NEGATIVE 
 
 NO. 91-80395 
 
MICROFILMED 1 99 1 
 COLUMBIA L^IVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 ii 
 
 as part of the 
 Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
coF\- RIGH [■ STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States -.- Title 17, United 
 States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other 
 reproductions of copyrighted material... 
 
 Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 
 accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 DAU, WILLIAM 
 HENRY T. 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 THE LOGICAL AND 
 HISTORICAL... 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 ST. LOUIS 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1909 
 
. IJ M f 5 ! A U N I V n RS; IT Y UBK A 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 > f ! • ■• 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 938.11 
 D26 
 
 Dau, William Herman Theodore, 18G4- 
 
 The loj^ical and historical inaccuracies of the ITon. Bourke 
 Cockran m his review of the Lutheran letter of protes to 
 President Roosevelt. By Professor W. H. T. Dau. St rlis! 
 Mo.,Concordiapublishinghouse, 19e&. 1909. 2d ed. 
 
 4 p . £ 3 - 
 
 48 p. 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 U. Os^'ao"^'"""" '"'''''''• ''^^^^- -2.- Roosevelt, Ti.eodore, pres. 
 Library of Congress ) BV631.D3 1*— 18767 
 
 in43bl) 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: "3S__ti-^^_ REDUCTION RATIO: / [>C 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA %^ IB IIB ~~ 
 
 DATE FILMED: l:^j3-_^fj_ INITIALS__^f^^ 
 
 nLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE . CT 
 
I IT 
 
 Association for Information and Image Management 
 
 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1 1 00 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 iiii 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 riT 
 
 Inches 
 
 TTT 
 
 6 7 8 
 
 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii 
 
 [TTTT 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 9 
 
 III li 
 
 T 
 
 10 
 
 lllillll 
 
 TTT 
 
 n 12 13 14 
 
 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
 
 1^ 
 
 2.8 
 
 2.5 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 y^ 
 
 ||3:2 
 
 2.2 
 
 |63 
 
 3.6 
 
 
 ilil 
 
 40 
 
 2.0 
 
 L& 
 
 
 
 L. ^ 
 
 
 ■uixu 
 
 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 15 mm 
 
 MfiNUFflCTURED TO RUM STONDFIRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMRGE. INC. 
 

 tfh^m^' 
 
 .,/. *'- 
 
 
 
 
 The 
 
 Logical and Historical Inaccuracies of 
 
 The Hon. Bourke Cockran 
 
 In His Review of the Lutheran Letter 
 of Protest to President Roosevelt. 
 
 By Prof. W. H. T. Dau. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Concordia Publishing House,— St. Lorn. Mo,— 1909. 
 
 

 k 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 •3,- 
 
 
 i# 
 
 • Vf 
 
 
 938JI 
 
 32G 
 
 (Kx^Utntbla |(tnxun*0ttt| 
 ill th^ Citxr af |leiu ||avk 
 
 J^ibiary 
 
 GJVEN BY 
 
 Ty. ES-ld .e.nt. s o -T-T". r 
 
 t 
 
 
 JuT- 
 
« 
 
 The Logical and Historical 
 
 Inaccuracies 
 
 of 
 
 SFijf If nn. Uourk? Cotkran 
 
 in 
 
 His Review of the Lutheran Letter of Protest 
 
 to President Roosevelt* 
 
 lU 
 
 By Professor fV. H. T. Dau. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE. 
 
 1909. 
 
 I 
 
w 
 
 ^B^ 
 
 Prefatory Notice. 
 
 The present print of this brochure contains two additions: 
 upon request the entire letter of the New York pastors has been 
 added on page 6. The advisability of adding Chapter 14 was 
 suggested to the author in view of the action of Mr. Cockran as 
 noted in loco. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., January 25, 1909. 
 
 
 m 
 
 TO HIS BRETHREN, 
 
 "THE NEW YORK C1TY|MEMBERS OF THE SYNODICAL COPERENCE OF THE 
 
 EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH," 
 
 WHO SPOKE A WORD IN SEASON. 
 
 THIS BROCHURE IS INSCRIBED 
 
 Bt 
 
 THE AUTHOR, 
 
 ■0 
 
 
 0) 
 
 a^: 
 
 
 434310 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory 5 
 
 1. The Facts in the Case 7 
 
 2. Patriotic Catholicism 11 
 
 3. The Catholic Church the Mother of Democracies 14 
 
 4. The Primitive Roman Catholic Church ? 18 
 
 5. Boniface VIII and the Bull Unam Sanctam 21 
 
 6. Edward the Confessor and Magna Charta 24 
 
 7. The Keeper of the King's Conscience 26 
 
 8. Rome and the Rise of Constitutional Government 28 
 
 9. Mr. Cockran's Generous Promise 31 
 
 10. The Catholic Marriage Laws 33 
 
 11. The Catholic Church and the Convict 35 
 
 12. Mr. Cockran and the "Angelus" Bishop 36 
 
 13. The Eloquent Silence of Mr. Cockran 38 
 
 14. Mr. Cockran's Rejoinder 45 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 On November the third, 1908, the citizens of the United States 
 of America elected Mr. William Taft of Ohio President. Prior 
 to his election some citizens had entertained scruples whether, as 
 Christians, they could conscientiously give their votes to Mr. Taft, 
 because it was known that Mr. Taft belonged to a religious society 
 which denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. During the political 
 campaign which preceded Mr. Taft^s election, certain persons had 
 openly antagonized his election. This fact was brought to the 
 notice of the President of thQ United States^ and in a letter ad- 
 dressed to a*certain Mr. J. C. Martin the President expressed his 
 disapproval of all efforts to make the religious views of a candidate 
 for a state office the test of his eligibility. The President con- 
 tended that such efforts were contrary to the spirit and letter of 
 the Constitution of the North American Kepublic. Over and above 
 this, the President emphasized his disapproval by declaring the 
 refusal to vote for a candidate because of the candidate's religious 
 views "unwarranted bigotry." 
 
 The Presidents letter to Mr. Martin had been in existence 
 some time prior to the time of its publication, but this fact was 
 not generally known. On November the ninth the letter was given 
 to the press of the country, and appeared in the leading daily papers. 
 A Pastoral Conference of Lutheran clergymen in the city of 
 New York happened to be in session on the day following. Atten- 
 tion having been drawn to the Presidents letter, the members of 
 the Conference discovered that they were at variance with the 
 President, not as regards the general principle which he had ex- 
 pressed, but as regards a particular application of the principle. 
 They instructed two of their members to communicate to the 
 President in a respectful manner the point on which they felt it 
 necessary to dissent from his views, and to submit the grounds 
 and evidence for their dissent. At the same time they requested 
 the President to limit or qualify the charge of bigotry, so as to 
 render it inapplicable to the members of the Conference. In case, 
 however, the President considered the members of the Conference 
 to be in error, they asked to be enlightened. The stricture of the 
 Lutheran pastors was forwarded to the President as an open letter 
 
« > 
 
 ll ^ 
 
 ! 
 
 on November the sixteenth. It was published complete in the 
 New York Times and portions of the letter appeared in many of 
 the dailies in the larger cities of the country. 
 
 The letter is as follows : — 
 Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, 
 
 White House, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir:— Convinced of your deep sincerity, and in full agreement with 
 you as to the fundamental principle of the separation of Church and State 
 as enunciated in your letter to Mr. J. C. Martin, members and pastors of 
 our Church, and other Churches as well, have been amazed to see the in- 
 discriminate and self-contradictory application you make of that principle 
 Itself, and this in the stricture made by you on those who might refuse 
 to vote for a Roman Catholic for the highest office in the gift of our 
 people. 
 
 Of course it is subversive of the basic principle of a real separation 
 of Church and State to permit the religious belief or non-belief of any 
 candidate for public office to determine the casting of one's vote for or 
 against such candidate,, except when that very religious belief or non- 
 belief antagonizes this principle of complete separation of Church and 
 State and all those rights and liberties which are included therein and 
 safeguarded thereby. We agree with you, therefore, that those citizens 
 are to be severely criticised who vote against a man merely because he is 
 a Unitarian, a Jew, a Methodist, or any other religionist. 
 
 But were you not aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church 
 has again and again, for centuries back and down to modern times, through 
 Its official head and other authorities, denounced as wholly wrong and as 
 things to be tolerated only so long* as they cannot be changed the complete 
 separation of Church and State, full religious liberty, freedom of con- 
 science, of speech, and of the press, and that, moreover, it proclaims its 
 teachings and principles to be unchangeable, and boasts of being "semper 
 idem" ? ^ ^ 
 
 Lest we be accused of either misapprehension or misrepresentation 
 permit us to quote some of the pertinent official declarations of the authori- 
 ties of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, in his famous Bull Unam Sanctam, declared: 
 
 In this Church and in its power are two swords — to-wit, a soir- 
 
 rofnef'' T^nfh "^r'^l' ^''t^^'^'^.t ^T^ t^^ght by the words of the 
 Gospel. Both, therefore, the spiritual and the material swords, are 
 
 Churl ^?r^ ""^ *^l ^^.^'tl ^K ^^^*"" '""^^^ *« be used for the 
 Church, the former by the Church, the one by the priest, the other 
 
 by the hands of kings and soldiers, but by the will and sufferance 
 of the priest It is fitting, moreover, that one sword should be 
 under the other, and the temporal authority subject to the spir- 
 itua power. We moreover proclaim, declare, afid pronounce that it 
 is altogether necessary for salvation for every human being to be 
 subject to the Roman Pontiff. & ^ 
 
 Pius IX, in his Syllabus of 1864, condemns as an error the proposi- 
 tion that "the Church must be separated from the State, and the State 
 from the Church." 
 
 Leo XIII, in his Encyclical On the Christian Constitution of States^ 
 November 1, 1885, indorses this declaration of Pius IX, and in his En- 
 cyclical On Human Liberty, June 20, 1888, condemns what he terms "the 
 fatal theory of the right of separation between Church and State." 
 
 In the same encyclical Leo declares: 
 
 From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful 
 to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, 
 of speech, of writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights 
 given by nature to man. 
 
 Pius IX, in his Syllabus of December 8, 1864, on The State, declares 
 that it has not the right of establishing a national Church separate from 
 the Pope nor^the right to the entire direction of public schools. 
 
 Have these declarations ever been revoked by the Roman Catholic 
 Church? If so, we have gained no knowledge thereof. All that we have 
 read by Roman Catholic writers was merely an attempt either to justify 
 these declarations or to take the edge off of them in order to meet attacks 
 from those who maintain that the Romanist, if he be a loyal adherent of 
 his Church, its official teachings and principles, is in irreconcilable conflict 
 with the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. 
 Even Cardinal Gibbons, in his book The Faith of Our Fathers, makes these 
 significant statements, the best he has to offer in vindication of his Church 
 against the charge that it is Opposed to civil and religious liberty: 
 
 A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right 
 of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience 
 and of practicing the form of religion most in accordance with his 
 duties to God. (49th edition, 1897, p. 264.) 
 
 The Church is indeed intolerant in this sense that she must 
 never confound truth with errors; nor can she ever admit that 
 a man is conscientiously free to reject the truth when its claims 
 are convincingly brought home to his mind. Many Protestants 
 seem to be very much disturbed by some such argument as this: 
 Catholics are very ready now to proclaim freedom of conscience be- 
 cause they are in the minority. When they once succeed in getting 
 the upper hand in numbers and power, they will destroy this free- 
 dom because their faith teaches them to tolerate no doctrine other 
 than the Catholic. It is, therefore, a matter of absolute necessity 
 for us that they should never be allowed to get this advantage. 
 
 Now, in all this there is a great mistake, which comes from 
 not knowing the Catholic doctrine in its fullness. I shall not lay 
 it down myself lest it seem to have been gotten up for the occasion. 
 I shall quote the great theologian Becanus, who taught the doctrine 
 of the schools of Catholic theology at the time when the struggle 
 was strongest between Catholicity and Protestantism. He says that 
 religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler when it would do more 
 harm to the State or to the community to repress it. The ruler 
 may even enter into a contract in order to secure to his subjects 
 this freedom in religious matters, and when once a contract is made, 
 it must be observed absolutely in every point, just as every other 
 lawful and honest contract, (p. 268.) 
 
\ 
 
 i! 
 
 Ij li 
 
 li 
 
 it 
 
 II 
 
 
 8 
 
 What else are these obviously mildest declarations of Romanists but 
 a confirmation of the charge that the Roman Catholic Church does not 
 stand for full and perfect religious liberty, as understood by all Americans 
 and defined in our Federal Constitution, that every man shall be free not 
 only to worship God according to the dictates of a "right conscience" and 
 to practice a "religion most in accordance with his duties to God," but 
 according to his conscience and his conception of his duties to God, right 
 or wrong, so long as he is not thereby led to endanger the equal rights 
 and liberties of his neighbor, or to interfere with the free exercise of the 
 Government's power in the equal protection of all citizens? 
 
 Is there any comment necessary on the Cardinal's quotation from 
 Becanus to show that it in nowise commits the Roman Catholic Church 
 to the principle of religious liberty, but most clearly decries that prin- 
 ciple as an evil to be tolerated only by reason of necessity, "when it would 
 do more harm to the State or to the community to repress it?" 
 
 Are we not, then, compelled to maintain that a loyal Roman Catholic 
 who fully understands the allegiance required of him by the Pope can 
 never sincerely subscribe to the Federal Constitution, nor, if he does sub- 
 scribe to it, never can be expected to abide by it, enforce and defend it? 
 Papacy and Vaticanism cannot be separated from the Roman Catholic 
 religion. If anyone should entertain an idea that this were possible, let 
 him read Cardinal Gibbons's afore-quoted book. 
 
