Sectarian school-books

Front matter

n mi

SE-

CTARIAN SCHOOL-BOOKS

II. "Where Swinton's Book is used

It has been said that a greater part of the school boards of Massachusetts excluded Swinton's book from their schools, "when their attention had been called to Mr. Swinton's travesty of Catholic faith and teaching." * The fact is, that Boston is the only place where such action has been taken ; and in that city one half the members of the School Board were Catholics at the time.f Swinton's History is used in more than one hundred cities and towns in Massachusetts, and it is used in very nearly every high school in the State. It is used in the following towns and cities at the present time : Brockton, Chelsea, Concord, Cambridge, Fall River, Gardner, Hingham, Holyoke, Hyde Park, Hudson, Leominster, Lynn, Maiden, Marlboro', Milford, North Adams, New Bedford, Newton, Quincy, Springfield, Somerville r 'Salem, Watertown, Waltham, Worcester, and several others.

In the State of Maine Swinton's History is used in Bath, Bangor, Castine, Lewiston, Biddeford, Saco, Waterville, Portland, Calais, Houlton, and many other places of importance. In New Hampshire it is used in Dover, Keene, Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Portsmouth, and right on through the State. In Vermont it is used in Brattleboro, Bennington, Montpelier, Burlington, Rutland, St. Johnsbury, and in almost every other town and city. During the year 1888, Swinton's History was for the first time introduced into about twenty New England towns. These include Easton, Andover, Dedham, and the Westfield Normal School, in Massachusetts ; Newcastle, Gorham, Kingston, Machias-

* See foot-note on pages 17 and 18. — E. J. J. f This statement is incorrect. — R. J. J.

port, Pembroke, Greenville and the Farmington State Normal School, in Maine ; and Pawtucket in Rhode Island.

Swinton's History is not only popular in New England, but it is quite as popular in most other parts of the country. It is the most popular and best selling high-school text-book now published in the United States. It is used at the present time in more than nine tenths of the high schools in this country ; and in a great proportion of the academies, seminaries, and normal schools where the course of study calls for the use of such a book.

Whatever may be said about Swinton's " Outlines of History " by the newspapers, secular or religious, it is emphatically approved by the teachers of the country. They find it the best text-book on history they can procure ; and they evidently accept its teachings as being correct. As a body, the teachers in the high schools of the country are quite likely to know what is historically true.*

III. Swinton on the Catholic Church

Swinton's History is remarkably well written for a text-book. It is concise, graphic in style, brings out the salient facts, and makes history a living reality for the pupil. | He gives the dates and the leading facts, but in a manner to impress them upon the pupil, and to make him feel that history is not a mere succession of dates and events. It is

* See closing paragraphs of Mr. Child's review, pages 200, 201. — R. J. J.

t Contrast this opinion with that of Mr. Child, whose review of the book is reprinted in the Appendix, page 192. In this review Mr. Child, after pointing out the many errors in Swinton's " Outlines," its omissions of important matters, and its heedless blunders, declares that it comes within the application of the excellent doctrine laid down by the Boston Transcript, that "being false, it is not a fit text-book for American youth." While giving his opinion of Swinton's style, Mr. Cooke might have gone on and said with truth that the " Outlines " abounds in grammatical errors, which, in many cases, make it extremely difficult to understand what he means to say. — R. J. J.

written in a very attractive manner, and yet it is so arranged as to be remarkably fitted for use in the school-room. Not only has Swinton made a well-arranged text-book, but he has grasped and mastered the great events of history so as to present them in a vivid and in a highly suggestive manner. He displays genuine qualities as a historian, clearness of conception, mastery of events in their larger relations, and an active insight into the more intricate and important meanings of history. The book is in every way well fitted to give the pupil an outline knowledge of the history of the world. These qualities of ability, fairness, and historic insight should be taken into consideration in deciding whether Swinton's book is one which ought to be retained in the public schools.

