the pioneer steamer, the 
 '" Savannah," sailed from Savannah to Liverpool ; see " Life of 
 Eobert Fulton," by Thomas W. Knox ; G. P. Putnam's Sons, 
 New York, 1886, page 321. A few pages more and it says 
 that Washington died in the "last month of the last centuiy." 
 If Mr. Swinton were to begin with the first year of the first 
 century, and count carefully to its last year, he would find 
 the first century ended with the close of the year 100 ; and 
 therefore the last month of the eighteenth century was 
 December of the year 1800, and not December of 1799, the 
 month of Washington's death. This belongs to an old, old 
 class of blunders, demonstrated and corrected a thousand 
 times ; and for any person to full into it shows a loose way 
 of thinking. Telling of the Fourth of July, 1776, he says, 
 " On that day this countiy became a nation " ; and, when he 
 gets to the war of 1812, it is considerably queer for him to 
 say, " The United States were not twenty years old before 
 
200 
 
 they had to go to war with England a second time." This, 
 too, is only a question of arithmetic. One more of the 
 many flaws in these earlier histories, as in the "Outlines." 
 The documentary contentions and arguments that have 
 broken out at long intervals in support and refutation of the 
 alleged Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (beginning 
 in 1819, when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson first heard of 
 it and expressed their incredulity of the Mecklenburg story) 
 have left most people rather hopeless of ever learning the 
 truth about it. But Mr. Swinton would not have our youth 
 grow up to inherit a bothersome doubt upon any subject ; He 
 gives full credit to the Mecklenburgers' claim and no intima- 
 tion of its ever having been disputed. 
 
 Not half the material Swinton's " Outlines " furnishes for 
 showing strange things in history teaching has been used ; 
 enough has been shown, I think, to place the book within 
 the application of the doctrine laid down by the Transcript, 
 and quoted at the outset of this article ; and that doctrine 
 struck at simply one paragraph in another book, which, 
 "being false, it is not a fit text -book for American youth." 
 But not only should false statements condemn a text-book ; 
 statements so made as to lead to false inferences are as bad ; 
 so is teaching anything as an historical fact, which is, instead, 
 a matter of historic doubt and dispute. Omissions of im- 
 portant matters and heedless blunders are but little less 
 reprehensible. All these, and several of each, are counts in 
 the indictment. Anderson's History may contain as many 
 or more, and worse faults ; I know nothing of that. I know, 
 at least, four other books in the public schools in the United 
 States that o-i V e out as much misinformation as Swinton's 
 "Outlines." A well-informed and painstaking teacher may 
 rectify much that is amiss in the "Outlines," but that is not 
 to the credit of the book. It may be the best manual of 
 history for school use now in print. If so, it is owing largely 
 
201 
 
 to the remissness of the press in not watching and examining 
 school-books as it does other publications, and it is a signifi- 
 cant commentary on the ceaseless and critical attention be- 
 stowed by educators upon systems of preparation and methods 
 of teaching, while neglecting to notice whether the informa- 
 tion imparted is correct or not. It is not enough that teach- 
 ing be skilfully done ; what is taught should be true. 
 
 Alpha Child. 
 Watertown, N. Y., January, 1889. 
 
 THE TEACHING OF HISTORY. 
 
 [From the Christian Begister, Nov. 8, 1888.] 
 
 The question how history shall be taught is one on which 
 educators have had a good deal to say. In our progressive 
 and most representative colleges, the method of studying it 
 has been practically revolutionized in the last twenty-five 
 years. We are more concerned now with the question as it 
 relates to the study of history in our public schools. Much 
 of the recent controversy has revolved around this point. 
 Dr. Mayo revives it in his article in another column. 
 
 1. We agree with Dr. Mayo that the well-attested facts 
 of history must be taught, not its fictions, not merely its 
 traditions, but its facts. Geology, for instance, is one form 
 of the study of history. It is the history of the physical 
 development of our planet. In teaching it, let the facts be 
 fully presented, and the causes, so far as they are revealed, 
 without reference to any fond traditions which they may 
 dispel. It is not, for instance, the business of the public- 
 school teacher, in conducting a class in geology, to reconcile 
 its facts with the cosmology of the Bible. Genesis teaches 
 that the world was made in six days. Geology teaches that 
 it has taken millions of years. It is this latter truth, sup- 
 
202 
 
 ported as it is by myriads of facts, that the teacher has to 
 present. If asked to explain the discrepancy between Gen- 
 esis and geology, he may as well frankly tell the scholar that 
 it is out of his province. 
 
 In a similar way, the teacher of astronomy, without refer- 
 ence to the prejudice of Brother Jasper, must teach his 
 scholars that the earth moves on its axis. It is a doctrine 
 which may conflict with the theological teaching of a few 
 centuries ago. With this the teacher has nothing to do. If 
 the scholar is properly impressed with the idea that the earth 
 moves, he will probably conclude that the theologians who 
 originally doubted it were mistaken. For this conclusion, 
 the theologians, not the teacher, must be responsible. Or, 
 if he he a teacher of physiology, he must teach his scholars 
 the fact of the circulation of the blood. Here, again, he 
 has to do with physiology, not with theology. 
 
 It is the advantage of teaching mathematics that its truth 
 can be demonstrated. The indubitable facts of science can 
 also he appealed to in support of its conclusions. If a boy 
 doubts the circulation of the blood, the teacher with a micro- 
 scope can show it to him in a frog's tongue. A single 
 geological excursion would' render it impossible to believe 
 that the earth was made in six days : and the proof that the 
 earth is round and revolves on its axis can be demonstrated 
 to his reason, if not to his sight. But, when we enter the 
 field of human history — the history of kingdoms, nations, 
 revolutions, religions, the growth ot' society, the develop- 
 ment of opinions — we enter a different field. The facts of 
 history here are not always so tangible. They are some- 
 times vague and illusive. Motives and actions are complex, 
 evidence is conflicting, document.- are not always veracious. 
 Here, again, we may say with Dr. Mayo, "Teach the facts 
 oi' history*'; but the important question arises. What facts? 
 Especially, what facts shall we present in the very brief 
 
203 
 
 abridgment of history to which the course in the public 
 schools is confined? A great deal of mischief may be done 
 simply with bald facts. A teacher may claim that the sep- 
 arate facts he is presenting to his scholars are true ; but, 
 when we come to examine them, we may see that they are 
 facts out of their proper relations. There are some subjects 
 which cannot be treated adequately unless they are treated 
 broadly. Indeed, it is more accurate and more satisfactory 
 to say that we are to teach the truth of history instead of 
 simply its facts. In the truth of history, as in the truth of 
 geology, a vast number of facts and influences may need to 
 be considered. 
 
 The recent discussion in regard to indulgences, which sm:;- 
 gests Dr. Mayo's article, will readily furnish an illustration. 
 The subject of indulgences is introduced in a public-school 
 text-book. A scholar who is not satisfied with the definition 
 given asks his teacher. The teacher replies in effect that in- 
 dulgences are permissions to commit sin, and examination 
 papers show that this impression has been made upon the 
 minds of his pupils. The indignation of a portion of the 
 religious community is justly excited. But here the Protes- 
 tant rises, and tells us that the facts of history must be 
 taught. Yes ; but we demand that they must be taught 
 accurately. The definition of the teacher was erroneous, 
 and the definition in the book which excited the question 
 was partial and incomplete. That the shameful practice of 
 selling indulgences by pardon-hawkers, like Tetzel and 
 others, aroused Huss and Luther to protest, and was thus 
 the exciting cause of the Reformation, cannot be denied. 
 That is a fact of history ; but there are other facts that need 
 to be told with it, in order to present the truth of history. 
 And one of these facts, which ought not to be separated 
 from the other, is that the Christian Church never author- 
 itatively taught that an indulgence was a permission to 
 
204 
 
 commit sin, that its doctrine was that of the remission of 
 temporal penalties after sins had been confessed and re- 
 pented of. The abases consequent on the easy corruption of 
 this doctrine only make it more necessary to bring out the 
 original attitude of the Church itself. 
 
 Lea, in his " History of the Inquisition," treats the subject 
 of indulgences very fully and without partiality for the 
 Roman Catholic side. If any one needs a justification of 
 the origin of Protestantism, he may find it in these volumes. 
 Yet Lea shows us how often the Church itself had protested 
 against the abuses perpetrated in its name. The average 
 Protestant opinion is that IIuss and Luther were the first to 
 protest against these practices. But Lea says : — 
 
 "Alexander III., about 1175, expressed his disapproval of 
 these corruptions." (Vol. I., page 41.) "Already, in 1215, 
 the great Council of Lateran inveighs bitterly against these 
 practices. ... As early as 1261, the Council of Mainz can 
 hardly find words strong enough to denounce the pestilent 
 sellers of indulgences, whose knavish tricks excite the hatred 
 of all men, who spend their filthy gains in vile debauchery, 
 and who so mislead the faithful that confession is neglected 
 on the ground that sinners have purchased forgiveness of 
 their sins." (Vol. I., page 46.) 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten that the history of indulgences 
 runs clear back to the fourth century. 
 