 How, then, could we, as firm believers in the principle of complete 
 separation of Church and State, and the liberties based thereon and safe- 
 guarded thereby, conscientiously and consistently help to elect to the Presi- 
 dency a member of the Roman Catholic Church, so long as that Church 
 does not officially, through its Pontiff or Churcli Council, revoke its dia- 
 metrically opposed declarations? ' • 
 
 Are the 2,000,000 and more Lutherans of this country, not to speak 
 of the millions of other Protestants, who take this position for the reasons 
 stated, to be accused of bigotry or fanaticism because of such, their stand, 
 aye, be denounced as being disloyal American citizens? We protest that 
 it is neither personal feeling nor religious antagonism which determines 
 our attitude in this matter, but solely our disagreement with the Roman 
 Catholic Church on this basic political principle, a disagreement growing 
 out of the rejection and denunciation by the Roman Catholic Church of 
 that very principle which you admonish all faithfully to uphold not only 
 in theory but in practice. 
 
 We do not wish to be understood as though we accuse the bulk of the 
 Roman Catholics of being disloyal American citizens. We sincerely believe 
 a great many do not fully realize that the position the hierarchy of their 
 Church maintains with reference to the principle in question, especially 
 in view of the outgivings of their teachers in this country, and that if it 
 came to an issue compelling a decision cither for the Constitution or the 
 Papal hierarchy, they would decide in favor of the ftrmer, upholding the 
 Constitution of the United States. Yet, in determining our attitude in 
 this matter, especially when it comes to electing a man to the highest 
 
 public office, we must be guided by the official teachings of the recognized 
 authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 We have considered it to be our duty not to keep silence in this matter 
 because, in our judgment, that would have been an act of cowardice, nor 
 do we wish to do anyone an injustice, nor in any manner traduce any man 
 or body of men. If, therefore, in aught we have said we are laboring under 
 error, we shall be pleased to have you enlighten us and with us the millions 
 who occupy the same position, and shall be sincerely grateful to you for 
 such enlightenment. But if we are right in our contention and position, 
 we ask you to show your unquestioned sincerity and courage by an ac- 
 knowledgment ol the correctness of our contention and the attitude based 
 
 thereon. 
 
 We are. 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 William Schoenfeld, 
 Martin Walker, 
 
 for the New York Pastoral Conference of the Synodical 
 Conference of the Lutheran Church. 
 
 Before the President could have conveniently replied to the 
 letter, Mr. Bourke Cockran of New York made the letter the sub- 
 ject of an extended review. In an address, delivered on Wednes- 
 day evening, November the eighteenth, before the delegates to the 
 First American Catholic Missionary Congress, then in session at 
 Chicago, 111., and before a great conflux of spectators, Mr. Cockran 
 endeavored, not only to show the groundlessness of the claim of 
 the New York pastors, and of an identical claim which had been 
 advanced by a conference of Baptist clergymen in Philadelphia, 
 but he also held the claim up to ridicule. Mr. Cockran spoke before 
 a very large and appreciative audience. The occasion being the 
 closing session of the Missionary Congress, more persons sought 
 admission to the armory in which the Congress sat than could be 
 accommodated. Even many who had secured tickets of admission 
 had to be turned away. A reporter estimated their number at 
 several thousands. So dense a mob formed around the entrance 
 that a priest was overcome and had to be carried away, and it was 
 found necessary at length to send in a riot call to the police of 
 Chicago to keep the people from forcing the doors. Mr. Cockran 
 had the good will and the enthusiastic approbation of his hearers 
 from beginning to end. Frequent applause and volleys of cheers 
 punctuated his remarks. 
 
 I! 
 
 
f III 
 
 1^1 
 
 11 1 
 
 10 
 
 His address was published first by the Michigan Catholic 
 during the last week in November, and was from that paper trans- 
 ferred to the columns of The New World, published at Chicago, 
 on December the fifth. The New World claims to be "the best 
 medium by which to reach the 4,000,000 Catholics of the great 
 Middle West/' As to the address of Mr. Cockran, this paper states 
 that it has found it apparently impossible to obtain an official copy 
 of the address, and that it offers the text of the address as pub- 
 lished in the Michigan journal as "presumably accurate." It is 
 not known that Mr. Cockran has protested against the text in 
 which his address has been submitted to four millions, and more, 
 of his coreligionists and to the public in general. 
 
 Upon the criticism to which Mr. Cockran subjected the letter 
 of the Lutheran pastors of New York, and, in particular, upon 
 the manner in which he exhibited and met the arguments in the 
 letter, the following remarks are submitted. 
 
 I<t 
 
 11 
 
 I. 
 
 The Facts in the Case. 
 
 Mr. Cockran began by saying that, like all Catholic celebra- 
 tions, the Missionary Congress had both a religious and a civic 
 aspect, and that owing to the New York letter of protest to Presi- 
 dent Eoosevelt the civic aspect had assumed unusual significance. 
 He characterized the letter as follows : 
 
 It takes the President severely to task for having, in a letter 
 published a week earlier, declared that it was against the basic theory 
 of separation between Church and State for any man to allow the 
 exercise of his suffrage to be affected by the religious belief of any 
 candidate. * 
 
 The Lutheran pastors had said to President Roosevelt: 
 
 Sir: — Convinced of your deep sincerity, and in full agreement 
 with you as to the fundamental principle of the separation of Church 
 and State, as enunciated in your letter to Mr. J. C. Martin, members 
 and pastors of our church, and other churches as well, have been 
 amazed to see the indiscriminate and self-contradictory application 
 you make of that principle itself, and this in the stricture made by 
 you on those who might refuse to vote for a Roman Catholic for the 
 highest office in the gift of our people. 
 
 Of course, it is subversive of the hasic principle of a real separa- 
 tion of Church and State to permit the religious belief or non-belief 
 of any candidate for public office to determine the casting of one's 
 vote for or against such candidate, except when that very religious 
 belief or non-belief antagonizes this principle of complete separation 
 of Church and State and all those rights and liberties which are 
 included therein and safeguarded thereby. We agree with you, there^ 
 fore, that those citizens are to be severely criticised who vote against 
 a man merely because he is a Unitarian, a Jew, a Methodist, or any 
 
 OTHER RELIGIONIST. 
 
 ili 
 
 
 There is a plain discrepancy between Mr. Cockran's statement 
 and that of the Lutheran pastors as regards the point in con- 
 troversy. The Lutheran letter acknowledges a very material and 
 extensive unity of sentiment with the President, yea, it even 
 emphasizes that unity. This unity of sentiment between the Presi- 
 dent and the Lutheran pastors was indeed exhibited by Mr. Cockran 
 to his audience, after the first wave of applause had subsided, and 
 the mischief indicated had been done. It was exhibited in the 
 following fashion: 
 
Ill 
 
 12 
 
 The gentlemen undertook to say that "this political truth was 
 entirely applicable'* — I quote their own language — "to a Unitarian, 
 a Methodist, a Jew, or any other religionist, but that it could not 
 fairly be applied to a Roman Catholic." 
 
 To the end of guiding his audience to a just estimate of the 
 Lutheran letter, we hold that Mr. Cockran was under the common 
 obligation which conscience and fairmindedness lay upon any per- 
 son that sets out to create and to -mold public opinion, to present 
 the exact species facti, the facts in the case. This would have re- 
 quired, 1) that the audience be tald that the Lutheran pastors as- 
 sume no dijfference between Catholics, viewed as religionists, and 
 any other religionists. They stand for the principle : Equal rights 
 to all. Their contention arises from the fact that Catholics cannot 
 be viewed simply as religionists, but must be viewed as something 
 else besides, namely, as a faction seeking after political power. 
 There can be little doubt, we believe, but that the President in his 
 letter to Mr. Martin magnanimously has viewed Catholics merely 
 as religionists on a level with other religionists, and that he desires 
 his fellow-citizens likewise to thus view them. The Lutheran 
 letter fully meets and perfectly coincides with the President on 
 this point. As religionists the Catholics have not been singled out 
 for attack by the Lutheran pastors. 
 
 2. The mention of the Catholic name in this discussion did 
 not originate with the Lutheran pastors. Just how much cause the 
 President had in his letter to Mr. Martin to refer especially to th6 
 possibility of a Catholic being elected to the presidency, we know- 
 not, and the question is immaterial. But it is necessary that stress 
 be laid on this fact that it was the President, not the Lutheran 
 pastors, who injected the reference to Catholicism into the present 
 discussion. Had this not been done, the ^NTew York pastors who met 
 in conference on November the tenth would in all likelihood have 
 failed to notice the letter. 
 
 These facts are mentioned not by way of apology, but in order 
 to show that Mr. Cockran's audience was, from the outset, placed 
 in a most unfavorable position for arriving at a proper and equi- 
 table judgment of the action of the Lutheran pastors and of the 
 intended scope of that action. Speaking, as he did, to an audience 
 composed chiefly, if not exclusively, of Catholics, Mr. Cockran 
 should have been more than usually careful to say nothing that 
 was of a character to arouse ill-will or to inflame passion. The 
 
 13 
 
 Lutheran letter had touched Catholic sensibilities. That was un- 
 avoidable, though the intention of the letter was not to hurt and 
 to insult persons, but to prove the correctness of a position. True 
 manliness in a person requires that when an unpleasant fact is 
 presented to him and he is identified with that fact, he face it 
 like a man. Mr. Cockran's was a great mission : if he had led 
 his audience to reflect calmly on the charge raised in the Lutheran 
 letter, he w^ould have benefited himself and those who heard him. 
 He chose, however, to assume the worst motives in the authors of 
 the letter. After the disingenuous characterization which he had 
 given of the New York letter, he proceeded to call it a "misrepre- 
 sentation;" he placed the New York pastors in a class with men 
 who "invent the ground of their criticism," and the audience 
 applauded this remark; lastly, he called the criticism of the 
 Lutheran pastors "the offspring of bigotry." Mr. Cockran is en- 
 titled to his opinion. In a country where free speech is a universal 
 privilege he is also entitled to express his opinion. But it has 
 always been held that opinions, if they are worth anything, are 
 the product of sound thinking. Their utterance finds a proper 
 place at the close, not at the head, of an argument. Mr. Cockran 
 put the cart before the horse. He told his hearers, first, that the 
 Lutherans were bigots, and then exhibited them as such by con- 
 fronting the claim set forth in the Lutheran letter with counter- 
 claims which he advanced. The logical order would have been to 
 show that the Lutheran claim was baseless; and after this fact 
 had been established, the reviewer was justified in looking for the 
 cause which had prompted the setting up of the claim. And if, 
 out of several causes which might have suggested themselves, 
 bigotry had seemed the only one which would properly explain 
 the action of the New York pastors, the speaker might have stated 
 that as his conclusion. He has made his conclusion his major 
 premise. His aim was to establish the bigotry of his Lutheran 
 critics by proving the untenableness of their position, not to refute 
 their arguments, and, as a consequence, make them pass for 
 bigoted zealots. 
 
 This logical inaccuracy, however, turns out to be more than 
 a fault in reasoning. Not only does it shift the argument from 
 matters to men, not only does it essay to break down the merit 
 of a claim by assailing the character of the authors of the claim, 
 but it vitiates the entire argument by making it emotional rather 
 
 
\w 
 
 I 
 
 tll<l 
 
 taiideniig 
 )«H'u!]ar line 
 
 14 
 
 than intellectual. The reviewer created a certain state of feeling, 
 a certain animus, in his audience before he invited tlie audience 
 to reflect and to consider his facts. Xaturally, the animus wliich 
 he created m others must have existed iii his own nimd before it 
 
 was transferred t«) other iiiinds. Or if it existed in otiiers Ijid'ore 
 he began to address thcii!. My. ("ockraii riiade usp of it bv |)and 
 to it an<l thii^ making bis heari'r> receplivt' for hi^ 
 of argument, it is very oa^y to prove to uuni a ponit which ibcv 
 are eager to see pro\-ed. But it is a dangerous procedure. The 
 tiiuusands who bear<b and the millions wlio have since read, 
 Mr. Cochran's address have imbibed the notion that a number of 
 their countrymen and fellow-citizens are bent upon defaming them. 
 This impression is sunk deep into the minds especially of those 
 who came under the spell of Mr. Cochran's oratorv. If anv es- 
 caped the impression, it were a sheer miracle. 
 
 We merely chronicle these matters as facts, and raise no 
 maudlin complaint about them. The report of impending trouble 
 has been bruited in our country. We shall quietly -observe coming 
 events. W^e expect no pleasant reaping from such bitter sowing 
 as was done by Mr. Cockran. The stigma of bigotry which he has 
 sought to fasten upon Lutherans, and others, and for which he 
 may claim the dignity and authority which an alliance with the 
 President of the United States naturally would bring to his effort, 
 — though such an alliance is by no means patent, — may ulti- 
 mately recoil upon his own head. If trouble comes, we shall know 
 whom, amongst others, we may hold justly responsible as the 
 author and fomenter of the trouble. The Lutheran pastors have 
 declared : 
 
 We protest that it is neither personal feeling nor rehgious 
 antagonism which determines our attitude in this matter, but solely 
 our disagreement with the Eoman Catholic Church on this basic 
 political principle. 
 
 We do not wish to be understood as though we mean to accuse 
 the bulk of the Roman Catholics of being disloyal American citizens. 
 We sincerely believe a great many do not fully realize the position 
 the hierarchy of their church maintains with reference to the prin- 
 ciple in question. 
 
 We have considered it to be our duty not to keep silence in this 
 matter because, in our judgment, that would have been an act of 
 cowardice, nor do we wish to do any one an injustice, nor in any 
 manner traduce any man or body of men. 
 
 o 
 
 Men who approach another party witli seiilinients such as 
 these would seem entitlcil to a ctsurt^Tais liearin^ir at least. If tboy 
 are to be met forthwith wWli the ^!l^ulnng rejiHiS'ler: You mis- 
 represent; vou invent the i^rnuud «)f VLiur i-nticisni : vou are lii^(>i>! 
 it IS evident that th(; xAhw \niny i!M/an> \o make hiulT th*-' metiiod, 
 of his argumentation, and f^'-uiii- \\\h)1\ liie passiouo of Ins iriunds 
 to supply tluii vaJnr wiiii-h siiouid have gone infn his rea-^nning. 
 
 II. 
 