Does Swinton misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church? as has been charged. In answering this question, it is best to appeal to the book itself. Those paragraphs of Swinton's book which have been the cause of controversy are on pages 319 and 320, and they will be cited in full, in order that the reader may have an opportunity of judging of the merits of the case :

"It happened very soon after the beginning of the sixteenth century, that great controversies on matters of religion arose. There was complaint at many practical abuses in the Church, and at the claims of the Popes to interfere in the aftairs of nations ; and there was also a growing feeling among many that not a few of the doctrines which were believed, and of the ceremonies which were practised, in the Church, were contrary to Scripture.

"It was in this state of affairs that there arose a dispute, trivial indeed in its nature, but which kindled a flame that quickly spread over most of Western Europe. When Leo X. came to the papal chair, he found the treasury of the Church exhausted by the ambitious projects of his predecessors. He therefore had recourse to every means which ingenuity could devise for recruiting his exhausted finances, and among these he adopted an extensive sale of indulgences, which in former ages had been a source of large profits to the Church. The Dominican friars, having obtained the oionopoly of the sale in Germany, employed as their agent Tetzel, one of their own order, who carried on the traffic in a manner that was very offensive, and especially so to the Augustinian friars.

" One of these, named Martin Luther, professor of theology in the University of Wittenberg, took the lead in opposing Tetzel. Having vainly sought to procure the suppression of the traffic from the Archbishop of Magdeburg, he appealed to the people and to men of letters (1517), by publishing ninety-five theses condemning the sale of indulgences as contrary to reason and Scripture.

"These indulgences were, in the early ages of the Church, remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins had brought scandal on the community. But in process of time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins."

This is Swinton's account of the origin of Protestantism ; and the foot-note is the chief cause of complaint by Catholics. A careful and a fair-minded reading of the whole passage, as cited, together with the foot-note, ought to make it evident that Swinton does not say that the Church taught, as one of its doctrines, that "the purchaser of indulgence was delivered from all his sins." His language bears the fair interpretation that he charged this teaching, not upon the Church, but upon some of its over-zealous members. When all that he says about the Catholic Church is taken into consideration, and the liberality with which he speaks of it everywhere else, this interpretation is the only one which can be justly given to his words. With this interpretation, which ought to be accepted, when there is no good reason for any other, the charge against Swinton falls to the ground. A willingness to deal liberally and honorably with a writer, as to the meaning of his words, would remove all objection to the teachings of Swinton's book on the part of Catholics.*

* A very complete answer to Mr. Cooke on this point will be found in the editorials of the Boston Post (page 118), the Boston Beacon (page 126),

IV. Swinton's Statement Endorsed

Docs Swinton give a true interpretation of the teaching and the practice of the Catholic Church in the matter of indulgences? In answer to this question I propose to cite several good authorities. The following expressions of opinion were called forth by the controversy over the book in Boston during last summer and autumn, subsequent to the displacement of the book by the Boston School Board in June.

Mr. Edwin D. Mead, a very competent authority, said of the book, in a public address, which was published under the title of "The Roman Catholic Church and the School Question" :

* f I maintain that this note states the substantial truth of history. But it is not true that the note affirms, as the Committee says it does, that indulgences have been represented as ' permissions to commit sin.'" *

The same opinion was expressed by Dr. A. A. Miner, f who said, in speaking of Swinton's book :

and the Congregationalist (page 119), and in the letter written by Hon. H. Winn to the Boston Herald (page 12G), as well as in two notable editorials in the Christian Union of Jan. 10 and 24, 1889, quoted on pages 128 and 129, and in an editorial in the Boston Advertiser of June 20, 1888, quoted on page 121. Prof. Charles Kendall Adams, Mr. Cooke's favorite historian, also declares that Swinton's account of the Reformation preaches " the Protestant doctrine " and "omits to preach the Catholic doctrine.'' (See page 125, and his article in full on page 212.) — R. J. J.