 While we are confident that a full and complete study of 
 the subject of indulgences, with all the corruptions which 
 have attended it, will justify on the ground of reason and 
 ethics those who refuse to accept it, yet we contend that a 
 public school is no place for the vindication of the Protestant 
 position. Protestants may be perfectly confident from their 
 stand-point that a certain view of indulgences is right. On 
 the other hand, more than fifty per cent of our school chil- 
 dren belong to families who take a very different view of the 
 .facts of history. This is a subject which cannot be demon- 
 
205 
 
 strated like the circulation in a frog's tongue ; it is a matter 
 of evidence and opinion. It must be referred to the larger 
 field of ecclesiastical history, and Protestants have nothing 
 to lose by leaving it there. 
 
 Let us for a moment put the shoe on the Protestant foot, 
 and see just where it pinches. This discussion has had 
 reference to the causes of the Reformation. Suppose now 
 we look at some of the results of the Reformation. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Philip Schaff, of the Union Theological Semi- 
 nary, New York, is a Protestant historian. His orthodoxy 
 is not questioned. In the sixth volume of his " Ecclesias- 
 tical History," just published, Dr. Schaff has the following- 
 passage : 
 
 "The fact is undeniable that the Reformation in Germany 
 was accompanied and followed by Antinomian tendencies 
 and a degeneracy of public morals. It rests not only on 
 the hostile testimonies of Romanists and Separatists, but 
 Luther and Melanchthon themselves often bitterly com- 
 plained in their later years of the abuse of the liberty of the 
 gospel and the sad state of morals in Wittenberg and 
 throughout Saxony." 
 
 Prof. George P. Fisher, of Yale, in his volume on "The 
 History of the Christian Church," referring to the abuses 
 which succeeded the Reformation, says, "In the Nether- 
 lands, in the time of Charles V., Anabaptists were guilty of 
 offences against decency and morality, which were repaid 
 with savage penalties." (Page 425.) Again, referring to 
 the Familists : " They made a stir in England in the reign 
 of Elizabeth. Some of them are allowed to have been pure 
 and devout. Others were accused of lax, licentious prac- 
 tices, — the result of a mystical Antinomiauism." (Page 
 427.) 
 
 Hase, in his "History of the Christian Church," speaking 
 of the reaction of individualism which followed the Refor- 
 mation, says.: 
 
206 
 
 " These Anabaptists, who made their first appearance' 
 at Zwickau and Wittenberg (1521), were nearly all put 
 to death in the Peasants' War ; but, in almost every part 
 of the country, a class of enthusiasts resembling them, but 
 very unlike each other in moral and religious character, 
 became the pioneers and freebooters of the Reformation. 
 Some of them were persons who had renounced the world, 
 and others were the slaves of their own lusts. To some of 
 them, marriage was only an ideal religious communion of 
 spirit. To others, it was resolved into a general community 
 of wives. . . . They justified themselves by isolated pas- 
 sages of the Bible for overthrowing all existing relations in 
 social life. In their assumed character of men moved by 
 the Holy Ghost, they were of course exalted above all law, 
 and frequently exhibited a spirit of rebellion against every 
 kind of government." (Page 431.) 
 
 Mosheim gives us a detailed picture of the " scenes of 
 violence, tumult, and sedition that were exhibited in Hol- 
 land " by what he calls "this odious tribe." 
 
 It cannot be denied that the reaction against the authority 
 of the Pope, and also the proclamation of Luther's doctrine 
 of justification by faith, had a great deal to do in exciting a 
 fanatical and infuriated rabble, who became the anarchists of 
 that day. Even Huss was compelled to mourn the want of 
 morality of many of his adherents. 
 
 Now, if Protestants may demand that the cause of the 
 Reformation shall be ascribed in our school-books to the cor- 
 ruption of the Christian Church, why shall not Catholics 
 demand that the corruption of the Christian Church, which 
 was one remit of the Reformation, shall be inserted in the 
 same book? One is a fact of history quite as much as the 
 other. If one is to be taught, in all fairness the other 
 should be taught also. But we imagine how many Protes- 
 tants would wince at having Dr. Schaff 's statement inserted 
 in Mr. Swinton's book, declaring that "the fact is undeniable 
 that the Reformation in Germany was followed ... by a 
 degeneracy of public morals." 
 
207 
 
 If such a statement should be inserted in a school-book, 
 ~we should be among the first to protest, on the ground that 
 this statement, though a fact of history, does not present 
 the whole truth of history. Is it fair to state the terrible 
 abuses of Luther's doctrine without statins; the sense in 
 which he held it, without making the fact known that he 
 himself protested against these very perversions ? Would 
 it be fair to describe the moral degeneracy following the 
 Reformation without also describing the grand and inesti- 
 mable results which also flowed from it? Not all the Anabap- 
 tists even were fanatical and immoral. One cannot do 
 justice to this sect without recognizing the purity of char- 
 acter and nobility of the Mennonites who grew from it. 
 
 But more important than the teaching of the simple facts 
 of history, for which Dr. Mayo contends, is the development 
 of the historic spirit. The teacher who was asked by a 
 scholar what an indulgence meant, had an excellent oppor- 
 tunity. Instead of giving an erroneous and one-sided defi- 
 nition, he had an opportunity to impress upon his pupils that 
 here is a question concerning which Protestants and Catholics 
 differ, that it was not his business to decide debatable points 
 for his pupils. Or he might have asked his Catholic pupils 
 to get from their religious advisers their own definition of 
 indulgences. Or he might have referred them to the most 
 prominent Catholic and Protestant writers, and allowed them 
 to form their own opinions. Far more valuable than pour- 
 ing into their minds mutilated and fragmentary facts of 
 history would be the development of this judicial, investi- 
 gating spirit. A teacher of tact and fairness might have 
 made an impression of tolerance and impartiality worth more 
 to the pupil than a ton of Swinton's one-sided books. The 
 best work that is now done in our colleges is that in which 
 historic themes are assigned to students, with copious refer- 
 ence to authors on both sides, with the expectation that the 
 
208 
 
 student himself shall sift, analyze, compare, and adjudicate. 
 It may be too early in the public schools to do this to any 
 large extent. But it may be done to some extent ; and the 
 more, the better. What a child should commit to memory 
 is simply the events of history. The study of causes, mo- 
 tives, and influences may properly be referred to a riper 
 period. 
 
 Finally, we remind our readers that a book intended for a 
 text-book in the public schools must be tried by tests which 
 may not be applied to a book for the individual student. 
 Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and children of all nations 
 gather in these schools. A book which does not carefully 
 avoid all religious and national partiality ought to be care- 
 fully excluded as a source of strife and division. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. 
 
 [Extract from editorial in the Boston Advertiser, of May 12, 1888, under the 
 
 above caption.] 
 
 Finally, wholly apart from the merits of the present case 
 [that of Mr. Travis, teacher of history in the English High 
 School] , which cannot be decided until more facts are known, 
 it is well to emphasize two things. One is, that during the 
 Middle Ages, in times of gross ignorance, violence, and moral 
 degradation, there grew up many practices in connection 
 with the Roman Catholic Church which never had the sanc- 
 tion of the Church authorities, and which Popes and Councils 
 endeavored to reform. The doctrine of indulgences was 
 perverted along with other doctrines. . . . But the uniform 
 testimony of the most eminent Protestant authorities of the 
 present day is in accord with the words quoted in another 
 column from that distinguished church historian, Prof.. 
 Fisher, of Yale College: "To say that the Roman Catholic 
 
209 
 
 Church has ever taught that the forgiveness of sins can be' 
 bought with money is an atrocious slander." If Mr. Travis 
 has taught the pupils of the English High School in Boston, 
 as an historical fact or a theological argument, that in the 
 doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church an "indulgence"' is a 
 permission to commit sin, he is to be severely blamed. His- 
 toricalfy, the statement is not true ; theologically, the topic 
 is forbidden in the public schools. 
 
 INDULGENCES AGAIN. 
 [From the Boston Daily Advertiser, May 16, 1888.] 
 In stating on Saturday last the doctrine of "indulgences " 
 as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, we simply sum- 
 marized the definition of that doctrine which the authorities 
 of that Church have given, and which is to be found in all 
 their official utterances on the subject. In so doing we 
 called attention to certain facts which are as well authenticated 
 as any facts recorded in history. There is no doubt among 
 competent scholars concerning the main points at issue. To 
 cite all the authorities in proof of our statements, would be 
 to present a catalogue of all the standard books on church 
 history. But for the satisfaction of any persons who may 
 desire to look into the question for themselves, and in reply 
 to the letter of an intelligent correspondent, we cite a few 
 authorities which can be readily referred to. The "Library 
 of Universal Knowledge," Vol. VII., page 876, states that, 
 
 "Indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, means a remis- 
 sion by church authority to a repentant sinner of the temporal 
 punishment, which, in the Catholic theory, remains due after 
 the sin and its eternal punishment have been remitted." 
 