 • Patriotic Catholicism. 
 
 The Lutheran pastors had submitted to the President the 
 following question : 
 
 Are you not aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church 
 has again and again, for centuries back and down to modern times, 
 through its official head and other authorities, denounced as wholly 
 wrong and as things to be tolerated only so long as they cannot be 
 changed, the complete separation of Church and State, full religious 
 liberty, freedom of conscience, of speech, and of the press, and that, 
 moreover, it proclaims its teachings and principles to be unchange- 
 able, and boasts of being "semper idem"? 
 
 To substantiate the claim embodied in this querv% the Lutheran 
 letter presented the evidence from unimpeached Catholic sources, 
 thus following up the charge with the proof. Mr. Cockran repro- 
 duced the Lutheran charge thus: 
 
 And why? Because, forsooth, in the oi)iiiion of these Lutheran 
 gentlemen the Catholic Church, by her constitution, her discipline, 
 and her tradition, is opposed to the existence of democratic institu- 
 tions, and, especially to that separation between Church and State 
 which is a fundamental feature of our Constitution and system. 
 
 This restatement of the Lutheran contention is quite satis- 
 factory. It is gratifying to observe that the full force of the New 
 York letter has been felt by Mr. Cockran. We are justified now 
 in expecting that whatever errors may slip into his reasoning on 
 the point in controversy they will not be such as would arise from 
 a misconception of the position occupied by the opponent. With 
 commendable clearness and directness Mr. Cockran approaches the 
 refutation of the charge raised against his cliurch. He says: 
 
 till 
 
 AK 
 
 "'^itatgffl >»«nw.vt,--u<, ijK^jg* 
 
16 
 
 Now, against this statement that the extension of Catholicism can 
 be injurious to the safety of this republic, I place the other statement 
 that the widest extension of Catholic faith. Catholic worship, Catho- 
 lic fervor, that is to say, the widest success of this society, must 
 operate not to impair, but to stimulate, the loyalty of an American 
 citizen (applause) ; that it cannot operate to weaken, but must 
 operate to strengthen, the foundations of this government (applause) ; 
 that tilt Catholic Church is not only a force that must work for 
 the safety of republican government, but it is the strongest force 
 that can operate for its protection (applause), yea, m re, that it is 
 the only force which can operate for its safety, (Applause and 
 cheers.) 
 
 Here is patriotic fervor at white lieat. This fine paragraph 
 slioiild be read over and over, especially the clause which contains 
 
 the climax 
 
 ininiediatel 
 
 whieli we at uiice juiii one that followuii almost 
 
 aftf^r it: 
 AVhat must be the effect of tlif extension — growth-- of Catholic 
 
 faith ill this country? Well, to beo-in witli, I think 
 
 t is capable of 
 
 absolute demonstration that the growth of Catholicism must result 
 in democratic or free government. It can have no other result, and 
 the fruit which Catholicism produces inevitably is the fruit which 
 Catholicism must conserve naturally. 
 
 We hear ''free government" spoken of in the future tense. 
 What does this mean? We hear it described as the result and 
 fruit of an activity that is but begun and that must be much in- 
 creased in order that the fruit and result may appear. What does 
 this mean? Is this ardent patriot vowing allegiance to present 
 conditions or to future developments? If free government is con- 
 ditioned upon the growth of Catholicism, if Catholicism is the 
 only force whicli can operate for its safety, then it follows tliat the 
 freedom of the North American Republic will increase in the same 
 ratio as the membership of the Catholic Church increases; then 
 it follows that any limitation or weakening of Catholic forces, and 
 any increase of non-Catholic forces is a menace to the safety of 
 the Republic ; then it follows that the Republic will be perfectly 
 free only when all its citizens are Catholics. We ask the reader 
 once more to read and re-read these statements of Mr. Cockran, 
 to ponder their plain meaning and evident scope, and to decide 
 for himself whether his words can convey any other sense than 
 the one which we have given. If it were not that we wish to 
 follow as much as possible the order and sequence of Mr. Cockran's 
 remarks, we should cite, even at this place, still more extended 
 
 •mmt*^ 
 
 17 
 
 remarks of the speaker near the close of his oration which show 
 with noon-day clearness that when Mr. Cockran pleads for a free 
 Eepublic he has in mind a Catholic Republic, and that he is utterly 
 unable to conceive of true political freedom except as procured by 
 the ascendency of his church. 
 
 And now we cease to \vonder at Mr. Cockran's patriotic out- 
 bursts and at the jubilant acclaim of his audience. Of course, 
 both want the free institutions of the Republic to continue, in 
 order that Catholicism may grow and spread and fill the land. 
 ilicy vsani free speech — to proclaim Catholicism; they want 
 freedom of the ])ress — to advertise CaiiioiicisMi . lii y want free- 
 drMii of conscience — to make Catholic conver^^ Iv^vrv Aniorirnn 
 lilM-nv i< arroptable to them, is an iminoiiH' advanta-o in ihom, ^ 
 becau;se it favoiv, protects, fosters, and acrol.-ralo- iht' realization 
 of, their Catholic a>])irations. I i' ih^ ;a\\> and ni^ntutions of the 
 countrv woro (Hirernii ffoiii wjial thov ana if a,iiti-Catliolie h:^^is- 
 lation were introdur^.i in lisis country, a> it has fteen mtrotiia/od 
 Hi some European coinitnes. Catholici-ni would not grow half as 
 rapidly as it does at ])r(^seiit. Hu'rofore. Catholics love this free 
 countrv with an exceeding: ^rrt-at love, ami eniulate and siir{)ass 
 the patriotic ardor of America's truest and noblest sons. They 
 love the Republic — for themselves. 
 
 And now, how stands the argument lietween ^Ir. Cockran and 
 the Lutheran pastors? What is the quality of Mr. Cockran's logic? 
 :Mr. Cockran has plainly equivocated the terms ''free'' and ''free- 
 dom" which the Lutheran raistors had used. His freedom is a 
 different sort of freedom inmi the one whicii the Lutheran pastors 
 had advocated. ^Ir. Coekran's ^"freedom" is derived from, sup- 
 ported and safeguarded only f.y ilic^ Catholic Chureii : the freedom 
 which, the Liitheran pa>ior> had .•hampioned i- derivtMi from, sup- 
 ported and safeguardcMl t)y our jiresent political institutions. In 
 Mr. Cockran's view the American Constitution is a means to an 
 end; in the view of the Lutheran pastors it is the end itself. It's 
 an old trick this, of denying an opponent's claim in a sense dif- 
 ferent from that in which the claim had been advanced. The world 
 knows full well the school where this art is taught. If Mr. Cockran 
 has not taken Ids degree in tliat school ere this, steps should be 
 taken to give him his title now. It is coming to him. 
 
18 
 
 III. 
 The Catholic Church the Mother of Democracies. 
 
 Mr. Cockran traced the origin of democratic government to 
 "the Gospel entrusted to the Catholic Church by its Divine Author 
 and her Divine Founder.^^ He said: 
 
 In the last analysis the difference between democracy und all 
 bther forms of government is that democracy believes in human 
 virtue. All other forms of government are built on distrust of 
 human vices. Democracy believes that human virtue is a rock on 
 which government can be built with perfect security and the most 
 beneficent results. All other forms of government believe that 
 human depravity is so general that government must be organized 
 to prevent, check, and repress its evil and sinister manifestations. 
 
 Now, where in all the experience of mankind do we find the first 
 suggestion that man is capable of maintaining government for the 
 protection of the minority and of all citizens, where the powers of 
 government are entrusted to the whole body of the people? Every 
 form of government that existed before Christianity was preached 
 and established was built on the theory that man could be restrained 
 from assailing the property and liberty of his fellow for the purpose 
 of plundering only by fear, fear of death, fear of imprisonment, fear 
 of punishment, fear of torture. The principle that man cr>u](] he 
 trusted with the powers of governmont. anr] that ilny vvouM 'h<- < x* r- 
 cised nut fur tho oppression of any, but for thu protection .-f all is 
 not fmmrl in any speech of any trihnnr, in any system of philn.s.-phy 
 fomiulated bv tho wi?dnm of iii<-n. in aiiv institution of ji'uvcnniH-nt 
 established \>y statesmen, in any dream uf phijosnpliors. in aiiv monii- 
 ment of human wisdom, but in the Gospel of Jesus (1iri>t preached 
 by Tlira and His followers. (Applause and cheers.) 
 
 What is the basic princi])]'- of Cliristianity ? Wliy. it is the 
 measureless perfectibility of men, its conception of our redemption 
 was that, while man is capable of sinkin^^ tu degradation that is 
 appalling, yet is he capable of improvement so vast, of excellence so 
 perfect, that God Himself could assuine human form and human 
 nature without suffering injury to, or abasement of, His divine 
 nature. (Applause.) It is true that the word of revelation was spoken 
 by God, but its Author lived and suffered and died as man. As God 
 Ho came on the ^Xfount, raised the dead, cast out devils. As man 
 He fasted in the desert. As man He sorrowed in the garden. As 
 man He felt the scourge on His back. As m.an He felt the crown 
 of thorns on His head. As man He felt the nails in His hands and 
 feet, the cruel spear in His side, tasted the bitter Sponge in His lips ; 
 and it was as man that He forgave and asked His Father in L<5aven 
 to forgive the apostle that had betrayed Him, the priests that had 
 plotted against Him, the people who had renounced Him, the rabble 
 
 19 
 
 who had mocked Him, the soldiers who spat on Him, the executioner 
 that killed Him; and there was not a merit which He displayed all 
 the way up to Calvary, or on the cross as He hung from it, that 
 you and I and the humblest human being cannot hope to imitate in 
 his daily life. (Applause.) His divine perfection, of course, no 
 human being can hope to equal, but every one can strive to imitate 
 Him, and in the process of Striving each one must immediately ex- 
 perience a moral improvement that is practically immeasurable. 
 
 An idol, smashed long ago by the persons who had first sought 
 to raise it, here looms up again : a Christ who is a social reformer 
 and a political liberator, whose mission it is by His teaching and 
 by the force of His example to lead men to regard their existing 
 governments as an abasement and an insult to the nobility of 
 human nature, *and to set up democratic governments. We know 
 what hopes the political malcontents of His day had attached to 
 this Christ, how sorely disappointed they were that He had not 
 '^raised up Israel," had not established His kingdom, had refused 
 their crown, had declined to settle a dispute concerning property, 
 had paid the tribute money to the state, had laid down the rule : 
 "Eender uniu Caesar" — the heathen emperor of His day ^ "the 
 tliiiius which nre Caesar's," had acknowledged that Caesar's repre- 
 seniaiivH before whom TT* had come to be arraigned wa^ vested 
 uith iMov.r ibai was given him from on high. The r-r -t ^ .m 
 Mr. ( uekran pictures was slain for the very reason ;isii ih uas 
 
 not a.nu 
 
 vonld not he w^hnt ATr. Cockran allege.- 
 
 I i u i I, i 
 
 Hi- wa 
 
 And 
 
 \\\> aiiostles? Paul i njoins upon the congregat 
 
 tliUi 
 
 Roine. in 
 
 one el 1 1 ii'i' 
 
 lapter, respect and obedience 
 
 -^ 1 1 i 
 
 !h 
 
 in iif-]ii)Mc srove 
 
 mcBt of Nero, am! inculcates the principle of fear, y- a. declares 
 
 that th*' !)0wers tiuii be are set up to intimidat.' -h-n. The i*iea 
 of a, praeiiriiLiv immeasurable capacity v>v inuraf iini.roveira-nt 
 latent m the human uatiirf aaal t.o be elicited bv tia/ tb>>|K4 l-as 
 not entered, his nuiid. lie iu;\h-> it the dniy .-t tlie (■!ir]>tian 
 pastors Tiniothy a!id Titus to tfaeh oiKMheiire. re\<'rfiiee to their 
 pagan governments. And hi^t. not h-ast. l\'ter wlioni Mr. Coekran, 
 we take it, would respeet before the other apostles, teaches citizens 
 of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithvnia to 'iionor tlie 
 king," to "submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, 
 whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors." Thus, 
 the Gospel of Christ throughout endorses and confirms tlie govern- 
 ments of nations as they stand and are exercising their authority, 
 confirms them to the people who liave come under the liberating 
 
20 
 
 21 
 
 influences of the Gospel. The domain of Gospel activity is not 
 the political arena; it has nothing to do with matters of state- 
 craft, with the form of governments. Hence, to "trace the origin 
 of democratic governments^ to the Gospel is an unwarranted as- 
 sumption. Millions of men who have the whole Gospel have lived, 
 and are still living, under governments that are not democratic, 
 and they never think of changing their government. Millions of 
 men have had their well-organized governments and have conducted 
 themselves as good citizens, who had never heard of Christ and 
 the Gospel. The entire argument of Mr. Cockran is fallacious 
 because it deduces a conclusion from an unproved hypothesis; 
 it makes a chimerical fancy, a Utopian dream of Mr. Cockran the 
 foundation on which he rests his heroic utterances. 
 
 And it is historically untrue so far as it concerns the origin 
 of the North American Republic. To declare the democratic gov- 
 ernment of the United States of America a product of the Gospel 
 of Jesus Christ would betray an ignorance for which the person 
 making the assertion would deserve to be pilloried. Mr. Cockran 
 knows that among the framers of the Constitution of our Republic 
 were men whose attitude to Jesus Christ and the Gospel was other 
 than that of a believer. Mr. Cockran knows that the administia- 
 tion of our government has always been in the hands not only of 
 members of a Christian church, but also in the hands of non- 
 Christians, and the iioii-Chnsuan character oi xhf: iFi^-iimht'iits ha^ 
 not impaired their capacitv for holding oflBce. Mr. ( ^m kran knows 
 that the nation has roi* luiy elected, without fear of jeoparlizini^ 
 the fortunes of the Im ou oc, a gentleman president wlu? jioeorlinix 
 to common report, does nut share the views of .Mr. CocKraii .)[] 
 the subject of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Mr,, Cockran lia^ 
 been reminded quite recenth" that this nation holds that t!ie r<'li~ 
 gi'ai- views of its riuzta,is neither qualify them for, nor ili>-- 
 quaiiiiy theui fro,n,i, holiii,!ig office. Yet ^Ir. Cockran has been 
 
 ab] 
 
 m 
 
 e to credit th.e Gospel with the origin of democratic government 
 
 tie worid. 
 