* See foot-note on page 55, and foot-note on page 45. — R. J. J.

f In the Christian Mirror (March 23, 1889), Rev. C. C. Starbuck, a clergyman of the most pronounced Protestant type, writes as follows of Dr. Miner's treatment of the question: " But 1 should like to ask, are there in Boston no copies of the Acts of Trent, and no authorized catechisms? Surely a gentleman who has embarked so zealously and representatively in a controversy whose very pivot is Rome's doctrine of the foi-giveness of sins, ought to show a reasonable intelligence as to this doctrine. But I must be permitted to say that he shows an unreasonable unintelligencc, striking blindly about, merely because he has not thought it worth while to ascertain Roman doctrine from authentic sources. . . . Dr. Miner thus resembles a man who imagines he sees a ditch before him,

"Its definition of indulgence is undeniably correct. Its statement of the corruptions that grew up in connection therewith suggests nothing that is not strictly true, on the whole, but is a feeble statement of the truth."

The same position was maintained by several of the leading clergymen of Boston, in a petition which they signed :

" The paragraph which led to the book's objection contained a true statement of history, on the assertion of standard authorities of all schools.

"(Signed) Keys. Philip S. Moxom.

David Gregg.

A. J. Gordon.

John F. Clymer.

James M. Gray.

James E. Dunn.

Ezra Farnsworth."

An old and leading religious journal, the Evangelist,

June 28, 1888, made this comment on the foot-note in Swin-

ton's History :

" That seems to us a very fair statement of the facts of the pardoner's trade as it existed at the time, and the Protestant members of the Committee must have had other reasons than its incorrectness for displacing the book."

Another able religious journal, the Congregationalist and Boston Recorder, in its issue of Nov. 29, said :

"The general estimate of the Inquisition which it presents, and most of its special declarations, are historically correct, and ought to be taught."

The Transcript, one of the most scholarly and able of the Boston daily newspapers, has repeatedly expressed itself as

and, receding, plunges into a ditch behind him. And all because he did not care to look up one or two easily obtainable books. Now general Protestantism suffers when we fall into these slips, as we all do, more or less, and we ought to take one another up sharply over them, so as to compel each other into a greater accuracy as to Roman Catholic affairs than we are accustomed to think it worth while to cultivate." — R. J. J.

approving the teachings of Swinton. In its issue of Oct. 1, it said :

"But judging from Mr. Travis's experience, the instructor, while allowed to teach that there was a Reformation, must not tell his class why Luther protested against Tetzel's sale of indulgences. Not only must he not do that, but he must teach that an indulgence was what we know and what Martin Luther knew it was not."

The Boston Record of June 20 expressed its understanding of the subject in these words :

" The recent suppression of a history for stating a fact perfectly well known and fully proved was a partisan and unwise concession to a spirit which will work mischief if indulged."

The Boston Herald, which has been quoied as strongly disapproving of Swinton's History, in its issue of July 14, after a careful review of the whole subject, said :

" The statement made by Prof. Swinton in his school history is fully sustained by all acknowledged authorities, whether secular or religious, though the Roman Catholic authorities generally accessible in English are rather shy of giving all the facts of the case, while the Protestant writers are often so sure of them that they present a very distorted record."

To these Protestant opinions may be added that of a very high Catholic authority. In the Boston Globe of Oct. 6, 1888, was printed an interview with Vicar-General Byrne, a leading Catholic official, who declared that Swinton does not misrepresent the Catholic Church in what he says about indulgences.* When asked if the doctrine that indulgences permitted the committing of sin was not taught in Swinton's book, the Vicar-General answered:

" Not that I can see ; though I have heard it so stated by men who ought to know. I have seen the celebrated foot-note only in quotation, and, judging from that, I would have to absolve Swinton from this charge. It would appear that it is not in Swinton's History except in so far as the imagina-

* See Vicar-General Byrne's letter on page 123. — R. J. J.

tion and preconceived notions of Mr. Travis, the High School teacher, injected into it. This is another illustration of how people find in books and dogmas what is not there at all, not even in germ. I defy any honest and unprejudiced mind to infer this shameful doctrine from Swinton's foot-note."