 The "Encyclopedia Britannica," Vol. XII., page 847, says : 
 
 " It must be carefully borne in mind that, in Roman Catholic 
 orthodoxy, indulgence is never absolutely gratuitous, and that 
 
210 
 
 those can only, in any circumstances, validly receive it who 
 are in full communion with the Church, and have resorted to 
 the sacrament of penance, in which alone, after due contri- 
 tion and confession, provision is made for the remission of 
 the graver penalty of sin." 
 
 The " American Encyclopedia," Vol. IX., page 256, says : 
 
 "In no supposable case can indulgence be a pardon for the 
 guilt of sin." 
 
 The foregoing are standard works of general information, 
 of undisputed authority. The plan of their editors has been 
 to have each topic treated by a writer who could speak as 
 an expert upon it. The above citations show conclusively 
 what an indulgence is as held and taught by the Roman 
 Catholic Church. With most people these quotations will 
 be accepted as answering the question, " What is an indul- 
 gence?" But if any one wishes to insist that we cannot 
 trust those who teach a doctrine to tell what that doctrine is, 
 we would refer him to a brief list of standard works prepared 
 by evangelical Protestants, and indorsed by the most learned 
 men of every Protestant sect, all of which works confirm in 
 every particular the statement of the Advertiser. 
 
 The "Dictionary of Religious Knowledge," prepared by 
 Dr. Lyman Abbott, a learned Congregationalist, with the 
 assistance of Dr. T. J. Conant, whom all Baptists revere as 
 one of their foremost scholars, is a work relied on by tens of 
 thousands of Sunday-school teachers. This book says, page 
 459: 
 
 " Indulgences, in the Roman Catholic Church, are not a 
 permission to sin, but a remission of what are termed the 
 temporal penalties of sin." 
 
 The "Religious Encyclopedia" is a recent work prepared 
 originally by Prof. Herzog, of Germany, and edited in this 
 country by Dr. Philip Schaff, a Presbyterian, and chairman 
 
211 
 
 of the American branch of the Bible revision committee 
 which prepared its new version of the Scriptures. Asso- 
 ciated with Dr. Schaff in the editing of the encyclopedia are 
 more than one hundred Protestant clergymen, mostly doc- 
 tors of divinity, many of them professors in colleges and 
 theological seminaries, and altogether representing every 
 Protestant denomination of any note in Europe and America. 
 In Vol. II, page 1076, of this work, the student will find the 
 subject of indulgences treated, and he will find not one word 
 in support of the assertion that an indulgence is a permission 
 to commit sin. 
 
 Not' to weary the reader, we will cite but one more 
 authority. The Methodist denomination will gladly assent 
 to the remark that no class of Protestants are more con- 
 scientiously and vigorously opposed to Catholicism than are 
 the followers of John Wesley. McClintock and Strong's 
 "Biblical Cyclopedia" is everywhere a standard authority 
 with clergymen and laymen of that church, having been 
 compiled throughout under the direction of the two eminent 
 Methodist divines whose names are on the title-page, with 
 the co-operation of the most learned men in all the principal 
 denominations. The article on indulgences is on pages 563- 
 568, of Vol. IV. It deals with the subject from every point 
 of view, historical, doctrinal, practical, and scriptural. The 
 entire treatment is in the nature of the strongest possible 
 truthful opposition to the Catholic Church. Yet, from first 
 to last, McClintock and Strong make no statement which 
 gives any color to what Prof. Fisher calls "the atrocious 
 slander" involved in the traditional accusation. 
 
212 
 
 THE PUBLIC-SCHOOL QUESTION. 
 
 BY CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS. 
 
 The public-school question, as it now confronts us, is un- 
 doubtedly|one of very great importance, and the recent agi- 
 tation in Boston, consequent upon the exclusion of S win ton's 
 "Outlines of the World's History" from the public schools, 
 affords an appropriate occasion for a careful inspection of the 
 ground on which the friends of the public-school system are 
 ready to take and defend their position. Such a survey 
 necessarily involves the discussion of .a number of questions. 
 There are, doubtless, some who distrust the assumption that 
 the public-school system is better adapted to serve the in- 
 terests of the community and of the State than a system of 
 parochial schools would be ; but, in spite of this fact, it is 
 probably safe to assume that the schools are as permanently 
 established as any other part of our institutions. The ques- 
 tion, then, as to whether our public schools shall be dis- 
 pensed with, is not one in regard to which there can be any 
 profitable discussion. But as soon as we come to an exam- 
 ination of details, we find room for a difference of opinion. 
 A vast number of questions arise : some of them concerning 
 organization, others concerning qualifications of teachers, 
 and still others concerning the subjects to be taught. 
 Nearly all of these questions are amenable to settlement in 
 the ordinary methods that must be applied to administrative 
 details. But the question that now confronts us is one that 
 calls for a different manner of treatment. It involves, not 
 simply the subordinate matter of efficiency, but the far more 
 fundamental one of the object to be attained. Is the object 
 of the public schools the teaching of religious truth? We 
 should probably all agree to answer the question in the nega- 
 tive, excepting so far as such teaching may be necessary for 
 
213 
 
 the building up of that form of character which we deem 
 essential to the most successful fulfilment of the public du- 
 ties of life. Is the teaching of religion in any form an indis- 
 pensable part of the child's public education? If it is not, 
 it follows, of course, that as soon as any considerable objec- 
 tion is made to it, we may dispense with it from our schools 
 without any special embarrassment. If, on the other hand, 
 it is an indispensable part of the most successful education, 
 then another question arises, namely, whether it should be 
 made a part of education in our public schools, or whether 
 it should be left to be provided for in some other way. The 
 question then narrows itself to this : Shall the teaching of 
 religion, in so far as it is to be taught at all, be provided for 
 in our public schools, or shall it be left to the voluntary 
 efforts of private schools, churches, families, and individuals? 
 It is undoubtedly going too far to say that this country 
 was founded on the idea of political and religious freedom. 
 The Puritans were not tolerant of what they regarded as 
 heresy. To use Franklin's figure, we may say that they 
 were strenuous believers in their own " doxy," and that they 
 were equally strenuous disbelievers in the " doxy " of any- 
 body else. No one of them had the courage and wit to say, 
 with Sydney Smith, that he never should be perfectly happy 
 till he had dined oft' a roasted Quaker ; but that seems to 
 have been about the way very many of them felt. Nor was this 
 feeling confined to New England. There was a kindred in- 
 tolerance in the South. The settlers of this country were 
 undoubtedly advancing toward religious freedom ; but they 
 had yet a long road to travel before they could reach the 
 goal. But, nevertheless, there was but one ending to the 
 road on which they had entered. As the country came to 
 be filled up with differing peoples and sects, there was abso- 
 lutely no other way than either to live in interminable dis- 
 cord, or to agree to live in absolute toleration and peace. 
 
214 
 
 Our forefathers wisely chose the latter alternative. And so,, 
 when the State Constitutions and the national Constitution 
 came to be adopted, the only logical course was to exclude 
 entirely from the domain of political and governmental con- 
 sideration all questions of religious profession and belief. 
 In the Constitution of the United States, and in the Consti- 
 tutions of the individual States, laws discriminating against 
 any particular form of belief or disbelief are, as a rule, pro- 
 hibited. In general, it may be said that ever since the for- 
 mation of the government, persons of any form of religious 
 belief, and persons of any form of disbelief, have been 
 equally eligible to any of the political offices in the gift of 
 government or the people. This is tantamount to a consti- 
 tutional declaration, or at least admission, that no one form 
 of belief or disbelief is essential to the successful perform- 
 ance of the duties of any political office. If not essential to 
 an officer, still less would any particular form of belief seem 
 to be necessary to a private citizen. 
 
 This line of reasoning brings us to the obvious necessity 
 of erecting a barrier against any obligatory religious instruc- 
 tion whatever. Indeed, such instruction can logically be 
 required only in a State which officially recognizes some par- 
 ticular form of religious belief. Our constitutional limita- 
 tions on this subject, therefore, are but the natural expres- 
 sion of positive necessity. 
 