 More than this, ^Iv. Cockran does not make the Gospel as such 
 the source and fountain-head of democratic government, but "the 
 Gospel entrusted to the Catholic Church." And so as to leavo 
 no doubt that he regards his own church as the sole possessor of 
 this Gospel, he proceeds to say : 
 
 But in addition to His illustration in His own person of the 
 perfection which humanity can reach, the Author of our Creed es- 
 tablished a church whose main purpose was to perpetuate, not by 
 representation, but by repetition, continuous of the sacrifice that He 
 had made, and the essence, the end, the object, the capital point of 
 that Church and of its sacraments is to bring every man ,and woman 
 to the communion rail, there to become a living temple of the living 
 God. (Applause.) . 
 
 Continuing, the speaker depicted the influence of the seven 
 sacraments of his church on the lives of its members. His remarks 
 were a fair panegyric on the religion of Catholicism. His par- 
 ticular church, then, stands out preeminently as the bulwark of 
 political liberty, because by its ministrations it is said to make 
 men temples of the living God, and incapable of tolerating political 
 institutions which would foster despotism and introduce slavery. 
 Other churches have not the Gospel entrusted to them; other 
 churches have not been established by Christ ; other churches have 
 not the seven sacraments. What follows ? The energetic and elo- 
 quent Mr. Cockran leaves you to draw your own conclusions. All 
 ye who are non- Catholics, vain is your imagination that you can 
 be patriotic citizens of this free Republic ! True citizenship ^lartb 
 at the communion rail of some Catholic church. 
 
 Whi^ Mr. Cockran simply carried away by his flights of rhet- 
 oric, and did he inadvertently overshoot his real ainu when he 
 made his church the God-ordained tutor of democratic or uec 
 governments: It is for him to say that he did. TTi^ argument, 
 however, from an attack upon the Lutheran claim ha^^ nirned out 
 
 ' " had 
 
 . r- .^; 
 
 a fair corroboration of that claim. The Lutheran 
 charged that the Catholic church is opposed to the separation of 
 Church and State. M-. Cockran, amazed at this revelation of 
 bicrotrv. declares: The Catholic church, only the Catholic churrli, 
 
 
 ruardian 
 
 is the |,)arent who begets, trie tuior wlio nnrturr,^. <iii'i n.M 
 who {)rotects, free and deniorriitic gowrniiients. You nuiv h-el 
 that this is no answer, and you turn !<> Mr. C^X'kran and sa v : 
 What von have said may be so or not s^), but. pray. «io tell us: Do 
 yon hold tliat Church and State ought to b*^ forever and in all 
 things separate? Mr. Cockran will look you steadfastly in the 
 eye, inflate his chest, and with a majestic flourish of his arm he 
 will say to you: *'My Church is the mother of democracy !'' You 
 make another insistent effort: ''Mr. Cockran. what you say is 
 not to the point. Will xfm tell \i< wlielher yoii hold the separation 
 
 9 
 
22 
 
 of Church and State, as it exists in our country and as it is cove- 
 nanted by our Constitution, to be right — yes or no ?'^ Mr. Cock- 
 ran now waves both hands in hyper-majestic style, as the spirit 
 of adoration seizes him, and with eyes uplift and rapt heart de- 
 claims: "0 holy Catholic mother church, thou hast made me — 
 a democrat!" Then you turn away and wonder which of you 
 two ought to take the other for what he would not wish to be 
 taken. 
 
 Mr. Cockran's remarks concerning the divinely founded 
 Catholic Church were eloquent, fervid, enrapturing. It is a pity, 
 a great pity for Mr. Cockran, that they were utterly — uncatholic. 
 For did not Mr. Cockran know that the pope who was reigning 
 about the time that Mr. Cockran was casting his first ballot a^ a 
 free American citizen, had cursed and damned democracies ^vitii 
 a good old popish fervor? Let Mr. Cockran read the Syllabus of 
 Pope Pius IX of the year 1864, and particularly, chapters five and 
 six on The Rights of the Church, and The Rights of the State; 
 then let him blush like the schoolboy that he was when he paraded 
 the Catholic Church as the mother of democracies; let hiiu take 
 his fine peroration and mercilessly consign it to the limbo of the 
 unutterable; for there, his infallible master has said, it bploTiir?;. 
 And all those loyal Catholics who made the welkin ring with 
 their enthusiastic plaudits, when Mr Cockran held up for their 
 admiration the only protectress of free governments, let them 
 hang their heads with shame; for they have, all of them, rendered 
 themselves guilty of a damned heresy. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The Friiiikhe Roman Catholic Church? 
 
 The next view wliirh \\t. roekrair? a-ldress opens up to ii> 
 is intended as a beaut if ui worH [jietiire of primitive Christianity. 
 It is a prose idyl. The young Church is placed before our eyes 
 in lier battle royal with the pagan world power. Her weapon is 
 that all-couquering one of love. Slie befriends the cause of tlie 
 dovvi! trodden : she empties her cotters to furnish the ransom of 
 sbive^. Her martvrs die proclairnine: the faiili that has overcome 
 the world. She raises her voice against the brutish gladiatorial 
 
 *, 
 
 23 
 
 shows of the dehumanized Roman empire. Her missionaries go 
 among the barbaric nations and raise the cross in trackless forests 
 and wean wild races from their uncouth, hideous forms of wor- 
 ship. Elsewhere pagan temples are converted into Christian 
 churches. The Church stands between the proud Roman patrician, 
 later the overbearing feudal baron, and his helpless plebeian vic- 
 tim, and her sheltering mantle is thrown over the persecuted 
 sufferer; her churches are open asylums to which the fugitive 
 hastens from the sword of the avenger, and at her altars the rage 
 of men is stayed and the pursuer must relinquish his game. 
 
 In the midst of this beautiful mirage of the past the speaker 
 turns to his audience, and says: 
 
 It was these interferences with the rapine, plunder, pillage, and 
 oppression for the perpetration of which government was then organ- 
 ized that is criticised now in this letter of these Lutheran gentlemen 
 and ©f this Baptist Union. 
 
 We deny the allegation, and we challenge the allegator. Where 
 is the evidence in the letter of the New York pastors that these 
 men have sided with tyranny and sacrificed charity? 
 
 The Church which Mr. Cockran has_ risen to' defend with such 
 
 grail 1 piitlir- has never been attacked, least of all by the X w York 
 Lutherans. .Mr Pockran sees ghosts. He is fighting a splendid 
 word-duel with a phantom. He is charging upon an nna-iuarv 
 foe. ill" ^talwart blow falls upon the air. His magnificent eirort 
 turns out a Quixotic farce. 
 
 But this noble Church which ^Tr. Tockran has conjured up 
 to our vision/ is it — is it — the Roman Catholic Church? To 
 this i iinrori Wvcliffe and Tyndale and Luther, and all the noble 
 sons u inch the Christian Church calls her own have traced their 
 parentage. For the faith that covered those early ages witli im- 
 mortal -lor^ thev Mrove-- ^Cti: wliom? With the Cloirrh <A 
 Eome. hi hi> battle, with lU' Ib-'inau hierarchv hmiior lia^ niod 
 the testimonv of the oariv t.-arhers of tlie Ohinvii apiinst ins 
 Roman opponent:^ airaiii and <i-ai!i. They were with the protecting 
 monk of Wittenberi:. thov wcr.' not with thr- haughty prelates who 
 sought to erusli lum. To-day Mr. Oorkran sits upon tho tlire^hohl 
 of the earlv (duirrtn and serves notice that this (Ivurch ha^ l^ecmne 
 the sole pTOoorty uf the Catholics. Thev ..wn rvery samt m tlhwe 
 ages. And the property has yielded a fin^^ v^Avrnw,. 'Yho uv^k^ of 
 
I( 
 
 li 
 
 24 
 
 supererogation accumulated m those days liavo been trafficked by 
 the sellers of papal indulgences the uT,rl:i over. Is it not cruel 
 of Protectants to want to spoil this lu, nitive business, and to dis- 
 tur!. ;in honest owner in the peaceful possession of his goods? 
 
 Across the same plains which Mr. Coekran has traversed on 
 the eighteenth of November, other men have wan<lered, open-eyed 
 inquiring, truth-tinding men. They have seen all those beautiful 
 things which Mr. Coekran has seen, and they have told them in 
 an honest, sincere, sober way. But they have also seen a few thin-s 
 which have escaped the ken of Mr. Coekran. And they have toW 
 these things also, in an honest, sincere, sober wav. They have 
 told — and submitted the evidence that he who runs may read — 
 that m the midst of the Church in her labors of faith and love 
 there was rising gradually, almost imperceptibly, a "mystery of 
 iniquity." Greedy men, filled with the lust of power, wresting 
 prerogative upon prerogative unto themselves, making use of every 
 httle pretext to interfere between parties litigant for the purpose 
 of extending their jurisdiction, or increasing their authority or 
 aggrandizing their influence, bold, determined, domineering men 
 came into the bishopric of Eome. Episcopal elections came to be 
 occasions of bloodshed; bribery and intrigue were resorted to in 
 order to gratify ambition. The sacred privileges of the sanctuair 
 were used to shield the libertine and the homicide. Greater and 
 ever greater waxed this crafty system until it undertook to issue 
 aws to Christians, made kings and emperors bow to its decrees 
 levied taxes, mustered armies, entered into political alliances with 
 any one who would best serve its interests. 
 
 Of all these matters Mr. Coekran is sublimely oblivious He 
 IS m a trance. His ecstatic eye beholds only the beautiful pano- 
 rama of the early martyr-church; his vision is engrossed with the 
 spectacle of the self-sacrificing, charity-dispensing, succoring, com- 
 forting Church. He sees not the street-fights in Rome, the auto- 
 da-tes in Spam, the dungeons and the chambers of horrors which 
 begin to dot the Catholic possessions. It seems cruel to rouse him 
 from his revery, and to call to him : Hoot, mon, you are not seeing 
 your real Church! ^ 
 
 25 
 
 V. 
 
 Boniface VIII and the Bull **Unani Sanctam. 
 
 1 3 
 
 Mr. Coekran lias het/ii >!'')\v in arnviiiir a,i liie point when' his 
 refutation should liave set m at onre, but he arrives there at last. 
 The New York pastors Inul said: 
 
 Lest we be accused uf either misapprehension or misrepresenta- 
 tion, permit us to quote some of the pertinent offieial declarations 
 of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Pope Boniface VIII in his famous bull Unam Sanctdm declared: 
 In this Church and in its power are two swords — to-wit, 
 a spiritual and a temporal, and this we are taught by the words 
 of the Gospel. . . . Both, therefore, the spiritual and the 
 material swords, are in the power of the Church, the latter 
 indeed to be used for the Church, the former by the Church, 
 the one by the priest, the other by the hands of kings and 
 soldiers, but by the will and sufferance of the priest. It is 
 fitting, moreover, that one sword should be under the other, 
 and the temporal authority subject to the spiritual power. . . . 
 We moreover proclaim, declare, and pronounce that it is alto- 
 gether necessary for salvation for every human being to be 
 subject to the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 Mr. Cockran's rejoinder is as follows: 
 
 These gentlemen have singled out one Bull. They have selected 
 that as the one on which they b^se their indictment of the Church 
 as an enemy to separation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, 
 and that Bull is the one known as "Unum Sanctum" of Boni- 
 face VIII, issued to Philip the Handsome, King of France. I wonder 
 if these gentlemen who quoted that Bull understood the circum- 
 stances under which it was issued, and the character of the person 
 to whom it was addressed. I think that of all the monarchs that 
 have discredited the French kingship Philip the Handsome was 
 among the most tyrannical. 
 
 Mr. Coekran then proceeds to catalogue the deeds of violence 
 of Philip Debonaire: his execution of the Knights Templar, his 
 depreciation of French coins, his confiscation of church-property, 
 his claim of authority for the appointment of bishops and pastors, 
 his capture of the pope at Anagni. As his authority for the history 
 of these events, as he has given it, Mr. Coekran cites Guizot. 
 