Further on in the interview, the Vicar-General made use of this emphatic declaration :

"One thing is certain. Swinton never charged Tetzel with ffivinff this false definition of an indulgence."

The quotations just given show a remarkable unanimity in declaring that Swinton is not in error in what he says about indulgences and the early history of Protestantism. Several of them also indicate the fact that Swinton does not charge the Catholic Church with teaching that an indulgence was a permission to sin.

In two or three succeeding issues of the Standard, I shall discuss other phases of this important subject.*

George W. Cooke.

THE DEFENCE CONTINUED.

SECOND LETTER OF GEORGE W. COOKE.

[From the Dedham Standard, Jan. 26, 1889.]

V. "What is an Indulgence?

In order to understand whether Swinton has misrepresented history or not, it is desirable that we should know

* It was in consequence of this announcement by Mr. Cooke of his intention to continue his letters through two or three succeeding issues of the Standard that I did not reply to this letter in the next number of that paper, which otherwise I should have done. In view of his announcement, I stood aside, and would have held my peace until he had concluded all that he desired to say, if I had not felt it my duty to interrupt him for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that his alleged quotations from Catholic authorities were distortions and mutilations of the writers whom he appeared to quote. This also accounts for the irregular order in which my replies to Mr. Cooke's arguments were made. — R. J. J.

what is an indulgence. As the standard histories are not generally accessible, and as many persons are too busy to consult them, I propose to quote from two or three of them at some length. I do so in order that I may give a definition which will stand the test of ri»id historic investigation. All the definitions which I now quote are from historians whose works are accepted by Catholics as being fair and accurate.*

I will begin with the definition given by that generally approved authority, the "Encyclopedia Britanuica " :

"Indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is defined as the remission, in whole or in part, by ecclesiastical authority, to the penitent sinners, of the temporal punishment due for sin. . . . That theory may be said to resolve itself into two positions: (1) that, after the remission of the eternal punishment due for sin, there remains due to the justice of God a certain amount of temporal pain to be undergone, either before death in this world, or after death in purgatory; (2) that this pain may be remitted by the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints, out of the treasury of the Church, the administration of which treasury is the prerogative of the hierarchy. . . . Indulgences arc either general or particular, i. e., either open to the whole Church or confined to particular localities. The most general of all is that which is proclaimed in the year of jubilee. Indulgences again are either plenary or non-plenary, the former being a total remission of all the temporal punishment which may have been incurred by the recipient. It must carefully be borne in mind that, in Roman Catholic orthodoxy, indulgence is never absolutely gratuitous, and that those only can in any circumstances validly receive it who are in full communion with the Church, and have resorted to the sacrament of penance, in which alone, after due contrition and confession, provision is made for the remission of the graver penalty of sin."

* Mx\ Cooke has no right to speak for Catholics in this matter. Catholics do not, and, of course, cannot, accept definitions of the doctrines and teachings of their Church by Protestant authorities, for however fair the spirit of these Avriters may be, they write entirely from the Protestant stand-point.

Prof. George P. Fisher, of Yale College, in his work on

"The Reformation," a book highly approved by students for

its accuracy and fairness, touches upon the origin and history

of the doctrine of indulgences : —

"Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The doctrine of penance required that for each sin satisfaction should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties. . . . The practice of accepting offerings of money in the room of the ordinary forms of penance harmonized with the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. . . . By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the Popes, came the plenaiy indulgences, as the complete remission of all temporal penalties — that is, the penalties still obligatory on the penitent — on the fulfilment of prescribed conditions. These penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence obliterated them all."