 We are brought still more obviously to the same conclu- 
 sion in another way. Even. if we were to admit the neces- 
 sity of teaching some form of religious truth in our schools, 
 the question would at once confront us as to what form we 
 should teach. And the moment the question is raised we 
 are brought face to nice with the fact that in our body politic 
 there is no one set of men authorized to answer it. Shall a 
 majority answer it? But there is no way in which a majority 
 can possibly perform so complicated an act as to exercise dis- 
 
215 
 
 criminating judgment upon the countless details of a great 
 body of religious doctrine. But even if it were claimed 
 that such a judgment could be exercised by chosen represent- 
 atives, there would still be the embarrassing fact that there 
 are a hundred forms of belief ; in other words, that there 
 would be a hundred tickets in the field at the same election, 
 and on the same question. Either the question would have 
 to be stripped of all those details which constitute the char- 
 acteristics of the different religious denominations, and thus 
 be reduced to a question of simple morality, or it would be 
 absolutely necessary that a hundred questions should be sub- 
 mitted at once, and, consequently, that the right to decide 
 between them should be conferred on a mere plurality. But 
 a plurality is often a minority. If a mere plurality were 
 given the privilege of deciding such a question, the inevita- 
 ble result would ensue that, occasionally at least, a minority 
 would have the privilege of enforcing obnoxious doctrines 
 upon the majority. Would such a result be tolerated? In 
 a community where a plurality, let us say, are Unitarians, 
 would Trinitarians consent to have their children taught doc- 
 trines that are sharply opposed to the Trinity ? Would Prot- 
 estants submit to have their children taught the doctrines 
 of Catholics merely because Catholics happened, in a given 
 district or city, to be more numerous than any other religious 
 body? The answer is too obvious to require hesitation. 
 
 But even if we were to allow the matter to be determined 
 by a clear majority, we should not be released from logical 
 difficulties. However it may have been during the colonial 
 period, it is certainly true that ever since we became a 
 united government under the Constitution we have persist- 
 ently and systematically denied to a majority the right to 
 impose any particular form of religious belief upon a minor- 
 ity. To demand that this fundamental principle, which has, 
 in fact, become a part of the bone and fibre of our people r 
 
216 
 » 
 
 should be set aside, is simply to ask our civilization to face 
 about and march in the opposite direction ; for if there is 
 anything which the civilization of the last three hundred 
 years has been saying in louder tones than anything else, it 
 is that a majority has no right to force its religious beliefs 
 on a minority. This carries with it also the postulate that 
 no one man has a right to enforce his beliefs on any one of 
 his fellow-men. Just as truly it follows that no one man, or 
 body of men, has a right to enforce certain beliefs upon the 
 children of other men. And unless we hold that, when we 
 elect a school board, we give them religious as well as edu- 
 cational supervision over our children, it follows that neither 
 school board nor teacher has any right to impose, as an obli- 
 gation, any particular form of religious belief on any pupil. 
 
 Any other position than this, besides being illogical, must 
 result in inextricable confusion. Indeed, any other doctrine 
 than this cannot fail ultimately to break up our public- 
 school system. Any other doctrine would give to a Protes- 
 tant community, for example, the right to teach its own 
 beliefs in regard to transubstantiation, and indulgences, 
 and the confessional ; and such teaching would, of course, 
 drive all Catholics out of the schools. In a Catholic com- 
 munity the opposite party would be driven out, but the gen- 
 eral result would be the same. Disaster must follow such a 
 policy, simply for the reason that, if there is any one thing 
 to which a man will not submit, it is to have his children 
 taught religious doctrines which he believes to be at once 
 false and pernicious. It is evident that so long as this is the 
 case, the only possible way for parents who differ from one 
 another on religious subjects, is either to have nothing what- 
 ever to do with one another in the matter of schools, or for 
 each to withdraw absolutely from the schools those doctrines 
 that are offensive to the other. The first means the abandon- 
 ment of our public schools, as a system, and the substitu- 
 
217 
 
 tion of private schools in their places ; the second means the 
 redaction of our public schools to a purely secular basis. 
 
 Those who agree with the positions thus set forth will 
 have no difficulty in applying them to the solution of the 
 dispute now raging in Boston. The point at issue is not a 
 mere question as to the historic accuracy of Swinton's 
 account of the Reformation ; it is, whether the account 
 given has a color which may reasonably be regarded as inac- 
 curate and offensive by the parents of Catholic children. 
 While it might not be easy to point out a single positive mis- 
 statement in Swinton's narrative, the general impression 
 inevitably left on the pupil's mind is one of strong bias in 
 opposition to the Catholic Church, and in favor of Luther. 
 It may tell the truth, but it does not tell the whole truth ; 
 and this is equivalent to saying that it tells a partial truth, 
 and presents it in such a way as at least to have the effect of 
 a partial falsehood. It preaches the Protestant doctrine ; it 
 omits to preach the Catholic doctrine. To any one who has 
 received his knowledge of the Reformation solely from that 
 combination of careless scholarship and slovenly enthusiasm 
 known as D'Aubigne's "History of the Reformation," this 
 statement may seem hardly correct ; but every one who has 
 looked more carefully into the history of this period knows 
 that there is a side of the question of altogether another 
 color. For example, Luther was so far from condemning 
 indulgences that the seventy-first of his famous ninety-five 
 theses pronounced a curse upon any one who should ques- 
 tion their truth or value. Then again, six months after the 
 posting of the theses, he wrote to the Pope in these sub- 
 missive terms : 
 
 "Most Holy Father, I cast myself at the feet of Your 
 Holiness, with all that I am and all that I have. Give life, 
 take it away ; call, recall ; approve, reprove ; your voice is 
 that of Christ, who dwells in you, and speaks by your lips. 
 If I have deserved death, I am ready to die." 
 
218 
 
 'It was on this submission of his case that Luther was tried 
 and condemned. It is, of course, easy for us to say that 
 he ought not to have been condemned ; but it is evident that 
 by the attitude Luther took, and held, up to the time of his 
 condemnation, he laid himself open to the charge of break- 
 ing with the authorit} 7 of the Church, simply because the 
 Church condemned him. And this is, in substance, what 
 Catholic historians have generally taught. They hold that 
 what Luther did was substantially what the well-known law- 
 yer did who said that when he was beaten there was only one 
 of two courses open to him, either to appeal or to damn the 
 court. The Catholic doctrine, in substance, is that Luther 
 could not appeal from the decision of the papal bull, and 
 that, therefore, he resorted to the other alternative. That 
 this view of the case is believed to be the correct one by a 
 great many honest minds, there is no doubt whatever ; and 
 to compel a person who does take this view of the case to 
 send his children to a school, or to be taxed for a school, 
 where the Protestant view, and the Protestant view alone, is- 
 taught, is as unjustifiable and absurd as it would be to force 
 Protestants into a similar position, if at some time the Cath- 
 olics should get the upper hand, and the tables should be 
 turned. And, if under such circumstances, Protestants 
 would not submit, it is simply rank injustice to demand that 
 Catholics shall submit, simply because the power at present 
 happens to be in Protestant hands. Thus we are forced to 
 the conclusion that in our public schools we must give to our 
 instruction no more of theological color than we give to our 
 courts and legislatures. The responsibility of all religious 
 instruction, if we are to preserve a harmonious support of 
 our institutions, must be left to the churches, to the families, 
 and to voluntary individual effort. And there it may be left 
 with entire safety. 
 
 THE END. 
 
219 
 
 CATHOLIC INDIAN MISSIONS. 
 
 ''Damnable falsehood" is Mr. Cooke's characterization of cer- 
 tain statements of Sadlier. This is a sonorous phrase, but exple- 
 tives are not proofs. The evidence of the falsity of the two state- 
 ments quoted on page 101, from Sadlier's " History of the United 
 States," is, Mr. Cooke tells us, "known to many intelligent per- 
 sons." Among these " many intelligent persons," Mr. Cooke him- 
 self, no doubt, stands foremost, and the others are presumably 
 those familiar friends of Mr. Cooke, his " unbiased historians." 
 Their excess of knowledge recalls the keen-edged remark of a pop- 
 ular American humorist, who says, "It is better not to know so 
 much than to know so many things that are not so." 
 
 The two statements cited from Sadlier's " History" are neither 
 damnable nor an} 7 other kind of falsehoods ; the}' are the sober truth 
 of history, and to call them "damnable falsehoods" is to betray 
 crass ignorance or something worse. The first statement, that "the 
 only systematic and successful attempts to civilize and Christianize 
 the Indians were made by Catholic missionaries," is sustained by 
 historical authorities, whose testimon} 7 cannot be shaken by Mr. 
 Cooke's uninstructed and misinstructed pen. These authorities 
 show that wherever a Catholic colony was planted on this continent 
 systematic efforts were at once begun and persistently continued to 
 Christianize and civilize the native tribes. That these were the 
 "only" systematic successful attempts is well known. Many non- 
 Catholic religious bodies also made efforts to evangelize the 
 Indians, but those efforts were neither comprehensive nor perma- 
 nent ; compared with the early, extensive, well-oryanized, and per- 
 manent Catholic missions they cannot be regarded as sj'stematic, 
 and judged by their final results they were certainly not successful. 
 To quote only a few writers, of whom Mr. Cooke may perhaps 
 have heard, there is Washington Irving, who says : 
 
 "All persons who are in the least familiar with the early history 
 of the West, know with what pure and untiring zeal the Catholic 
 missionaries pursued the work of conversion among the savages. 
 Before a Virginian had crossed the Blue Ridge, and while the 
 Connecticut was still the extreme frontier of New England, more 
 than one man whose youth had been passed among the warm val- 
 leys of Languedoc had explored the wilds of Wisconsin, and 
 caused the lryrnu of Catholic praise to rise from the prairies of llli- 
 
220 
 
 nois. The Catholic priest went even before the soldier and the 
 trader ; from lake to lake, from river to river, the Jesuits pressed 
 on unresting, and, with a power which no other Christians have 
 exhibited, won to their faith the warlike Miamis and luxurious 
 Illinois." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Kip, a Protestant minister, bears his testimony to the 
 Catholic missionaries and their success in these terms : 
 
 "How few of their number died the common death of all men ! 
 But did these things stop the progress of the Jesuits? The sons 
 of Loyola never retreated. The mission they founded in a tribe 
 ended only with the extinction of the tribe itself. Their lives were 
 made up of fearless devotedness and heroic self-sacrifice. Though 
 sorrowing for the dead, they pressed forward at once to occupy 
 their places, and, if needs be, share their fate." 
 