 I am giving you the history of this transaction not by any 
 Catholic authority, but by Guizot, the Protestant Guizot, who says 
 that although PhiUp at once set to work and used all the resources 
 of a most powerful monarch of the world to blacken the memory of 
 the Pope, to charge him with all manner of crimes, it is a fact that 
 
 'J 
 
 'I 
 
 y 
 

 26 
 
 .V i 
 
 M. 
 
 while he might have been arrogant from a Protestant point of view 
 in asserting the prerogatives of his higli office, that he was moved 
 
 tfstori?; •■r-r"'"'*Lr'^ '^'''?- '" '^'^ ^'"^''''^' °f that Protestant 
 hi.tonan, hke an old lion at bay." (Applause.) I a.sk these elergv- 
 
 men who quote this Bull to his disadvantage whether they woukl 
 
 rather stand now with Boniface VIII for justice, morality, religi „ 
 
 ]..„nder. for violence, lor wrong of every descripf i,m ? (Applause.) 
 For the sake of the argument we shall assume that Pope Bfuu- 
 face A ITT was the saint and Philip the Handsome the sinner The 
 question now arises : Can a good man do a wicked thing, and a 
 wicked man that which is right? And if a case like this occurs 
 how are we to pronounce a just verdict on the action of either? 
 Would this be justice, viz., to let the good man's general character 
 palliate a particular offense of his, to justify his one evil act by 
 the merits of his many worthy deeds; and, on the other hand, to 
 discredit the wicked man's one meritorious act on the ground of 
 his general improbity? We are not certain as to the straightness 
 of Mr. Cockrans ethics on this question. If Philip had been the 
 prince of darkness incarnate, and had advocated a right principle 
 we hold that even Beelzebub would be entitled to receive his due' 
 We may not cast aside a truth because it is uttered by a liar We 
 may punish the liar, but we cannot punish liim for telling the 
 truth. Principles are self-supporting. It matters nothing who 
 enunciates them. " 
 
 Now, it appears to us, that Mr Cockran, at this particular 
 point, IS acting the role of the artful dodger in a eomic show. 
 He has a .vealth of words to exhibit the transcendent virtues of 
 Boniface and the hein..n- . r„„es of Philip. P,., ,„;. vocabulary 
 on the Bull Unam Sanctam can be confined within the iiuiits of 
 the firs lesson m a primer. Fact is. he lias uotlimg to sav ahouf it 
 liie soJeiuii unport of tlie citation in th.- Xew ^"o.-k letter is 
 smothered, suffoeated. aspiiyxiated by the dea.llv .as of his onuorv 
 
 al..vH the Protestant point of view.'' Why, ifs not a question of 
 exegesis, at ah; its a question of grammar, Wliaf <loes the cita- 
 tion Irom I nam Sanctam spell to a ten-vear-old schoolboy' 
 
 These are the facts m the ease: Bonifaee was pope', Philip 
 was king of France. Boniface says to Philip: Your ™,wer a. a 
 sovereign is primordialiy mine. Your "temporal authority is sub- 
 jeet to n,v spiritual authority." Philip replies: .Vever ! The pope 
 
 
 y^> 
 
 tries to enrorco Ins nuuKialt'. 'Tlu'ii Plnlu* M-nd- In- a^vnt into 
 Ttalv, drives the pope out of Ivoiiii*. and arrc-ts Inni at Anagni. — 
 All we have to say aixnit ilu' niatirr i>: Sic semper tvraiinisl 
 
 3Uit we must look a liiilv at tins Pntx' !M.)n!lace Vlll. lU- 
 tho wav. !,> not he the man whum Danie, wlm knew inni personally, 
 calls ''the k)rd and protector of the modern rhansees/' and who at, 
 in his Inferno, he consigns to hell? Is he not ua Lr-nfli nan whom 
 at Eome they called "the high-spirited sinner''? Yes, this is he, 
 Benedetti Gaetani, the jurist of Lyons, later the notary to the 
 Curia, who crept into the papacy by fraud, and maintained his 
 position by violence. This is the man who perjured himself to 
 the Colonnas, who confiscated their property, burned their city 
 Palaestrina with its magnificent palaces and fine churches, and 
 razed it to the ground. 
 
 Mr. Cockran stated that he had drawn his information con- 
 cerning Boniface VIII from the Protestant Guizot. 'T is strange, 
 't is passing strange. We would like to compare copies with 
 Mr. Cockran. Our copy of Guizofs France was published in :\ew 
 York by the Co-operative Publication Society. In the first volume, 
 in chapter X\ 1 1 1 on The Kingship in France, on page 46rh Oui- 
 
 zot says: 
 
 The French kingship and the papacy, the repres. inativ. - of 
 which had but lately been great and dorions prmcos. smii as Th lip 
 Augustus and St. Louis, Gregory Vii and innocent ill, wuiu, at the 
 end r,f t?ip thirteenth century, vested in tbo person<5 of mpn of far 
 less moral worth and less pohtical wisd-ao PVdlip tli*- Ihiii'l-ara^ and 
 Boniface YTTT, Wo have already had -hinpses of J'hili]) tho Hand- 
 some's greedy, ruggedly ohstinatt, kaagkiy, and tyrdmnm! rlri racier; 
 and Bovn-Aci: YTTT iiAi) titk >\mk defect?, avitk moki: hastiness 
 A\n LESS ABILITY. The two ti'i'-ni pnot- of Ttaiv in t lia' ooiit nrv, Dante 
 and Potrarch, ivho were both very fnurh, -.pposed to Fhiliv fhr II,ir,,J- 
 some, FAINT BoxiFACE IX siMH.Aa t<a'H{v. "TTo wash' -av-- Potramh 
 (Epistolae F'i/n tll'ires, Book 11. Letter 3j, '-ari inox-Taiho ^uvoroign, 
 whom it was vory har<l to ])rr.ak hy for<'r^ an-.i im{»o.-^:^il.lo to hnid by 
 humility and caresses h' and !>aiito < I fif^-'im, canto XIX, vv. 4a--5i) 
 nudxes Pope Nicholas III say: "Already art thou lion^ <nid proiully 
 upstanding, O Boniface? Hast thon ^o soon her'ii sated with that 
 wealth for which thou didst not fear no deceive tliat fair danio (the 
 rhnrch) whom afterwards thon 'iidst so disastrously oovorn h" Two 
 men so deeply imhiied with evil and selfish passions could not possildy 
 meet withont clashing-: and it was not loii^r kM-fon' facts ^(z^- 'mid iied 
 to prodnce between them an outhnrst of hatred and strife which 
 revealed the latent vices and fatal results of th<^ two systems of 
 absolute power of which they were the representatives. 
 
28 
 
 Guizot then relates, pp. 470-480, the fierce struggle between 
 Boniface and Philip which ended in the pope's overthrow. The 
 statement which Mr. Cockran has . cited occurs on p. 480 in the 
 following context: ' 
 
 He died on the 11th of October, 1303, without having recovered 
 
 lie a doJ r/;rV " ^°^' *^°" ^'^' ™1« '^"^^ « li°«' ^''d die 
 lUce a dog. The last expression ts unjustified. Boniface VIII was 
 
 th/ Wt"' ^^f''}""^' PT^' violent, crafty, but with sincerity a 
 ^e bottom of his prejudiced ideas, and stubborn and blind in his 
 fits of temper: his death was that of an old lion at bay. 
 
 The Lutheran letter was not intended as a character-study. 
 The Lutheran pastors had no occasion to express their sentiments 
 ^ to the moral character of either Boniface VIII or Philip the 
 Handsome. They were occupied, solely and exclusively, with the 
 political principle involved in Unam Sanctam. Now that Mr Cock- 
 ran has addressed the pointed question to the Lutheran clergymen 
 It IS fair that his question be answered. The Lutheran ministers 
 have only a negative interest in the moral character of Boni- 
 
 ff ' J i ^""^ ^^'"P ^^ Handsome, but in a choice between 
 the two they would regard Boniface VIII as the villain of the 
 deeper dye. 
 
 VI. 
 Edward the Confessor and Magna Charta. 
 
 Mr. Cockran's critique of pure unreason leads us into unex- 
 pected quarters. We are next transferred to Albion's Isle The 
 subject of papal bulls which he had touched leads him to say 
 
 These bulls, as I have said, contain the entire gospel of fr«. 
 and representative government. They are all the utteranoefon behlw 
 of freedom that can be found through all these ag^ They are 
 
 mamty. They are the sources from which freemen to this day take 
 
 tms liaptist Union reahze where we find the germ, the nolitieal 
 germs of our Constitution? Why, Magna Charta O^r ConstUutkm 
 18 but the application to American institutions of the Tr Sle« 
 formulated in this great charter of liberty. But Magna Charta 
 was wrung by a Catholic prelate, at the head of the Sh barons 
 
 Sa"rt:/t'*'"*'nr''' ^"^ r^^^''^^ '''^- But what t tg^a 
 Charta? Magna Charta wasn't an original statement of new Tn- 
 ciples. Magna Charta itself was but the confinnation of TnS 
 
 29 
 
 statutes and ancient laws. It was granted by the king in answer 
 to the demand of Englishmen for the restoration of the laws of the 
 good King Edward. There was nothing in Magna Charta except 
 the fundamental laws of Edward the Confessor. Who is King Ed- 
 ward? Why, he is a canonized saint of the Catholic Church. (Ap- 
 plause ) There again was an interference with established institu- 
 tions of government by the Catholic Church which, I suppose, will 
 move these Lutheran clergymen and Baptist ministers to fresh ex- 
 cesses of horror and regret. (Laughter and applause.) 
 
 This is very valuable information on the origin of our Con- 
 stitution. Let us see how the parts of the evidence connect. King 
 Edward of England makes good laws. His countrymen later em- 
 body them in the Great Charter. Some of these countrymen emi- 
 grate to America and found a republic. They remember the Great 
 Charter of the mother country and draw up a constitution which 
 is an adaptation of the Great Charter of England. Meanwhile a 
 Eoman pope has raised King Edward to sainthood by a bull issued 
 for that purpose. This bull takes bodily possession of Edward 
 with all his virtuous acts and also the effects of these acts ad in- 
 finitum. By this bull of canonization the Eoman Catholic Church 
 becomes the author of Edward's laws, of the Great Charter of 
 Englishmen, of the American Constitution. It's all as clear as 
 can be. A well-known German author relates how a certain gentle- 
 man conclusively proved that the German word "Fuchs," meaning 
 "fox," was derived from the Greek word "alopex," which also 
 means "fox." It is this way : "alopex" becomes "lopex," for short ; 
 "lopex" is abbreviated "pex;" "pex" becomes "pox;" "pox" is 
 turned into "pux," and a German who happened to have his mouth 
 crammed with food and unable to close his lips to produce the 
 letter p while attempting to say "pux" made it "fux," which is 
 "Fuchs." It is a most simple and natural process. You can engage 
 in some astonishing tracing of origins by this method. All you 
 have to do is to find your "germ," and develop it. 
 
 We are somewhat uneasy, however, whether Mr. Cockran wiU 
 be able to receive the episcopal imprimatur for his ingenuous 
 product. His Church is justly opposed to evolutionism. And the 
 particular product which Mr. Cockran has evolved has been placed 
 under censure by the late Pope Leo XIII. In his encyclical 
 Longinque Oceani of 1895 this pope, namely, has expressly in- 
 formed the catholicity of America that if they were to consider the 
 separation of Church and State as it is in force in our country 
 
30 
 
 a wise and convenient measure, they would be guilty of an "erro- 
 neous conclusion/' It will avail Mr. Cockran little, were he to 
 pit the canonized saint of his Church against the infallible pope. 
 We believe that the latter would conje off victorious, and Mr. Cock- 
 ran^s beautiful deduction would go upon the Index of matter pro- 
 hibited to devout Catholic readers. 
 
 VIL 
 The Keeper of the King's Conscience. 
 
 The versatile Mr. Cockran next regales us with legal lore. He 
 is still tracing origins, this time the origin of the writ of injunction 
 and of English equity. These, he informs us, were originally the 
 exercise of the king's prerogative to do substantial justice. Under 
 certain circumstances the king would issue his writ forbidding 
 either party to a lawsuit or a court of law to enforce an uncon- 
 scionable instrument or to prevent other palpable injury. Tri- 
 umphantly Mr. Cockran asks: 
 
 Where did it have its origin? I wonder do these gentlemen 
 realize that the writ of injunction, under such circumstances, under 
 such circumstances the writ of injunction by the king in the exercises 
 of his prerogative to enforce justice and make it triumphant nvpv 
 every circumstance, even over the letter of the law, wh'n- the en- 
 forcenit'iit would bo palpable injustice, v;a> by whom? Ir is to llii^ 
 day by tlic KcM-per of the K'uv/^ roiiscion*'e. That is the title lo 
 this day of tiio Lord Chancellor. How did lie got xhh titlof AAliy, 
 because originally ihe Chaiie('i]i.r wa^ always aii ecclesiastic and the 
 king's confessor. (Applause.) [r was the kiiigV confessor that in 
 tile name of justice and nic-rnlity imposed upon the king the duty 
 of interference for justice even against the law. The Chancellor 
 remained an ecclesiastic, always the king's confessor, until the exer- 
 cise of this jurisdiction had been maintained for so long a time and 
 with such excellent results that it became a tixture in the jurispru- 
 dence of the court and a system of rules had grown up which made 
 its enforcement so easy and so regular that its administration passed 
 from the hands of ecclesiastics who invented it to the hands of 
 lawyers, who have since enforced and uplifted it. That was an 
 interference of the Church with the operation of the State which 
 I suppose will move these reverend gentlemen to fresh ebullitions 
 of apprehension lest the triumph of that faitli from which all these 
 results have flowed may work some injury to this republic itself, 
 the direct outcome of Christian truth and of the Catholic gospel. 
 
 31 
 
 It is necessary here to inquire of Mr. Cockran why this ex- 
 cellent fixture, the keeper of the British King^s conscience, is no 
 longer an ecclesiastic. — There must have been no keeper who 
 interfered in behalf of justice when Henry VIII, in 1539, issued 
 the Bloody Act, which made opposition to the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation, communion in one kind, celibacy, the mass, and 
 auricular confession punishable by death. What waB Chancellor 
 Gardiner doing, when Bloody Mary sent the heads of the Protestant 
 party to the Tower, had the remains of Bucer and Fagius burned 
 and drove married priests with their wives and children out of 
 England by the thousands? When Cardinal Pole, in 1554, returned 
 to England with the pope^s pardon and to receive the apostate 
 country back into the bosom of "the alone-saving church," and 
 noble innocent Lady Jane Grey was sent to the block with her 
 husband and father, when bishops Kidley, Latimer, Farrar, Hooper, 
 Cranmer were burned, where was the keeper of the kmg^s con- 
 science? Why did not the keeper stay the madman Bonner's hand 
 when he drove clergymen and laymen, men and women, children 
 and aged people into the flames in large numbers, because they had 
 professed their faith in the Gospel? And what an awful guilt 
 rests on the conscience of that particular keeper who failed to keep 
 the "Defensor fidei,^' so named by the pope, Henry \ 1 H • from 
 the blasphemous act of having Tyndale's Bible burned ! 
 
 Yes, the historians know these keepers of king's consciences, 
 th^se laiiioi-.onfessors, who have wrested from kings secrets of 
 state, who haw in trie garb of religion urged upon monan-iis ninr- 
 a.i- and uai-. wlm have by keeping the king m tiieir l^adm- 
 strinirs made nan..u< how to rovai dwi-.,^ ihat were nhh-rivd hv 
 
 »ine 
 
 them. So eoinp!^ 
 instances that 
 
 ■Ir 
 
 \^ 1 
 
 lave they t'-hf Ua' king-^ rnu^i-iviu-r m 
 
 the knii: 
 
 n.) iH<>rt' rijiiSOieni.'' 
 
 taken and gone away wiiii W. 
 