During last year was published the seventh volume of an extensive " History of the Christian Church," by Dr. Philip Schaff, which has already become a standard authority, because of its learning, its judicious tone, and its marked literary ability. This volume treats of the Reformation, and its definition of indulgences has been accepted by Catholics as a correct one.* Dr. Schaff also treats the subject somewhat historically :

" The difficult and complicated doctrine of indulgences is peculiar to the Roman Church. It was developed by the mediaeval schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Council of Trent

* This definition of indulgences has not been accepted by Catholics as a correct one. See definition in the Catechism of the Council of Baltimore, page 24; also that given by Maurel, page 73; as well as that of Dens, page 88. The reader will notice that no mention is made in any of these approved definitions of the ' ' payment of money to the church or some charitable object" as a requisite for obtaining an indulgence.

(Dec. 4, 1563), yet without a definition and with an express warning against abuses and evil gains.

"In ecclesiastical Latin, an indulgence means the remission of the temporal (not the eternal) punishment of sin (not of sin itself), on condition of penance and the payment of money to the Church or to some charitable object. It may be granted by a bishop or archbishop within his diocese, while the Pope has the power to grant it to all Catholics. The practice of indulgences grew out of a custom of the northern and western barbarians to substitute pecuniary compensation for punishment of an offence. The Church favored this custom in order to avoid bloodshed, but did wrong in applying it to religious offences. . . . The practice rapidly spread on the Continent, and was used by the Popes during and after the crusades, as a means of increasing their power. It was justified and reduced to a theory by the schoolmen, especially by Thomas Aquinas, in close connection with the doctrine of the sacrament of penance and priestly absolution.

" The sacrament of penance includes three elements, — contrition of the heart, confession of the mouth (to the priest) , and satisfaction by good works, such as prayer, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimages, all of which arc supposed to have an atoning efficacy. God forgives only the eternal punishment of sin, and he alone can do that; but the sinner has to bear the temporal punishments, either in this life or in purgatory; and these punishments are under the control of the Church or the priesthood, especially the Pope as its legitimate head. There are also works of supererogation, performed by Christ and the saints, with corresponding extra merits and extra rewards, and these constitute a rich treasury from which the Pope, as the treasurer, can dispense indulgences for money. This papal power of dispensation extends even to the departed souls in purgatory, whose sufferings thereby may be abridged. This is the scholastic doctrine."

These Protestant definitions may be supplemented or corrected by one from a Catholic source. The standard Catholic authority on indulgences, at least in English, seems to be a work entitled "The Christian Instructed in the Nature and Use of Indulgences," by the Rev. A. Maurel. I will quote at some length from the chapter of this work devoted to the definition of an indulgence:

" Suppose the case of one who has had the misfortune of offending God. If the sin be mortal, the injury done to the Divine Majesty is grievous ; consequently, this person has both lost sanctifying grace, and merited eternal chastisements. But should it be merely venial, the friendship of God is not lost, so that in this case he incurs only a temporal penalty. In the former supposition, the sacrament of penance, or an act of perfect contrition reconciles the sinner with his Creator, and obtains for him pardon as to the eternal punishment. But since a temporal penalty is ordinarily substituted for this eternal chastisement, the offender, though reconciled with God, must pay that fine either in this life by means of works of penance, or hereafter by the pains of purgatory.

" Blessed be God ! by an inestimable benefit, whose worth and greatness are beyond expression, or as Bourdaloue says, by a favor calculated to call forth all the envy of demons against man, the Almighty graciously remits that debt by means of indulgences. In fact, indulgences are nothing else than this remission. At the very moment the sinner separates himself from God by sin, God may abandon and deliver him up to the rigor of his inexorable justice. But far from doing this, he says to him : 'Do penance, and you will thereby avert the arrows of my vengeance.' Not only that, but since the reconciliation of the soul to God by penance entails a length of painful sufferings which the transgressor must undergo in order to make satisfaction, our Divine Lord on that account vouchsafes to give up the strict right he has to exact such a penalty. Accordingly, to supply the insufficiency of the sinner's satisfaction, to facilitate the total expiation of his sins, and thus to complete his justification so to speak, through the hands of his church, he holds out to him a treasure of indulgences.