 " Long before the consecration of Plymouth Rock," observes 
 Mr. Bartlett, an official of the United States government, " the 
 religion of Christ had been made known to the Indians of New 
 Mexico ; the Rocky Mountains were scaled ; and the Gila and 
 Colorado rivers, which in our day are attracting so much interest 
 as novelties, were passed again and again. The broad continent, 
 too, to cross which, with all the advantages we possess, requires a 
 whole season, was traversed from ocean to ocean, before Raleigh, 
 or Smith, or the Pilgrim Fathers had touched our shores." 
 
 Miss Harriet Martineau and Mrs. Jameson, both Protestant 
 women of note, have also borne witness to the superior effective- 
 ness of Catholic missions among the Indians. Judge Hall, of 
 Cincinnati, a Protestant, has this to say: 
 
 " The French Catholics, at a very early period, were remarkably 
 successful in gaining converts, and conciliating the confidence and 
 affection of the tribes ; while Protestants, similarly situated, were 
 bloodthirsty and rapacious." 
 
 Berkeley, the famous Protestant Bishop, writing from actual 
 observation on this continent, said : 
 
 "The Spanish missionaries in the South, and the French in the 
 North, are making such a progress as may one day spread the 
 religion of* Rome throughout all the savage nations in America." 
 
 It has been truly observed on this forecast of Bishop Berkeley 
 that " in South America the work which he dreaded is done and if 
 in North America they failed to convert all the savage tribes, it 
 was only because England massacred both them and their flocks, 
 till she left them none to convert." 
 
221 
 
 The enduring success of the Catholic missions has been attested 
 by many eminent writers. " At Kaskaskia, far away in the valley 
 of the Mississippi," Mr. Bancroft says, "the success of the mission 
 was such, that marriages of the French emigrants were sometimes 
 solemnized with the daughters of the Illinois according to the rites 
 of the Catholic Church," while the Indians, he allows, were so thor- 
 oughly converted, that not only did they all assemble "at early 
 dawn" to assist at mass, and again " at evening, for instruction, 
 for prayer, and to chant the hymns of the Church, . . . every con- 
 vert confessed once in a fortnight," and " at the close of the day, 
 parties would meet in the cabins to recite the rosMiy, in alternate 
 choirs, and sing psalms into the night." By the end of the seven- 
 teenth century, as Mr. Owen observes, "the total of the Confed- 
 eracy (Six Nations) who professed the Roman Catholic religion 
 was computed to exceed eight thousand." And this was but one 
 instance of the success of Catholic missions. 
 
 The unsuccessful character of the Protestant missions is strik- 
 ingly illustrated by their results, as recorded by Protestant writers, 
 and acknowledged by the missionaries themselves. Hildreth, the 
 historian, says, "Eliot's scheme, for civilizing and Christianizing 
 the Indians proved in the end an almost total failure." 
 
 The historian Sparks, in his biography of .Eliot, says, " The 
 natives of our forests derived no permanent benefit from the exer- 
 tions of Mr. Eliot and others." And that Eliot himself fully real- 
 ized his failure we have the witness of Conyers, another biographer, 
 who relates that just before his death Eliot spoke of the dark cloud 
 upon his work :imong the Indians. 
 
 That the Quakers were equally unsuccessful, we have the testi- 
 mony of Bancroft, who says : "The Quakers came among the Del- 
 awares in the spirit of peace and brotherly love, and with sincerest 
 wishes to benelit the Indian ; but the Quakers succeeded no better 
 than the Puritans — not nearly as well as the Jesuits."* That the 
 Catholic missions were the only successful as well as systematic 
 attempts to Christianize the Indians is attested by John Ordinary 
 Shea, whose authority on the subject of Indian history is so well 
 recognized that he was chosen to write the articles on the North 
 American Indians which appear in that standard work of reference, 
 " Appleton's American Cyclopedia." 
 
 He says in his " History of the Catholic Indian Missions," "that 
 
 * See Marshall's " Christian Missions." 
 
222 
 
 the tribes evangelized by the French and Spaniards subsist to this 
 day, except where brought in contact with the colonists of Eng- 
 land, and their allies or descendants ; while it is notorious that the 
 tribes in the territory colonized by England have in man}' cases 
 entirely disappeared and perished without ever having had the 
 gospel preached to them. The Abnakis, Caughnawagas, Kaskas- 
 kias, Mi amis, Ottawas, Chippeways, Arkansas, and the New Mex- 
 ican tribes remain, and number faithful Christians ; but where are 
 the Pequods, Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Mattowax, the 
 Lenape, the Powhattans? They live only in name in the rivers 
 and mountains of our land." 
 
 It will be in order to present other authorities sustaining this po- 
 sition after Mr. Cooke has furnished the " every kind of evidence" 
 of the falsity of Sadlier's statement which, as he says, is " known 
 to many intelligent persons." 
 
 CATHOLIC AID TO AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 Sadlier's statement that "the independence of the United States 
 was, in a great degree, secured by Catholic blood, talent, and 
 treasure " is abundantl}' justified by the undisputed records of the 
 Revolutionary epoch. If Mr. Cooke has not heard of the many 
 and heavj' sacrifices made by Catholics to the patriot cause in 1775 
 and all through the war for independence, nor of the incalculably 
 valuable contribution to the success of that war made by France 
 and Spain, the two great Catholic countries of Europe, it is in 
 order to inquire where he received his education, that we may 
 know and avoid the school in which he received his rations of 
 elementary history. Charles Carroll, of. Carrol lton, is known in 
 every reputable history as one of the leading Revolutionary spirits ; 
 his name is among the immortal signers of the great Declaration 
 of 1776. He was the grand representative of his fellow Catholics 
 who stood in solid array for American liberty and independence, 
 side by side with the Protestant patriots of Massachusetts and other 
 States. As soon as Lexington gave the signal, Catholics volun- 
 teered for the American patriot army in large numbers. If they 
 were not found in much larger numbers in the ranks, the fact has 
 its obvious explanation in another fact, namely, that severe penal 
 laws against Catholics were still on the statute books of every 
 
223 
 
 American colony. In 1775, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, was 
 the first Catholic permitted to hold any public office in Maryland, 
 since the days of James II. Yet, in spite of the prevailing pro- 
 scription of Catholics, the roll-call of distinguished American 
 Revolutionary soldiers and sailors bears many honored Catholic 
 names. The Catholic Indian tribes, by the way, rendered signal 
 services to the Continental army. Orono, Me., is named to this 
 day in memory of the Catholic Indian chieftain who brought the 
 Penobscots to the support of the American cause, while the 
 heathen Mohawks were helping the English armj T by their savage 
 atrocities. 
 
 The Northwestern territory was saved to the American cause 
 as much by the heroic efforts and sacrifices of Rev. Peter Gibault, 
 the Catholic priest of Kaskaskia, as by those of an}' other man. 
 It was an attempt to capture Detroit, the centre of the English 
 atrocities in the way of savage warfare, that La Balm and nearly 
 the whole of his little Catholic force perished in 1780. Is it possi- 
 ble that Mr. Cooke has never heard of the large numbers of Cath- 
 olic military officers who, on the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, 
 flocked from Europe, to throw their swords into the scale against 
 England ? Their bravery and their sacrifices are part of the mili- 
 tary record of every important battle of the Revolution, and the 
 names of LaFayette, DeKalb, Kosciusko, and Pulaski are but the 
 best remembered of a great company of Catholic chieftains who 
 rendered services to the American cause of incalculable value. 
 Green, in his " Historical View of the American Revolution," says : 
 
 " One of the serious wants of our army, and which no native 
 genius or rapid training could immediately supply, was the want 
 of engineers. Washington's complaints of the incompetence of 
 even the few who claimed the name, began with his first letter 
 from Cambridsie to the president of Congress, and a year later he 
 wrote to the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety that he had but 
 one in whom he could place confidence. Here the necessity of 
 looking to Europe for assistance was so apparent, that Congress 
 directed the Commissioners at Paris to engage competent engineers, 
 with the approbation of the French court, and with the assurance 
 of proper rank and pay. It was to this judicious resolution that 
 we owe the services of "Duportail, Launoy, Radiere, and Gouvion, 
 officers of good standing in the French army, and who brought us 
 what we needed most, science, combined with practical skill. It 
 was under their direction that most of the important works of the 
 war, from 1777 to its close, were constructed." 
 