 K Of per liatl 
 The weifhl lo-ila\' knows exa^:tly 
 
 1 ■ -x 1 .. , i'.,iii.j;,- ...M'i..-;i'wi ic h.-<nn^ !«■> !iiov(^ in close 
 
 what it means wht'ii a ( aiii^Ha *"..*,.'>. a. i a, .».,^.i!. 
 
 I.roxiniitv to person> '.f autiir,rilv. ddie knowing part of niankiiid 
 is not prone to credit ^lu■h (MHiiact ni kiM'per luid king with, "cx- 
 cellent results^' fortlicorning. Tho non-Catholic pans ol nations 
 who liave read liKtorv know \\m. to admit (.^athokie -rch-iastics 
 to the private rooni< and ronlidenee of nders sooner or hiter results 
 in disastrous eonse(pionrr^ tw. non-(kuhoki<>. Americans, lor in- 
 stance, would serioii^iv ohj.H^t if l^Mnan priests were to heeomc the 
 advisers of our ^tatesniern S.> iniieh as to what the reverend 
 
32 
 
 33 
 
 gentlemen on whom Mr. Cockran has hestowed his tender affec- 
 tions think about keepers of king^s consciences. 
 
 And now we wonder, not so much at the historical connection 
 of the American writ of injunction with the priest confessor of 
 some British monarch, but at the force which may lie in our writ 
 of injunction for the rebuttal of the evidence presented in the 
 New York letter, that the Eoman Catholic Church is opposed to 
 the separation of Church and State. The majority of the writs 
 of injunction issued are restraining orders. They are not issued 
 to keep a person from setting fire to a building or slaying his 
 fellow, but to keep men from doing whai ihvy may have a right 
 to do. They represent an authority greater iiiaii thai whi' h the 
 law grants to the individual. Xow it seems to us tiiat \\-\um we 
 are to remember, as Mr. Cockran urgently requests us, every time 
 we see a writ of injunction issued, that this in mi in ordor from 
 a civil court, this piece of paper, originally was a Catholic priest, 
 it is not eas\- to the minrl to see in this art an ovifTortce for tho 
 separation of Church and State. It seems to us tliai Mr. Cockran 
 unites, rather than I'a.ns, Church and State. If lie liad urgotl 
 upon us to observe that, whereas i'orineriy the iiiteriereiiee uf a 
 Cntholic priest was ror|iiired in order to restrain persons, nowadays 
 a civil eourr can effect such restraint, we would be able to see the 
 force of his argument, provided onl\ tluit Mr. Cockran could sliow, 
 m addiiirai, that tlie removal of Catholic priests from tiic restrain- 
 ing business hail \mm effoete^l bv the yiriests themselves from love 
 of liberty, and not liv oilier nu'ii, from fear of tyranny. 
 
 VIIT. 
 Rome and the Rise of Constitutional Government. 
 
 The cradle of liberty stands in the Vatican palace at Rome, 
 or we should rather say there is quite a number of cradles. If we 
 are to credit the accuracy of Mr. Cockran's historical research, the 
 Church of Eome exists in this world for the main purpose of 
 nursing infant liberties into healthy, strong, robust life. The 
 popes are constantly on the lookout to detect the first signs of a 
 struggle for freedom anywhere in the world. Immediately they 
 lend their assistance. The popes have rocked the cradle for demr\5- 
 
 I I 
 
 racy when it was newly born ; they were sponsors at the christening 
 of Magna Charta; they dandled the common law of England on 
 their knees; they crooned nursery songs for the infant Republic 
 of ^.ortii America. The late pope has told the United States of 
 North America in 1895 that he heard the first feeble cries of this 
 latest progeny of liberty, and at once took it to his bosom, fondled 
 and caressed it. The popes have fed these liberty-infants, fed 
 \\\vm bulls and encyclicals. "Ladies and gentlemen,'' exclaims 
 Mr. Cockran. "the whole body of the political gospel of justice and 
 equal it \ is embodied in these bulls issued by the Popes from time 
 to time to curb the oppressions of -the mighty always in defense of 
 justice and of the weak." 
 
 And so. he proceeds to tell us, "the whole growth of republican 
 governmeni ' i^ explained, can be explained only with the aid of 
 the motherly activities of the papacy. The Ihunan l^mpire fell 
 and harlairian hordes overran its territories. Among these and 
 !M'\niid the lM-)rder=: of the Roman Empire, itomeV missionjmes 
 began their activities. They built monasteries, ar iin I whirii vil- 
 hi^v,--, town-, cities ^rew up, which with the aid of abbot- fmained 
 
 c 
 
 \\^ •*!'«■; 
 
 \-\ 
 
 Si''"! I 
 
 barters from liarun> and princes. By these rfiarO'rs ihi; 
 exempted from many duties, impost?, taxe^. Tliey grew w^a 
 and powerfid. I'lifv organized their town and eitv o-ovcrt 
 The senate of sn<-h a, *ar\' wa,- a \.'!'v au^rust body. WiicnevrT the 
 ]iriiici^ of the country m which iucli a riiy wa- lOcatc*] lovads'd tlie 
 riirhts of tlie citv. the citv cnnnril woidd appi-al its ca^e to tlie ]~to|)f, 
 and invariahlv tia/ piioe- w'cno h'"">t![" iii»ans(a\f'>- loi- \\y Oi-h-ai-t* nt 
 endanfrered lilicrties. Thev would enjnin tie- proiai haron. or the 
 rapafious lando;ravu, or lie- ii.-potic km*/' to eeax- fr<. iti troidiimg 
 the people atid from disturhin:.: tiaar IdxTtiep. 'Yo ihc rt'pr*'^en,ta- 
 tives of the pope, tlie hisfiop or miterod aVihots, the eitizens m such 
 a communitv came to look up a- tlie elnef atrtaits wliu fostered 
 tlieir industries, secured })ruspority for tliem. andj nutiie tfiemselves 
 a bulwark against the people's foes. ''So we finfl," says :\Ir. Cock- 
 ran, "that from the very beginnin.ir aU this system of constitution- 
 alism sprang not merely from the faith wliich the Church preached, 
 but from the energy of lier missionaries and her priests.'"' Also 
 the American liberties, in particular, the princi])le of the equality 
 of all men before the law, Mr. Cockran declares to be a direct 
 offspring of Reman Catholic teaching and of the activity of her 
 priests; it flows from her teaching and discipline. 
 
34 
 
 35 
 
 We boast now that all men are equal at the ballot box. For 
 nineteen centuries she has always held all men equal at iht c ni- 
 munion rail. The growth of liberty, political liberty, is Inii iiui 
 application to political institutions of the truths she lias aiways 
 preached. From the very beginning she has been the source of free- 
 dom, the bulwark of order, the champion of progress, the light of 
 humanity; and there is not a moment of progress, not an insti- 
 tution of value in the political world that we cannot traci i.a<'k t . 
 the gospel which she preached, and to the manner in whu h iier 
 ministers upheld that gospel, expounded it, vindicated u, an*] liod 
 for it when occasion arose. (Applause.) 
 
 In the midst of this revery of admiration the speaker arrests 
 himself slightly. He remembers that he is speaking in republican 
 America, and that his church has assisted at the coronation of 
 kings. He does not say what kings they sometimes were, nor what 
 was the exact nature of the assistance whicli Kome rendered on 
 such occasions. But he has not permitted this reflection f-^ em- 
 barrass him. "It may be said/' he declares, that the church did 
 this; "but if she did/' — as if it were not a certaini), — "jt was 
 to remind him (the king) of the obligation that ho owed to the 
 subjects." 
 
 Wonderful, mysterious Eome ! that can pose as the personifi- 
 cation of human liberty whether she makes or uiiinakes kin its; 
 that can make the freeholder on the border? of ciYilization. the 
 hanseatic city by the sea, the republic that n«'>iles among; tiie 
 mountains, the absolute monarch, and even the d(^s|)ot whose hand 
 is a hand of iron upon the neck oi' his people, all these divergent 
 and contradictory forces look up to lior and receive assurances from 
 her that, if they will only look to her, she will secure them iii the 
 undisturbed possession oi' tl^'ir liberties. She has liberties to >ujt 
 all sorts ami conditions oi men. She can ^ixij her arm with 
 chariiiiiiix irraeo to Lonis XTY and lo Diaz, to the hnriro-masfer of 
 a free city and to the despot of a bariiarie tri.i)e. She can iu' all 
 things to all nieii, and claims tliat she must be thus on the authority 
 of the Gospel. Wonderful, mysterious Eome ! 
 
 Yet, ^fr. Ooekran's representatirm of the rise of constitutional 
 governmeni iimJcr the egis of tia' miter aial crosier is ideal rather 
 than real. Has i\Ir. Cockran nowhere in tiie annals oi' the |)ast 
 fuund meiiliun ol' cities that liave groaned under tlie oppression 
 of priests? Has not even a faint whisper come to him from out 
 of those records of bygone days, of troubles whicli were fomented 
 
 for free-towns and states by resident bishops, or neighboring 
 abbots? Has he read all the authors — as he claims he has — 
 who speak of the origin of constitutional governments, and not 
 one of iiiem ha- told him that it has been found necessary in 
 some countries, for political reasons, to drive out Roman Catholic 
 <ir<lers? Vino^< he know of certain litanies which peupie used to 
 chant in their churches and which invoked the protection of the 
 God of heaven against the pope and the Turk? There are some 
 startling chapters, we fear, in Guizot's France, and in Green's 
 England, and in Motley's Dutch Republic, and in MenzeFs <//- 
 many that still await the perusal of Mr. Cockran. and that are 
 destined to mar the felicity of his reminiscent reveries. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Mr. Cockran *^. Generous Promise. 
 
 The ground has now been sufficiently prepared in the hearts 
 
 n! tiiu diihaent and distrustful Lutheran i^d^mi- r.i N-w Y^rri^, for 
 Mr. rockran to scatter upon it the seeds of prumise. i ue hutiieraii 
 pa-~tnr> iiad pointed to the fact that republimn fnTmi-^ of irovern- 
 ment had been declared evils by the hierarchy of tii. ( ath he 
 Church, evils that could be tolerated only as long l^ liiev loui 1 
 not be changed. The proper time for eiiaiiirm^ these evils. a> the 
 Lutheran pastors plainly apprehend and Mr. Onekran ( nr. i tly 
 understands them, will be when the tatlndic citizens of liie Inited 
 States of America can muster a pnlitical majmitv h wdi ilwu 
 be in their power to control the election^ and_ lo oecupy tlie state 
 efhces. A no io a eountry wh.-r- ^he rnle nf tlie majoritv i^ acci'iited 
 as amattr!^ nf cour-c (Vdlmlics could nni Im,- -aid t«> In' -iom^ some- 
 tliin:-- unu-ual li ihev uviv^ n, place lilem^^[vr> m .'verv fxwition 
 of authontv that is open to them. hiverv .Vmeiiean would in? 
 fnrrfMl to say that, aerorilinir to the tirin-hoiiored en<tom i^\ our 
 country, the (;ath.olics were iloim: what is riiilit. and w(nv entithKl 
 t(.) what tht'V g(-t. T\\r wdl o( tfie ]MMipii' ui uur eiiuniry has nevrr 
 been anvtliinfr *'lse tiian ilif- will nf the majority. Nor do^'S it 
 require a yery hir.:e inajornv W) (h'rihe a |)'Mita-a,! is^l]e. Liity-one 
 per cent, of the votntLr --tren^'ih nf <)\\y ntizens are snfheient to 
 make any one party m a puiitual conte-t \ietorious. 
 
36 
 
 Mr. Cockran does not say that it is impossible for Catholics 
 ever to be in the majority in our country, nor does he say that, 
 in that eventuality, the Catholic majority would refuse to appro- 
 priate the rewarrls of its political toil. He assures us, however, 
 tluit the Catholic majority would never govern by force but only 
 by consent; for, lie says, it is upon this basis alone thai a repiihlie 
 can rest. The Catholic Church, by the force of thp Gospel of 
 Jesm Christ which lias been committed to her, would swa.\ the 
 Cathoiii* majority in sucli a way that it could never become dis- 
 affected with Thtr present forms of our democralic mbULLition, ur 
 6ink iiitu furrupLion. Every piirt of fho Tnajority would ever be 
 iiTidor tho iraproving, correcting, tnuo\>\iug iiiliuence of the Catho- 
 lic Church, Ju^t a-^ tin- innts which compose the human soca-tj 
 are iiidivKlually improved bv th*- tro-f.el of Christ, so the imits 
 of the Catiiolic iriajoruv would ho iiiiprnverl bv the samo moans. 
 
 Democratic govermaent must be i^rvsom m] in the same manner 
 
 by irniiroving the units which composf the democracy. There is no 
 other way (a|)plaiise), and tjiere is no inoans and there is no other 
 force exce|)t th(.' chiiroii that is equal t<) it. When tiiese ^entlomen 
 speak of the church being likoly to mtta'fere with th<j state, they 
 seem to forget that as the state is now organized, as this governmcmt 
 is constituted, it is a perfect dennHTatic government. . . . Tf all the 
 power to modify the system were completely in Catholic hands, it 
 would not be exercised in tho slightest degree. The only eifect would 
 be to conserve the republic on its existing lines without change or 
 modification. It would lu- impossible to make a more Catholic gov- 
 enimont than the one wo have. (Applause.) The eifect of making 
 all Americans Catholic would 1h- moroly to make thi> government 
 immovable. 
 