"An indulgence, then, is 'a remission of the temporal punishment for which the sinner remains indebted to the Divine Justice on account of sins already pardoned as to their guilt and eternal chastisement.' This remission is effected by means of the application of the satisfactions contained in the Spiritual Treasure of the Church ; it takes place outside the sacrament of penance, but always in virtue of the power of the keys, that is, through the medium of those empowered to unlock and dispense this grand treasure. Hence an indulgence remits neither mortal sin, nor venial sin, nor the eternal chastisement; neither does it bring about or effect justification ; on the contrary, it presupposes and follows it."

VI. The Abuse of Indulgences.*

As an indulgence is thus defined, it would appear that Swinton misconceived its nature, if his statement thai it was "represented as an actual pardon of guilt," applied to the direct teaching of the Church, As we have already seen, the Church never formulated its practice in regard to indulgences into a positive doctrine; and while Swinton states what the Church aotually did, his assertion is not in harmony with its teaohingS.f Bui as Swinton undertakes in his foot-note to desoribe only what was performed by many Catholics, it is necessary to inquire into what was the Catholic practioe at the period when Luther posted his ninety-five theses.

'The writers already quoted recognize the abuses to which Swinton refers in his note, ami whieh he aeeurately describes in saying- that " indulgences were represented as aotual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser ol' indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins.'* These abuses are thus referred to by the "Encyclopedia Britannica," in the artiole already quoted : —

"The dootrine of indulgences is singularly open to misunderstanding; and in its practical applications it has too often been used to sanction the most Qagranl immorality. The scandalous abuses connected with the 'pardoners' trade, and in particular the reckless conduct oi' the hawkers of v N>> one denies that bad men have at times' abused Indulgences. The Catholic Church acknowledges and deplores that fact; and. as soon as such abuses have come to her knowledge, she has used every means to reform and remedy the evil. Hoes Mr. Cooke mean to argue that because Indulgences have been at times abused, therefore they OUghl to be abolished altogether as in themselves bad: By the same line of reasoning, every good thine would have to be abolished : for there is nothing good which cannol be, and at times has not been, abused. — K. ,1. ,1.

+ Why, then, on page 86, does Mr. Cooke positively assure us that " the foot-note in Swinton is perfectly true in every particular"? — Li. J. J.

papal indulgence granted l>y those who should contribute to the funds for the completion of St. Peter's, Home, were, ;«h is well known, very prominent among the proximate cause! of the Protestant Reformation."

In speaking of the sale of indulgences at the time of Luther, Prof. Fisher -ays \

"The business of selling indulgences bad grown by the profitableness of it. . . . As managed by Tetzel and the other emissaries sen! out to collect, mono}- for the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of* a stipulated hum, the individual received a full discharge from the penalties of sin, or procured the release of a soul from the flame- of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered in the market for

money.

"The granting of indulgences degenerated, after the time of the crusades, into a regular traffic, and became a source of ecclesiastical and monastic wealth. . . . The rebuilding of St. Peter's Church in Rome furnished an occasion for the periodical exercise of the papal power of granting indulgences. Julius II. and Leo X., two of* the most worldly, avaricious, and extravagant popes, had no scruple to raise funds for that object, and incidentally for their own aggrandizement, from the traffic in indulgences. Both issued several hulls to that effect."

Dr. Schaff thus describes the methods pursued by Tetzel in the sale of indulgences in Saxony :

"Tetzel t ravelled with great pomp and circumstance through Germany, and recommended with unscrupulous effrontery and declamatory eloquence the indulgences of the pope to the large crowds who gathered from every quarter around him. He was received like a messenger from heaven. Priests, monks, and magistrates, men and women, old and young, marched in solemn procession with Songs, flags, and