224 
 
 i 
 
 The first commodore of the American nav} T , the man who first 
 
 taught England to fear American prowess on the seas, was the 
 Catholic Barry, whom Lord Howe in vain attempted to bribe to 
 desert the patriotic cause. Nor have I ever, before Mr. Cooke 
 essayed to do so, heard the fact questioned that the Catholic aid 
 received from France and Spain was largely the cause of American 
 success in the Revolutionary War. Not only officers, but arms 
 and munitions of war, were sent from the government armories 
 and stores of Catholic France. Marie Antoinette was a strong 
 'friend of the American cause, and won the king over fully to its 
 support. 
 
 The first recognition of the united American colonies as a nation 
 was by Catholic France in February, 1778, and soon after French 
 armies and fleet were moving to Washington's assistance. France's 
 two great and all-important contributions to the American cause 
 were her fleet and her money ; the first broke the British command 
 •of the seas ; the second kept the American patriot armies in the 
 field. Stone states, in his work on " French Allies," that " the 
 support of the American cause by the French cost the govern- 
 ment of Louis XVI. one billion four hundred million livres " (or 
 about $280,000,000) . The same author quotes the statement made 
 by the Prince de Joinville, that " in the war of the American Revo- 
 lution, France lost thirty-five thousand men and twent} T -five ships 
 of the line." All this loss did not of course occur in America, 
 nor in the waters of the United States, but was an aggregate grow- 
 ing out of the alliance with the American Confederacy. That 
 acknowledged authority, Appleton's "Encyclopedia," says: "The 
 war of Independence would have been an ignominious failure but 
 for foreign loans, and these were made mostly by France." Wash- 
 ington, amid the sufferings of Valley Forge, issued a general order 
 directing a national thanksgiving to God for the timely and impor- 
 tant aid of France. 
 
 The ports of Catholic Spain, as well as of Catholic France, were 
 friendly bases of supplies for American privateers. From New 
 Orleans, then a Spanish city, supplies for our armies were sent. 
 From Catholic Madrid there came at another critical time blankets 
 for ten regiments and a money gift. Later Spain also openly 
 declared war against England in support of the Revolutionary 
 cause, and the capture of Baton Rouge in September, 1780, and 
 later of Pensacola, were two tremendous blows to British power 
 
225 
 
 for which we owe thanks to the Catholic fleet of Spain under 
 Galvez. It was by Spain's good offices and skilful diplomacy 
 that Russia was detached from England, and Holland induced 
 to take common cause with the American colonies. Thus on 
 land and on sea alike Catholic friendship, valor, skill, and money 
 conduced most powerfull}; to the final triumph of the Amer- 
 ican cause at Yorktown. Mr. Cooke appears not to know this, 
 and ignorantly presumes to say that Sadlier is guilty of "damna- 
 ble falsehood." But Gen. Washington was not given to lying, 
 and he has left on record his endorsement of Sadlier's state- 
 ment on this point. In his "Alter Oiders," issued Oct. 20 (the 
 day following the victory of Yorktown), Gen. Washington recog- 
 nizes " the generous proofs which His Most Christian Majesty 
 (the Catholic king of France) has given of his attachment to the 
 cause of America," which " must force conviction on the minds of 
 the most deceived of the enemy relative to the good consequences 
 of the alliance, and inspire every citizen of the States with sen- 
 timents of the most unalterable gratitude." He acknowledges the 
 eminent services of the fleet commanded by an admiral whose 
 fortune and talents insure great events," and of "an army of the 
 most admirable composition both in officers and men." Replying, 
 on a later occasion, to an address by Catholics, the Father of 
 his Country said, " I presume that your fellow-citizens will not 
 forget the patriotic part which 3 r ou took in the accomplishment 
 of their revolution and the establishment of their government, 
 or the important assistance which they received from a nation in 
 which the Roman Catholic faith is professed." In view of this dec- 
 laration b} - Gen. Washington, the highest possible contemporary 
 authority, Mr. Cooke's blustering assertion that Sadlier tells a 
 " damnable falsehood " when he states that American independence 
 " was in a great degree secured by Catholic blood, talent, and treas- 
 ure," must clearly be set clown alongside the many other exhibi- 
 tions of assurance with which he has seen fit to disfigure this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 R. J. J. 
 
226 
 
 OPPRESSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN 
 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 Here we have another evidence of Mr. Cooke's poor equipment 
 as a critic of historical text-books. The statement at which he 
 assumes to sneer is absolutely true, and his sneer simply convicts 
 him of an utter lack of acquaintance with contemporary Swiss 
 history. As a contribution to his sadly neglected education 
 on this matter, I will state that in the single canton of Ticino, 
 the Catholic Church could not have fared much worse if it had 
 been under a Russian government. Flourishing religious houses, 
 with their schools, have been swept away at Ascona, Lugano, 
 Mendrisie, and Bellinzona ; the diocesan seminary was forcibly 
 suppressed at Pollegio. Parish priests have been driven from 
 their parishes, and others, under the censures of the Church, 
 intruded in their places b\ T military force. The bishop and those 
 sent by him are forbidden the use of their jurisdiction, and par- 
 ishes punished for receiving him solemnby. Prohibitions have 
 been issued against missions, spiritual exercises, the publica- 
 tion of the jubilee, and even the devotions of the Month of Mary, 
 and in "free Switzerland" heavy fines are inflicted on men and 
 women for the sole offence of practising their devotions or singing 
 Catholic hymns in their own houses. 
 
 The Swiss Catholic bishops have, within the period named, 
 memorialized the Swiss Federal Assembly against the many laws 
 passed to persecute and oppress the Catholic Church. 
 
 The repeated and imploring appeals of clergy and people to the 
 Federal Assembly against these laws have been utterty in vain. 
 They have been supplemented by further decrees for the suppres- 
 sion of episcopal jurisdiction within the canton. The Swiss bishops 
 in their memorial recall the days of the Catacombs, and declare 
 that the sad scenes of the early Church are renewed among the 
 priests and the faithful of the canton Ticino. All intercourse 
 with their lawful pastors is prohibited under pains and penalties, 
 and has to be carried on in secret, and yet Mr. Cooke tells us that 
 Switzerland is a country of religious freedom. 
 
 It is impossible to present here all the details of the vexations 
 and insolent persecutions against which the bishops raise their 
 
227 
 
 voice. A few examples must suffice. In the canton of Aargau the 
 use of the Catechism approved by the bishop has been forbidden. 
 The well-known Bible History of Schuster, used throughout a large 
 part of Europe in various languages, fared no better. These inso- 
 lent, meddling legislators, probably most of them unbelievers, for- 
 bade its use, and had another drawn up. Among a host of smaller 
 vexations may be named ridiculous orders issued to the clergy, as 
 to the length of their sermons, and prohibition to take part in any 
 religious ceremony in a neighboring diocese. 
 
 A far more serious assault on the Catholic Church in Switzerland 
 is the interference with the training and education of the clergy over 
 which the state has asserted the most arbitrary control, regulating 
 the examinations and rejecting candidates for the priesthood at its 
 own pleasure. The state even suppressed the theological seminary 
 of Aargau because the bishop would not accept the text-books at 
 the dictation of the civil authorities. 
 
 A few more of the decrees affecting religion in Mr. Cooke's land 
 of religious freedom may be given. All elections to benefices are 
 subject to the civil authorities. No priest is permitted to perform 
 any functions of his office, even temporarily, without permission of 
 the government. 
 
 Already in several cantons civil marriage is obligator}*, and by 
 a refinement of insolence the parish priest is required, under heav}' 
 penalties, to proclaim it in his own church. In Thurgau the Cath- 
 olic schools have been entirely suppressed. The suppression of 
 religious houses and the confiscation of their property to the state 
 has gone on steadily . The bishops give a long, sad list of these 
 sacrileges, many of the decrees bearing date so late as 18G9 and 
 1870. 
 
 Such facts give us a glimpse of a state of things certainly worse 
 in some respects than the more violent persecutions of early Chris- 
 tian times. And in view of these facts what shall we think of Mr. 
 Cooke's assertions that in Switzerland " religious freedom is the 
 law in all the cantons"? It certainly is the height of presumption 
 for Mr. Cooke, in this amazing state of ignorance, to play the 
 critic and correct the Catholic text-book writer. R. J. J. 
 
228 
 
 TOLERATION IN MARYLAND. 
 