 If the method of Mr. Cockran's argumentation thronghout 
 his address had been different, and if, luoreover, he had not, just 
 when he spoke these words, definitely allied himself with the' r.^- 
 marks of a speaker that liad preceded him and wliieli we sliall 
 exhibit, we should feel inclined to believe that Mr. Cockran means 
 to be a sincere and unselfish American patriot. But we would 
 have to hold at the same time that Mr. Cockran has not counted 
 the cost of his undertaking. It will cost him his filial adherence 
 to his pope, for his pope has declared the present condition of our 
 form of government a mistake. Mr. Cockran and Mr. Cockran's 
 Church cannot, without mental resen^ation, endorse the encyclicals 
 of Leo XIII and the American Constitution. I^e may think he 
 can, but he is, at best, the dupe of a generous fancy. 
 
 . 37 
 
 The fellow-citizens of Mr. Cockran who happen to be non- 
 Catholics will rather regard his generous promise a- an opiate 
 admiidstered to troubled hearts to put them to sleep. From the 
 r-cord of his chiiiili m the past and in other countries at the 
 present timto tiic non-Catholic part of the American oomiiion- 
 wealth M ill feel itself justified in passing over this promise of thd 
 N« w York orator with the silence of incredulity. It will decide 
 tliai the safer course for all non-Catholics and for tliis entire Ih - 
 puhiic IS not to put Mr. Cockran and his church m a, (.e.-iUon 
 where lliox' would have to fulfill ^1 1", ( ■.n-k rail's promise. Mr. Cock- 
 raids pFHiiisc has not the imprimatur of the Holy See, arol if it 
 had, tiiai wouldn't improve it in the least. Th^: o- rid knows what 
 has 1h ( ome oi boine promises of the Holy See. 
 
 X. 
 
 The Qithrdic Marriai^e Laws. 
 
 'X y 
 
 As an object lesson hmv fho political sripremac}' of ratiiol- 
 
 * -> 1 - ■■Si '^ 1 ■ 
 
 icism in our ooumry would work lor tiio iniproveiiowit ot |M,ujhc 
 morals, iMr. Cockran rr't'i-rrod i" tiif divorce law- now in force m 
 some of tho states of tlie Uni^)n. H" recognized a ditference on 
 this point hetwtMwi the T'onstituiion. which <!(>''< not iindcrtake to 
 roijulato divorce, and iH'iwt^en state hiws wliitdi do. His church is 
 m hearty accord witfi liie Con;:UUition, but not with the state laws 
 on divorce. He said : 
 
 The church doesn't believe In divorce. The church regards 
 di\orce as a peril which is corroding this republic. (Applause.) 
 
 Continuing, iMr. Cockran. to the merriment of his audience, 
 assumed the ludicrous po<sihilitv oi a state making divorce, or time 
 marriage, obligatory. He drastically described what a devout 
 Catholic would do in such an emergency: he would first tlirow 
 the officer who came to take him away from his wife out of the 
 wdndow, then allow liimscdf to be arrested and to be cast before 
 lions, as the Christians of old, and would die with the cheerful 
 conviction that lie \\as mart\red for tlie divine law of the church 
 and the Constitution (j( the Fnited States, which is in agreement 
 with the former. 
 
*,* * 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 The agreement which Mr. Cockran has emphasized is ex- 
 tremely doubtful. While all righteous citizens are agreed that 
 divorce is an evil, and that measures should be taken to redress 
 that evil, many will liesitate to adopt as the proiMr means of re- 
 dress the Catholic marriaire laws. In tlie event of n Catholic ma- 
 jority cummg- luLu power m ..in- cmmtrv, v/e shoiiM expect to see 
 "the Catholic laws and customs" regarding marriage ami <livorce 
 placed upon our statutes. For this very m.atter was iir-ed upon 
 the Catholicity of the United States m the Encyclical Longinque 
 Oceani in 1895. Despite :\Ir. Cockran's generous promise of an 
 eternally unaltered and unimpaired Constitution, a majority of 
 Catholic legislators would pass Catholic laws on the matter of 
 marriage and divorce. Yea, in so doing, they would, according to 
 the logic of Mr. Cockran, be perfectly within constitutional limits, 
 and merely place the supreme law of the land ahead of the local 
 laws in force in certain states. And that supreme law, by its 
 silence on the matter, says: There shall be no divorce, just as the 
 Catholic Church teaches. ^ 
 
 Now, we shall not enter upon a discussion of this ingenuous 
 mode of argument, but simply inquire whether the absolute denial 
 of divorce is not as great an evil as the liberal statutes now in 
 force, which facilitate a too ready dissolution of the marriage 
 bonds. Leaving out of consideration entirely the religious side of 
 the question, and the conviction of many believers in the Bible 
 that divorce is permitted, looking at the question from the view- 
 point of a member of organized human society, we will have to 
 hold that to inforce the indissolubleness of marriage would neces- 
 sitate the legalizing of, or at least the connivance at, practices 
 which we prefer not to name. And as to trusting the Catholic 
 Church and her head with the management of these affairs, history 
 raises to us her warning finger. Some of the crudest decisions of 
 the Curia have affected husbands and wives, betrothals, and the 
 married state in general. 
 
 XL 
 
 The Cathoiie Church uiid the Convict. 
 
 From the sublime to the vulgar there is but one step. We 
 
 w()!i(l*'r whether this impression seized ^Ir. t'.M-kra!i wiu'ii frum 
 a eulogy upon the nobility of the Catholic liniiir and u- iaw-ahi<i nig 
 tenants lie lap-*-'! inl'* an a|H»ii»Liy of ^niia dl' ln/i' unl'nri unaie 
 cliildren. 
 
 Oh, but somebody will tell uu:^ it i> very well to say. th(M»reti<-ally, 
 that a good Catholic must he a good eitizcii, but the pri><»iis and the 
 penitentiaries of this country show that Catholics are in grojiter 
 number there than their proportion to the whole population. 
 
 The New York letter is not responsible for this compunction 
 of Mr. Cockran. It had not touched upon this stibject at all; the 
 thought of it had not suggested itself to the authors, and it it had, 
 it would not have been uttered, because the purpose of tlie pastors 
 was not to hold the Catholic church up for public detestation, but 
 to warn all citizens, Catholics included, against an un-American 
 political principle with which the Catholic Church has become 
 identified. They wanted to traduce no man, and Mr. Cockran 
 might have spared himself the trouble of a defense of the Catholic 
 convict, who is to all citizens of the Eepublic an object of pity. 
 
 But since Mr. Cockran has alluded to this unpleasant subject, 
 it may tend to quicken his reflective powers into still greater 
 activity when we submit that his investigation of the causes 
 which have resulted in making the Catholic convict so conspic- 
 uous bv his numerousness is unsatisfactory. His distinction be- 
 tween practical and nominal Catholics, and his evident deter- 
 mination to regard as his true coreligionists only those who are 
 active members of his Church, not those who are Catholics merely 
 "by tradition and recollection," is quite proper from a religious 
 and confessional point of view. But his own church does not adopt 
 this method of computing its membership. It would be impossible 
 to maintain the standing Catholic claim that they are at the head 
 of the list in a census of the churches if all nominal Catholics 
 were dropped from her tables of membership. It seems to us that 
 when quantity is to be exhibited for effect, the Catholic Church 
 is very ready to employ the first and the third species in common 
 arithmetic, while it resorts to a vigorous application of the second 
 and fourth species, when it wishes to exhibit quality. 
 
40 ' 
 
 We hold crime, lawlessness, to be the result chiefly of ig- 
 norance. Where ignorance is fostered, where illiteracy is no stigma, 
 there men will lack one very efficient check upon their passions! 
 This rule is borne out by the researches- of criminologists. And 
 it is because this rule applies in a large measure to Catholic coun- 
 tries that we have never wondered at the prevalence of lawlessness 
 in such countries. In this respect the American Catholic enjoys 
 far better opportunities than his brother in foreign countries. Yet 
 even here the ratio of Catholic criminals to the Catholic population 
 IS not conducive to Catholic self-congratulation. For, even if we 
 admit the propriety of eliminating the nominal members of a 
 church from the roster of the church, Mr. Cockran will not obtain 
 a more favorable proportion. For the elimination which he has 
 adopted for his own church he will have to allow to every other 
 church ; and if the same subtraction is made from the grand total 
 both of Catholic and of non-Catholic convicts, the original propor- 
 tion will remain unchanged. It had been wiser in Mr. Cockran 
 if he had said nothing at all about this matter. 
 
 XII. 
 Mr. Cockran and the *'Angelus'' Bishop. 
 
 When Mr. Cockran rose to address his vast audience, a clerical 
 gentleman had taken his seat. The cleric had discussed the reli- 
 gious aspect of the First American Missionary Congress, and 
 Mr. Cockran, in opening his address, paid a glowing tribute to 
 this gentleman by saying that he had delivered himself ^Vith 
 a wealth of rhetoric, a fund of humor, and a depth of fervor com- 
 mensurate with the subject, if human genius can ever approach 
 a subject so sublime.^^ Towards the close of his address, when 
 Mr Cockran was uttering his generous promise of an unselfish 
 Catholicity that would rule this country without jeopardy to its 
 free institutions, he referred once more to the speaker whose re- 
 marks had impressed him so forcibly. He said : 
 
 If the dream the prophecy of the eloquent bishop who has just 
 concluded, should be realized, if every man and woman were Cath! 
 olic if every officer were Catholic, if all the power to modify the 
 system were completely in Catholic hands, it would not be exercised 
 m the slightest degree. 
 
 41 
 
 Who had preceded Mr. Cockran? The "Angclus'" Bishop of 
 Wheeling, W. Va., the Reverend P. J. Donahue. This gentleman 
 had, as in a vision, beheld in this country one great Catholic re- 
 public. He had said: ''Half a century hence, or at the most 
 a century hence, I see a Catholic country. In the winter months, 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the north to the south, 
 I hear one Angelus bell after another calling the millions to prayer. 
 Over the land are dotted the Catholic churches. I see Christ 
 ruling and Christ loving through this broad nation. I see the 
 extinction of all fads and various philosophies." With this 
 "Angelus" bishop ^Mr. Cockran identified himsejf, and that, just 
 at the moment when he delivered his generous promise of an 
 "immovable government." Not thus did the "Angelus" bishop 
 view the state of supremacy of the Catholic Church in this country. 
 He speaks of matters that will be extinct, or extinguished, in the 
 days when Catholicism is supreme. And he has not been so kind 
 as to define what in his judgment constitutes a "fad" or a "phi- 
 losophy." For ourselves we have no use for fads and very little 
 use for what commonly passes for philosophy. But neither as a 
 religionist nor as a citizen would we go into the extinguishing 
 business with the "Angelus" bishop, whom the generous Mr. Cock- 
 ran has admired. We are afraid that we grasp the meaning of 
 the somewhat oracular utterance of the "Angelus" bishop. He 
 belongs to a church that is famous — not to say infamous — for 
 the extinguishing which it has done and which it is eager to do 
 again wherever an opportunity is given it. 
 
 Now, we imagine in the day which the "Angelus" bishop 
 discerned not so far distant, if these two gentlemen, who sprinkled 
 the audience in Chicago, the one with the perfume of religious 
 rhetoric and the other with the fragrance of his civic oratory, were 
 to meet on the pinnacle of Catholic power at Washington, a beau- 
 tiful contest between generosity and greed, tolerance and intoler- 
 ance would have to ensue, if all the fads and philosophies were 
 not yet extinguished. Mr. Cockran would uphold the Constitu- 
 tion, which, we believe, contains a few words not favorable to 
 extinguishing efforts, while the "Angelus" bishop would insist 
 that the extinguishing must go on, so as to give the sound of his 
 bells an uninterrupted, unbroken passage through the land. And 
 inasmuch as Mr. Cockran himself has said at Chicago that as 
 representative of the civic aspect he held an inferior position to 
 
42 
 
 the representative of the religious aspect, we prognosticate that 
 in a contest of this kind, if it were to arise, Mr. Cockran, with all 
 his generosity and patriotism, would ultimately be snuffed out 
 extinguished, by the "Angelus" bishop. 
 
 XIII. 
 The Eloquent Silence of Mr. Cockran. 
 
 In their honest endeavor to remove the possible impression 
 that they were misrepresenting the Catholic Church, the Lutheran 
 pastors had not rested satisfied with having quoted an isolated 
 statement from a single papal bull, but they brought in additional 
 evidence, and that, from very recent official deliverances of the 
 popes. They continued: 
 
 Pius IX in his Syllabus of 1864, condemns as an error the 
 r^r-frl^^f Ch?rX^ --* "^ — ^'^ ^- *^e State and 
 
 m his encychcal On i?«ma„ Liherty, June 20, 1888, condemns 'what 
 and sTate?' "^ "^ *^' "^^' "^ '^P"^^*^°'^ ^^'^^'^ Church 
 
 In the same encyclical Leo declares: 
 
 From what has been said it follows that it is quite un- 
 lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional free- 
 dom of thought, of speech, of writing, or of worship, as if 
 these were so many rights given by nature to man 
 
 We have followed Mr. Cockran's effort patiently to the end 
 We confess to a feeling of weariness in having been compelled to 
 wait so long for his counter evidence. Mr. Cockran must have 
 been on the point of taking his seat, when the thought came to 
 him that the Lutheran pastors had also cited the last two popes 
 but one as their witnesses. He withdrew from his audience with 
 these words: 
 
 These gentlemen quote two statements from Pone Leo ihf^ T\.\. 
 teenth and Pope Pius the Ninth to the effect thatThe'^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 the State can't be separated. The Church and the Sta^ indeed^ 
 
 43 
 
 can't be separated in the sense which I have described, for the church 
 can't act without yielding enormous benefit to the state. They are 
 inseparable. They are interdependent, but their relations according 
 to the old notion have been entirely reversed. The state no longer 
 supports the church or can be permitted to support her. But the 
 church can't act without supporting the state. (Applause.) It is to 
 the support of the state that I urge all my fellow-citizens here when 
 I ask them to be liberal and generous in their contributions to this 
 society, that the force of which republicanism has been fashioned 
 may be made effective all through this land to preserve and guard 
 that republicanism under which we have all prospered so greatly, 
 where the church has grown so enormously, and where her prospects 
 are brighter far even than her achievements have been brilliant and 
 satisfactory. (Applause and cheers.) 
 
