Charles Coppens, a Jesuit professor of medical jurisprudence at the John A. Creighton Medical College, opens his 1897 lectures with a striking claim: the term 'Medical Jurisprudence' is a 'misnomer' as then used in colleges. He aims not to replace existing textbooks but to supply 'chapters imperatively demanded by science.' The preface sets a tone of moral urgency, addressing 'younger members' of the profession directly. The lectures proceed through numbered sections, with the transcriber noting that Lecture I omits paragraph 4—a structural quirk that hints at the text's original lecture format. Coppens frequently invokes specific physicians (Dr. Lindley, Dr. Storer, Dr. Nathan Allen) and publications (Harper's Magazine, Catholic World), grounding his moral arguments in contemporary medical and census evidence.

A Rhetoric of Moral Certainty

Coppens's narrative voice is that of a lecturer addressing 'Gentlemen'—the medical students before him. He uses direct appeals ('I am very much afraid') and rhetorical questions to guide his audience toward his conclusions. His language is precise and unyielding: abortion is 'child-destroying crimes,' contraceptive intercourse is 'onanistic,' and physicians who suggest such practices are implicated in moral failure. He does not present opposing views as equally valid; instead, he marshals testimony from medical authorities to reinforce a single ethical position. The tone shifts between scholarly citation and pastoral warning, as when he contrasts the dangers of childbirth with the 'dangers and hardships of the battlefield' to argue that shirking duty is cowardice.

Evidence from Contemporary Sources

Coppens builds his case by weaving together medical testimony, census data, and religious commentary. He quotes Dr. H. B. Storer's 1857 books by title and cites Rev. John Todd's 'Serpents in the Dove's Nest.' He references Harper's Magazine to claim that 'fœticide and infanticide are extensively practised under the most aggravating circumstances' in Christendom, while exempting Catholics from blame. This selective use of sources—all supporting his thesis—creates a cumulative effect. The excerpts show no engagement with dissenting medical opinions; instead, Coppens presents his authorities as 'the acknowledged conviction of the medical profession generally.' The reader is left to infer that the lectures assume a homogeneous audience sharing the author's religious and moral framework.

Pace and Structural Rhythm

The lectures move at a deliberate, argumentative pace. Each section opens with a proposition, then builds through quoted evidence and logical inference. In the excerpt on contraception, Coppens shifts from citing Dr. Lindley to a hypothetical scenario: a young mother suffers in confinement, the doctor suggests avoiding further pregnancy, and the husband resorts to 'dens of infamy.' This narrative turn—a brief, vivid story—punctuates the otherwise dense exposition. The rhythm alternates between abstract principle and concrete consequence, as when Coppens invokes Divine Providence to reassure that 'there is a God that provides for them.' Such shifts in pace keep the lecture engaging while reinforcing its moral urgency.

Readers approaching this text should attend to its dual identity: a medical jurisprudence lecture and a Catholic moral treatise. Coppens's reliance on specific contemporary sources—Storer, Allen, Harper's Magazine—offers a window into late-19th-century debates. The direct address to 'Gentlemen' and the numbered paragraph structure preserve the oral lecture's rhythm. Notice how Coppens uses evidence not to explore ambiguity but to assert certainty; his rhetorical strategy is as instructive as his arguments.