 This assertion of Mr. Cooke has no warrant in history. If the 
 charter of Maryland had secured religions toleration, which as a 
 matter of fact it .did not, Lord Baltimore was undoubtedly the 
 author of it, and he was a devout Catholic. If Mr. Cooke, there- 
 fore, contrary to all historical evidence, insists on believing that it 
 was all due to the charter that religious toleration prevailed in the 
 colony of Maryland, then, as the charter was a document wholly 
 of Catholic authorship, the credit belongs none the less to Catho- 
 lics. Lord Baltimore's authorship of the charter is not in doubt. 
 The Protestant historians Bozman and Rev. Ethan Allen both 
 concede that Lord Baltimore prepared the charter. On the other 
 hand, putting Mr. Cooke's unsupported say-so on one side, and 
 accepting histoiy as it is, we find that from the moment the charter 
 was granted, though religious toleration was not mentioned in it r 
 the Catholic colonists who settled Maryland, led by the noble Sir 
 George Calvert, practised the broadest toleration toward all the 
 Christian sects. Bancroft, Griffith, Chambers, Kent, and Story, 
 all recognize this fact and eulogize them for it. If the charter it- 
 self secured religious toleration, why should these eminent authors, 
 two of them among the foremost lawyers the country has pro- 
 duced, praise the Maryland colonists for proclaiming and practis- 
 ing a toleration which they were powerless to avoid? " Religious 
 freedom," says Bancroft, "had ever been sacred on their soil." 
 Judge Story declares of Lord Baltimore that he " introduced into 
 his fundamental policy the doctrine of general toleration and equal- 
 ity among Christian sects." The Catholic colonists from the outset 
 allowed Protestants to settle among them, erect their own chapel, 
 and enjoy their own order of worship. They gave a broad invita- 
 tion to the Puritans of Massachusetts to come and reside with 
 them, and Lord Baltimore even went so far as to appoint a Prot- 
 estant governor, Col. Stone, over the colony. And in 1649 they 
 passed the Toleration Act, not to inaugurate toleration, but to con- 
 firm what they had practised all along. Mr. Davis, a Protestant 
 writer, says of this Act of 1 649 : 
 
 "The toleration which prevailed from the first, and for fifteen 
 years later, was formally ratified by the voice of the people." 
 
229 
 
 John Esten Cooke, in his history of Virginia ("The American 
 Commonwealths" series, pages 210 and 211), sa3'S : 
 
 "The truth is that the Roman Catholics of Mainland were the 
 only tolerant people of that frightfully intolerant age. The gov- 
 ernor, it has been seen, was forced to swear that he ' would not 
 molest an}* person believing in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of 
 religion.' But their toleration was accounted to them for a crime- 
 The Puritan party were their sworn foes, and candid Mr. Bancroft 
 says, 'had neither the gratitude to respect the rights of the gov- 
 ernment by which they had been received and fostered, nor mag- 
 nanimity to continue the toleration to which alone they were 
 indebted for their residence in the -colony' ; for the furthest reach 
 of their toleration when they came into power was to ' confirm the 
 freedom of conscience, provided the liberty were not extended to 
 ' popery, prelacy, or licentiousness of opinion!' One reads this 
 grim piece of humor with a queer sensation. There should be per- 
 fect freedom of religion — except for Catholics, Church of England 
 people, and others who differed with themselves in theology ! " 
 
 Mr. George W. Cooke tells us that the Protestants owed nothing 
 in Maryland to the first Catholic colonists, because their rights 
 were secured to them by the charter, but Mr. John Esten Cooke 
 demolishes this fiction (page 211) by saying: 
 
 "The truth seems to be perfectly plain. The Catholics were in 
 their right, and Clayborne and the rest were not. Neither the 
 famous rebel, nor the Protestants of any description had any rights 
 in Maryland save what were granted them by the Catholics. 
 What they acquired beyond this they acquired by force." 
 
 Again (page 181) this writer says : 
 
 "Never was social fabric established on a larger or more liberal 
 foundation than that of Maryland. All sects were protected, and 
 the very oath of the governor was, ' I will not, by myself or any 
 other, directly or indirectly molest any person professing to believe 
 in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of religion.' This had naturally 
 attracted the Puritans, both of New England and Virginia ; and 
 their first act in Maryland was to come to blows with their hosts." 
 
 And the same Protestant author (page 214), writing of the 
 Puritans' violation of the tolerance shown them in Maryland, and 
 their successful armed attack on the Catholic people of the colony, 
 says further : 
 
 "Maryland now belonged to the Puritans, and as the age was 
 matter-of-fact, and opposition to the strongest was necessarily 
 
230 
 
 treason, the Catholic leaders were sentenced to death, and four of 
 them were then and there executed. Stone's life was only saved 
 by the intercession of some personal friends. As to the 'Jesuit 
 Fathers,' we are told that they were k hotly pursued and escaped to 
 Virginia where they inhabited a mean low hut,' — which seems to 
 have been a pleasant reflection." 
 
 William Hand Browne, of Johns Hopkins University, in his 
 "History of Maryland" (page 45), bears similar testimon}-. He 
 says : 
 
 "While as yet there was no spot in Christendom where religions 
 belief was free, and when even the Commons of England had 
 openly declared against toleration, he (Lord Baltimore) founded a 
 community wherein no man was to be molested for his faith. At 
 a time when absolutism had struck down representative govern- 
 ment in England, and it was doubtful if a Parliament of freemen 
 would ever meet again, he founded a community in which no laws 
 were to be made without the consent of the freemen. The Ark aud 
 the Dove were names of happy omen : the one saved from the gen- 
 eral wreck the germs of political liberty, and the other bore the 
 olive branch of religious peace." 
 
 Describing in the same work (pages 79 and 80) the strongly 
 contrasting intolerance shown by the Puritans when they obtained, 
 by force, temporary control of the colony, this writer says : 
 
 "The commissioners now went to work and issued writs of elec- 
 tion to a General Assembly, writs of a tenor hitherto unknown in 
 Maryland. No man of the Roman Catholic faith could be elected 
 as a burgess, or even cast a vote. The Assembly obtained by this 
 process of selection justified its choice. It at once repealed the 
 Toleration Act of 1(54;), and enacted a new one more to its mind, 
 which also bore the title, ' An Act Concerning Religion " ; but it 
 was toleration with a difference. It provided that none who pro- 
 fessed the Popish religion could be protected in the Province, but 
 were to be restrained from the exercise thereof. For Protestants 
 it provided that no one professing faith in Christ was to be 
 restrained from the exercise of his religion, ' provided that this lib- 
 erty be not extended to popery or prelacy [meaning the Church of 
 England], nor to such as under the profession of Christ, hold forth 
 and practise licentiousness.' That is, with the exception of the 
 Roman Catholics and the Churchmen, together with the Brownists, 
 Quakers and Anabaptists, and other miscellaneous Protestant sects 
 aimed at by the third exclusion, all others might profess their faith 
 without molestation. Surely this toleration might have been 
 expressed in briefer phrase." 
 
231 
 
 Summing up the whole of the early history of religious toleration 
 and lack of toleration in the colony, the same author (page 185) 
 says : 
 
 "We may now place side by side the three tolerations of Mary- 
 land. The toleration of the Proprietaries (the Catholic founders) 
 lasted fifty years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal 
 before the law, and all support to churches or ministers was volun- 
 tary ; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and included all but 
 Papists, Prelatists (Episcopalians), and those who held objectiona- 
 ble doctrines ; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty years, and had 
 glebes (lands) and churches for the establishment, connivance for 
 Dissenters, the penal law for Catholics, and for all the forty per 
 poll (i % e. forty pounds of tobacco per poll were levied for the sup- 
 port of the Anglican church and clergy) ." 
 
 "It is a striking and instructive spectacle to behold, at this 
 period," says Prof. Walters, of Philadelphia, " the Puritans perse- 
 cuting their Protestant brethren in New England, the Episcopalians 
 retorting the same severity on the Puritans in Virginia, and the 
 Catholics, against whom all others were combined, forming in 
 Maryland a sanctuary where all might worship, and none might 
 oppress, and where even Protestants might find refuge from Prot- 
 estant intolerance." "Yet these very men," he adds, "with in- 
 gratitude still more odious than their injustice, projected the abro- 
 gation not only of the Catholic worship, but of every part of that 
 system of toleration under whose shelter they were enabled to 
 conspire its downfall." — Marshall. 
 
 The Protestant colonists of Maryland have themselves left us 
 the most conclusive testimony to the tolerant policy of the Catholic 
 founders in the document known as the Protestant Declaration, 
 made in April, 1650, just after Lord Baltimore had signed the Tol- 
 eration Act. This document, signed by tne Protestant Governor 
 Stone, several Protestant privy councillors, and all the Protestant 
 members of the Assembly of 1650, as well as by a large number 
 of other Protestants in the colony, was addressed to Lord Bal- 
 timore, and expressed to him the gratitude the}' felt for the fact 
 that — in their own words — they enjoyed "all fitting and conven- 
 ient freedom and liberty in the exercise of our (their) religion 
 under his lordship's government and interest." This furnishes the 
 best of proof, the direct declaration of the Protestant colonists 
 themselves, publicly made at the time, that it was not to the char- 
 ter nor solely to the Act of 1649, but to the uniformly broad and 
 
232 
 
 tolerant policy of Lord Baltimore and the Catholic founders, that 
 they were indebted for religious freedom, and that the political 
 power of the colony was in Catholic hands. Indeed, as proprietor 
 of the entire landed estate of the colony, Lord Baltimore absolutely 
 controlled its entire policy. If he had chosen to withhold grants 
 of land from all except Catholic settlers, it was within his power to 
 have done so, thus excluding non-Catholics of every sect from ob- 
 taining a foothold there. Without his consent no church or chapel 
 could have been erected, for the land on which to build it could not 
 have been obtained. 
 