 With these words Mr. Cockran retired. His answer, then, 
 as regards the plain declarations of Pius IX and Leo XIII was, 
 that they must be limited to the meaning which Mr. Cockran has 
 put upon them. Xow, although that meaning, as we have shown, 
 is by no means reassuring to patriotic Americans, we are fully 
 persuaded that even that meaning is a gratuitous interpretation. 
 What is the extent of Mr. Cockran's greatness and influence we 
 have no means of determining, but it would be a puerile notion 
 to imagine that the interpretation of a mere Catholic layman 
 could ever supersede the intended scope of the utterances of an 
 infallible pope. If Mr. Cockran thinks so, we would say that he 
 is generous, but he is a generous simpleton. For perfect reassur- 
 ance Americans would have required of an orator, in the position 
 in which Mr. Cockran was placed on November the eighteenth, 
 to say: True, the popes have said these things which are charged 
 in the Lutheran letter, but American Catholics propose not to 
 obey the popes in this matter. As it is, Mr. Cockran's silence on 
 the real issue raised by the Lutheran pastors is far more im- 
 pressive chan the few words which he uttered. 
 
 xAnd his silence becomes sublimely eloquent when we note, in 
 conclusion, that the Lutheran pastors had cited a countryman of 
 Mr. Cockran as their last, not least, witness. They had shown 
 from Cardinal Gibbons's book. The Faith of Our Fathers, that the 
 American prelate plainly states, on the strength of a statement 
 of "the great theologian Becanus," that "religious liberty may be 
 tolerated by a ruler when it would do more harm to the State or 
 to the community to repress it;" and that "the ruler may even 
 enter into a contract in order to secure to his subjects this freedom 
 
44 
 
 in religious matters, and when once a contract is made it must 
 be observed absolutely in every point, just as every other lawful 
 and honest contract/^ Several points in this statement might 
 have been illuminated by xMr. Cockran; e. g., the phrase -more 
 harm/' The Constitution of the United States does not permit 
 any harm to be done in this matter. Furthermore, the phrase 
 ''laxvjul and }ione8t contract^^ should have been briefly expounded. 
 The utterances of late popes have led Americans to believe that 
 the Constitution of the American Eepublic is not a contract of 
 this description. 
 
 The eloquent tongue of Mr. Cockran has been hushed; on 
 these declarations of the American cardinal he returns the answer 
 of silence. And that is enough. Scliiveigen ist audi eine Antwort 
 
 45 
 
 The New World has pronounced Mr. Cockran's address ^^mas- 
 terly.'^ To a Catholic lawman we do not look for a statement of 
 the principles of his church, but for a restatement of them. Thus 
 viewed we would also call Mr. Cockran's address "masterly - It 
 has been very valuable to us to note how a gifted Catholic lavman 
 takes up the principles of his church and explains them to his 
 fellow-laymen. We have no doubt that the method of arguin- 
 these principles adopted by Mr. Cockran will be followed by his 
 Catholic brothers, and that for a popular exhibition of Catholic 
 reasoning it cannot be surpassed. We expect to meet with this 
 form of argumentation again. For that reason we have been at 
 pams, even at the risk of becoming tiresome, to exhibit step for 
 step the peculiarities of Mr. Cockran's logic and historv. As to 
 Its mtrmsic merits, we think that the remark of Sallust^n a cer- 
 tain place applies to it fully: Satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum, 
 I. e., plenty of eloquence, of wisdom too little. We fully concur in 
 the opinion which our esteemed contemporary, the editor of the 
 Norwegian Kirketidende, has expressed on Mr. Cockran's oration 
 He says: "Forsvaret var svagt, og lod tydelig foele, at den katolske 
 kirke endnu engang maatte ligge under for kraften af en luthersk 
 protest,'' which is the striking Norse way of telling you • "The 
 answer was weak, and made you feel plainly that the Catholic 
 Church must once again succumb to the valor of a Lutheran 
 protest." 
 
 XIV. 
 Mr. Cockran's Rejoinder. 
 
 Mr. Cockran has deemed it necessary to reply in an open 
 letter to those who criticised his address before the Catholic ^lis- 
 sionarv Cono:ress. His remarks were addressed especially to the 
 author of this brochure. To quote his language as published in 
 The Inter Ocean of Chicago, January 10th, Mr. Cockran says: 
 
 The Rev. Professor says (I quote his exact words) /'The Lutheran 
 ministers have only a negative interest in the moral character of 
 Boniface VIII and Philip the Handsome, but in a choice between 
 the two, they would regard Boniface VIII as the villain of the deeper 
 dye." His authority to speak for all the Lutheran ministers is per- 
 haps open to question. His right to speak for himself cannot be 
 doubted. 
 
 This surely is an astonishing spectacle. Here is a man avowedly 
 reverend, and presumably learned, capable at least of writing coher- 
 ently, who has obviously read something concerning the reign of a 
 King which through all the intervening centuries has remained a sin- 
 ister monument of unbridled violence and prostituted power, minis- 
 tering to human depravity, and yet has nothing but expressions of 
 toleration for stupendous crimes that have cast a dark shadow over 
 the age in which they were committed, and words of actual approval 
 for gross personal outrages perpetrated upon a man, over eighty years 
 old, who occupied what was universally considered at the time the 
 most exalted place in Christendom! 
 
 Even for the brutal blow which Sciara Colonna struck him in 
 the face, this reverend professor has not a word of condemnation, or 
 even of criticism. But he has abundant expressions of contempt and 
 denunciation for the venerable i>ontiff, who, though unarmed, deserted, 
 helpless, captive, threatened, beaten, yet disdained to surrender the 
 great office to which he had been chosen — to abase its dignity or 
 compromise its independence — at the demand of a tyrant enforced 
 by the fist of a ruffian. 
 
 And stranger still, other men enjoying equal advantages of edu- 
 cation and association appear willing to approve openly this attitude 
 of the reverend professor, W. H. T. Dau. 
 
 If it be a sound maxim of conduct that a man shall be judged 
 by the company which he keeps, it is equally sound to judge him by 
 the historical characters whom he honors. 
 
 This reverend professor, who declares that he prefers Philip the 
 Handsome to Boniface VIII, must therefore be held to proclaim that 
 in his judgment wholesale torture and butchery of human beings, 
 innocent of any offense except the possession of treasure coveted by 
 their murderer, and the perpetration of robbery on a gigantic scale 
 through violence and fraud by a ruler whose sworn duty it was to 
 
 s. 
 
46 
 
 protect those limbs that he mangled, these lives that he destroyed 
 this property that he seized, are less heinous and therefore less' oh- 
 jectionable than energj-, zeal, '-arrogance" (if you will), in asserting 
 with absolute sincerity and maintaining with unconquerable courage 
 the powers, rights, claims, pretensions" (call them what you choose), 
 of his sacred office by a Pope who at the time was the only spiritual 
 force in Christendom capable of protesting with any effect against 
 he wrongs perpetrated or contemplated by royal authority. This cer- 
 tainly IS self-revelation which leaves nothing to be desired on the 
 score ot candor or of courage. 
 
 The following answer to tlic above criticism was forwarded 
 to the journal cited: 
 
 TT, rr, T , ^ ^^- ■^"''^' ^^°-' January 19, 1909. 
 
 Editor The Inter Ocean, 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I was acquainted yesterday with the answer, as published by 
 you January 10th, of the Honorable Bourko Cockran to my criti- 
 cism upon his address at the First Catholic Missionary Congress 
 I should lack the courage to ask The Inter Ocean to aid or abet 
 me m a controversial endeavor, which, I regret to note, is begin- 
 ning to show signs of esthetic inferiority and ethical deficiency 
 But I may rely tipon your sense of fairness, Mr. Editor in sub- 
 mitting a request for the admission to your columns of' the few 
 remarks subjoined. 
 
 1. My critic holds me guilty of a fault in judgment, which 
 argues to his mind a moral obliquity in me. He parades me as 
 an admirer of Philip the Fair of France, because I had stated 
 tha ma choice between the two villains, Philip and his assailant, 
 I should award the palm to Boniface VIII. This statement is 
 proof to him that I am a villain, because I admire villains If 
 Mr. Cockran will just continue this mode of reasoning, I shall 
 ask no more. Mr. Cockran is the first reader of my brochure who 
 to my knowledge has found the evidence in that publication that 
 I am an admirer of the French king. I leave Mr. Cockran to the 
 fu 1 enjoyment of his happy discovery, and do not think that his 
 title to it will ever be disputed. 
 
 3. Mr. Cockran is horrified at my laek of sympathy for the 
 he pless and aged pontiff. Again he draws a conclusion that is 
 detrimental to my character. If Mr. Cockran chooses to invoke 
 upon me the wrath of the galleries, I withdraw. For it was not 
 
 « 
 
 47 . 
 
 before that august triljimal that 1 liacl hoped to see tlie difference 
 between Mr. Cockran and myself adjudged. I make no objection 
 when Mr. Cockran states that 1 have no sympathy for Pope Boni- 
 face VIII; for I have none. But I shouhi wish that my reason 
 were stated along w^ith the fact. This is the reason : I have no 
 sympathy for any person who invades the rights of another, and 
 suffers for it. I hold such a person gets w^hat he deserves. More- 
 over, while I abhor the brutalities which, as a rule, accompany a 
 coup d'etat, I hold that if an ecclesiastic meddles in affairs of the 
 state, and his conduct is such as to incite the passions of men, 
 he has no reason for complaint and cannot appeal to sympathy 
 when he becomes the victim of men's passions. In my judgment 
 of Pope Boniface VIII I am happy to find myself in good company. 
 Dante and Petrarch among the poets, Guizot, Green, Kurtz among 
 the historians, and quite recently The Independent of Xew York, 
 have said more tersely and more strikingly things that I merely 
 touched in passing. It w^ould be interesting to know who are 
 Mr. Cockran's company in his judgment of Pope Boniface. 
 
 3. Mr. Cockran questions my right to speak for all the Lu- 
 theran ministers. If Mr. Cockran means to say that I was not 
 officially appointed to formulate the opinion of Lutherans on 
 Pope Boniface VIII, he is right. That opinion has long been 
 handed down, and all the world, with the exception of Mr. Cockran, 
 knows it. If Mr. Cockran questions my coincidence with the mind 
 of Lutherans on the matter in dispute, I ask him to submit his 
 evidence. In writing my remarks upon Mr. Cockran's address, 
 I w^as authorized to speak for the Lutherans in about the same 
 way that Mr. Cockran may feel himself justified, on occasion, to 
 speak for Catholicism. All the evidence that I have received so 
 far proves that I have indeed spoken for the Lutherans. 
 
 In conclusion, permit me to say, Mr. Editor, that I consider 
 this episode closed. Only one thing could induce me to say an- 
 other word in this matter, viz., if Mr. Cockran were to enter upon 
 a discussion of the documentary evidence submitted in the Lutheran 
 letter to President Eoosevelt, to show that the popes are opposed 
 to the separation of Church and State. This is the real issue be- 
 tween Mr. Cockran and the Lutherans, — I know that I am speak- 
 ing for all of them, — and this issue Mr. Cockran has not touched. 
 
 Respectfully, etc. 
 
48 
 
 The addressee published the above letter in the Sunday issue of 
 his paper on January 24th. In the meantime also The New World 
 has taken up the cause of its coreligionist, and in the issue of 
 January l<;th in an editorial article propounds the question in all 
 seriousness: ''Do Lutherans Condone Murder?" Thus :\rr. Cockran 
 and liis partisans make solemn s|)ort of facts of liistorv. of prin- 
 
 ciplt'^ ul right, and of thf iinivt^rsa! laws of tlioii-iiL .-^ 'ail m tlic 
 
 effort to o-et nu-v [roiu the charirc thar thwr poju".. ai- a ^lamlin- 
 d;i!i-er to the liberties of tla i mted States of America. The 
 situation at present affords strong pumis of interest to the psy- 
 chologist and the student of crime. It is somewhat like this : the 
 thief has been caught with the goods on his person, and the thief 
 begins to argue volubly with his captor this soul-harrowing ques- 
 tion, whether blotting paper is not a far more necessary ingredient 
 of human happiness than toothpicks. Sapienti sat, i. e., A word 
 to the wise is sufficient. 
 
 
 
 ^ — ■>■ ^ 
 
 
 ''94 
 
 'A 
 

 '.--"/■'.•.■/J 
 
 
 ■~'l I 
 
 Dau 
 
 The logical and historical inaccu 
 acios of the lion Bourke Cockran 
 
 
 '«*<»/ 1 
 
 :A-. 
 
 
 
 ^'•<'. 
 
 w. 
 
 L»&i... -r. 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 0021097445 
 
 
 
 
 /^ -A • 
 
 
 
 
 
 I w'ts' *; i* 'ft 
 
 
 m^t*^ 
 
 ^■■♦^»**<ifc*-- 
 
sp^' -^^ 
 
 .mmg^^^-s. 
 
 
 ;*1 
 
 1^ n ft ^ 
 
 fi 
 
 '5 ./■■'if if' '-^^^^^ 
 
 ,^,;.C*i-yi?,-'-*V'/'«v5i' -''■■;• ■- ..-.■-.■ 
 
 :.**" r^iiin* 
 
 r MhS J 
 
 't*mi 
 
 
 ■:lB^^€ 
 
 ^\•]&^%#.v;^:^■ 
 
 *Mt 
 
 .vi*^,.-„.i«. 
 
 
 
 j»,^3|»*-l' 
 
 
 
 
 ■?*?:*■ '.-v^ 
 
 Wf*.! 
 
 J^glli^v; ■. .■;^,..,..^^ 
 
 
 
 
 'iji-l 
 
 
 &'*^ ^ 
 
 ;t,„K' 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 
 ^■l-i*«*-^ 
 
 iv'^ii:^f^v 
 
 
 
 ,V;-:.-'.:^/«fiei 
 
 '^y^T':*/?' 
 
 r .i 
 
 \ 
 
 ■;'-t^'*'iv-:i'.,-5^"