 The testimony is overwhelming that the Catholic founders of 
 Maryland were a tolerant people, and that, of their own voluntary 
 motion, they showed the largest liberality towards all Christian 
 denominations. When, later on, the Puritan gained the ascend- 
 anc}', Catholics were proscribed and persecuted. Still later again, 
 when the Catholics once more held the stronger hand, toleration 
 for all Christians was once more established and maintained. 
 Clearly the charter did not secure religious toleration, or else these 
 fluctuations from tolerance to persecution could not have been re- 
 corded. Mr. Cooke cannot put the allegations of his no-Popery 
 leaflets in the place of history and den}' to the Catholics of Maiy- 
 land the honor which reputable historians have agreed in giving 
 them. 
 
 R. J. J. 
 
 WHAT CATHOLICS HAVE DONE FOR SCIENCE. 
 
 With regard to the Reformation and its influence on civilization, 
 there are, of course, two differing views, the Catholic and the 
 Protestant view. As Mr. Cooke has quoted Erasmus as the 
 " greatest scholar of the Reformation period and as sometimes in 
 sympathy with the reformers," Erasmus certainly should know 
 what the Reformation did for letters and art. Yet Dr. Schaff, in 
 his " History of the Christian Church," written from the Protes- 
 tant stand-point, quotes Erasmus as saying " that he regarded the 
 Reformation as a public calamity, which brought ruin to arts and 
 letters, and anarchy to the Church." (Vol. VI., page 423.) Mr. 
 Cooke's assertion that the Catholic Church has been the enemy of 
 civilization and progress would be surprising, if it did not come 
 from a man who has offered to substantiate eveiy word contained 
 
233 
 
 in Swinton's "Outlines" by a consensus of unbiased historians, 
 and who does not know the difference between the Inquisition and 
 an indulgence. This strange jumbling of ideas is painfully ap- 
 parent in Mr. Cooke's letter (pages 67 and 78, supra), where 
 Mr. Cooke, having started out to vindicate Swinton's inter- 
 pretation of the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church in 
 the matter of indulgences, quotes, on page 67, the Congregation- 
 alisms opinion of what Swinton saj's about the Inquisition, and 
 evidently quotes it in the evident belief that an opinion bear- 
 ing on the Inquisition applies equally well to an indulgence. With 
 the same hopeless confusion of ideas Mr. Cooke elsewhere (page 78) 
 writes about indulgences and absolution, as though the} - were iden- 
 tical things ; for in order to support his view of indulgences, he 
 quotes what Motley saj r s about absolution. So ill informed a man 
 would naturally be the one to describe the Catholic Church as the 
 enemy of liberty and civilization, when in truth mankind is pro- 
 foundly indebted to her for both. It would, as a matter of fact, 
 be more difficult to tell what the Church has not done for the cul- 
 tivation of art, literature, and science, than to describe what she 
 has done. The clamors of vulgar prejudice have represented the 
 Catholic Church as inimical to the progress of these things, but I 
 think authentic history will show that many of the greatest master- 
 pieces in every department of literature and art have been directly 
 produced under her inspiration and guardianship. 
 
 " The children of the Church were the pioneers of every branch of 
 science. The greatest names in astronomy, mathematics, mechan- 
 ics, electricity, galvanism, chemistry, optics, thermotics, miner- 
 alogy, and botany are Catholic ones. Yes, every branch of modern 
 science owes, not only its origin, but the main part of its growth, 
 to Catholic scientists, so that it can be said with siucerest truth 
 that the sceptre of science belongs to the Church." — Brennan's 
 " What Catholics Have Done for Science." 
 
INDEX 
 
 Introductory Remarks 1 
 
 A Sectarian Text-Book; Letter of the Rev. R. J. Johnson, 
 showing Swinton's "Outlines of the World's History" to 
 be Sectarian, by Protestant Authorities .... 16 
 
 "Catholic Doctrine Caricatured"; Second Letter of the Rev. 
 R. J. Johnson, showing how Swintou distorts the Doctrine 
 of Indulgences as defined by the Church; the Opinions of 
 leading Protestant Newspapers 23 
 
 "Swinton's Inaccuracies"; Third Letter of the Rev. R. J. 
 Johnson; the Merits of Swinton's "Outlines" as an 
 Elementary Text-Book; Gen. U. S. Grant's Opinion of 
 Swinton 31 
 
 Letter of the Rev. George W. Cooke on Swinton's History; 
 he declares that " a Consensus of Unbiased Historians 
 will substantiate every word contained in Swinton's His- 
 tory " % . . . 40 
 
 "The Catholic Position"; Letter of the Rev. R. J. Johnson; 
 Differences of Pact and Opinion; a Balancing of Authori- 
 ties 45 
 
 A Defence of Swinton; Letter of the Rev. George W. Cooke . 58 
 
 The Defence of Swinton continued by the Rev. George \Y. 
 
 Cooke 69 
 
 Third Letter in Defence of Swinton by Rev. Mr. Cooke . . 80 
 
 The Rev. R. J. Johnson replies to the Rev. Mr. Cooke; the 
 Truth about Indulgences; the Catholic Church never 
 taught that they were Pardons of Guilt or Licenses to 
 commit Sin 86 
 
 Letter of the Rev. George W. Cooke on "The Facts about 
 
 Swinton's History" 98 
 
 Letter of the Rev. George VV. Cooke on " Catholic Misrepre- 
 sentations of Protestautism " 106 
 
336 
 
 The Kev. George W. Cooke's Letters reviewed by the Rev. 
 R. J. Johnson; Mr. Cooke's Promise to substantiate every 
 Word in Swinton's Text-Book not fulfilled .... 113 
 
 Other Authorities cited by the Rev. George W. Cooke examined 
 by Rev. R. J. Johnson; Vicar-General Byrne's Views 
 distorted; the Christian Union'' s Opinion .... 120 
 
 Letter of the Rev. George W. Cooke; the Attitude of the 
 
 Catholic Church towards the Public Schools . . . 131 
 
 Popular Errors concerning Indulgences pointed out by the 
 Rev. R. J. Johnson; Indulgences are not under the Con- 
 trol of the Priesthood and cannot be used as a Lever for 
 gaining Money; Motley's and Robertson's Standing as 
 Unbiased Historians ........ 139 
 
 Travellers' Tales; Letter of the Rev. R. J. Johnson showing 
 how Scandalous Stories about the Catholic Church and 
 Clergy are sent from Europe 151 
 
 Some Side Issues; Letter of the Rev. R. J. Johnson on Paro- 
 chial School Books and their Critics; a Glance at Mr. 
 Edwin D. Mead's Pamphlet 161 
 
 A Last Rejoinder from the Rev. Geo. W. Cooke . . . 168 
 
 Bearing False Witness; Closing Letter of the Rev. R. J. John- 
 son; Mr. Cooke's Alleged Quotations from the Pope's 
 Encyclical Letter and from other Catholic Authorities 
 shown not to be Genuine; Mr. Cooke directly challenged 
 to prove them 170 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 "A Plea for Toleration"; a Dispassionate Review of the 
 School Controversy by Mr. Henry Winn. Reprinted from 
 the Boston Herald ........ 183 
 
 Swinton's " Outlines " reviewed by Mr. Alpha Child, of Water- 
 town, N. Y. ; its Glaring Errors exposed by a Protestant 
 Critic. Reprinted from the Boston Transcript . . . 192 
 
 "The Teaching of History"; an Editorial reprinted from 
 
 the Christian Register 201 
 
 The Doctrine of Indulgences; Extract from an Editorial re- 
 printed from the Boston Advertiser 208 
 
 "Indulgences Again"; an Editorial reprinted from the Boston 
 
 Advertiser 209 
 
337 
 
 The Public-School Question; a Paper by Prof. Charles Kendall 
 
 Adams 212 
 
 Catholic Indian Missions; the Bev. George W. Cooke's Asper- 
 sions upon a Catholic Text-Book shown to be unfounded . 219 
 
 Catholic Aid to American Independence; a Eeply to Mr. 
 
 Cooke's Objections to a Statement in Sadlier's History . 222 
 
 Oppression of the Catholic Church in Switzerland; another of 
 
 Mr. Cooke's Criticisms answered 226 
 
 Toleration in Maryland; how Lord Baltimore and the Catholic 
 Founders of Maryland set the Example of Civil and Eeli- 
 gious Liberty on this Continent 228 
 
 What Catholics have done for Science; a Vulgar Prejudice 
 
 corrected 232 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: - ■ 20C2 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 009 472 318 8