17(:.7 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 087 
 
 25 690 
 
 ROMANISM EXPOSED 
 
 AND 
 
 Protestantism Defended 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. J. O. WHITE. 
 
 A Brief Reply to Professor David Swing, Priest 
 Cashman and Dr. Withrow. 
 
 "ThHce armed is he whose cause is fust" 
 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of Darkness, but 
 
 rather reprove them." — Paul. 
 
 "Earne^ly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the 
 
 Saints." — Jude. 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 
 PUBI,ISHED B Y. TH E A UTH O R. 
 
 I 
 
 1S90 
 
 J^ss 
 
8X 
 OUR BOOKS AND TRACTS. 
 
 " Foot-Prints of Satan." The Pope and the Jesuits against the 
 Bible and the Public Schools. About 60 octavo pages, Latin and English,' 
 50 cen ts. 
 
 "Deeds of Darkness Disclosed." — Contains 224 octavo pages, on 
 fine book paper, and neatly bound. Price, $1.25. 
 
 " Homo." — This pamphlet of 80 pages, in three languages, for men 
 ONLY. It contains extracts from the Latin Theology of the Rom^n Clergy, 
 disclosing the secret abominations of Auricular Confession, and the 
 Priests are defiantly challenged to disprove either books or facts. 
 
 g®= This is the nevr enlarged edition. 
 
 The Latin is translated into English and German. This work should 
 be read by all men till Confessionals, and convents, are by legal enactment 
 suppressed as prolific sources of crime and licentiousness. Pricfe, 50 cents. 
 
 " Priestcraft Exposed " and Papists brought to Grief. — (At present 
 exhausted ; to be republished soon.) Price, 25 cents. 
 
 An Infamous Dynamite Roman Catholic Conspiracy Detected 
 and Exposed.'' 36 pages, 15 cents. 
 
 " Father Clifford Brought to Grief ; or a Small Gun Spiked." 
 36 pages, 15 cents. 
 
 " Facts for the People." -^ A Romish Conspiracy against the Bible, 
 Free Schools, civil and religious liberty. Sixteen pages, exclusive of cover; 
 one copy, 5 cents; 10 copies, 40 cents; 20 copies, 70 cents; 30 copies, $1.00 ; 
 100 copies, $3.00. 
 
 Tracts from 2 to 4 pages each ; 500 pages, $1.00. Leaflets, 5 or more 
 varieties, 500 for 70 cents, or 1,000 for $1 00. ' . ■ 
 
 Specimen copies sent postpaid at above rates. Terms, cash. 
 Address, 
 
 Rev. J. G. WHITE, Stanford, III. 
 
 Any person sending the money for 5 copies of either of the above books, 
 or T)-acts, will obtain a sixth copy free, 
 
 To meet the presumptuous aggressions of Romanism let these books 
 and ti'acts be put in every family. Let each pastor take a collection and 
 test tlie tracts in his congregation. Clubs for books and pamphlets at liberal 
 discounts to pastors, churches, agents, an^l all patriotic and Anti-Roman 
 organizations. 
 
 ^^ Let all true patriots awake before a Jesuit cyclone desolates the 
 institutions of this our beloved country. 
 
 j'n'' te^ We ask the earnest co-operation of all to solicit subscriptions and 
 orders for our iiew edition of " Startling Facts," " Deeds of Darkness Dis- 
 ({Ipsed,",, 
 
 AGENTS WANTED. 
 
ROMANISM EXPOSED 
 
 PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED 
 
 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just ; but his neighbor 
 Cometh and searcheth him. — Solofnon. 
 
 Citizens of Chicago : 
 
 In the Evening Post, December 9th, you may have ob- 
 served that Professor Swing, Priest Cashman and Dr. With- 
 row, parked tlieir theological batteries behind the passing 
 shadow of a news-monger, who was incompetent to report a 
 lecture on Roman theology, and who, during the lecture, sat 
 pencil in iiand looking wise as an owl. It is evident that not 
 one of these reverend gentlemen heard the address, and it may 
 yet become evident that neither of them, nor all combined, can 
 disprove a single fact disclosed. They certainly did not, in the 
 Post, nor make a square issue with facts stated, and it is possi- 
 ble they will not do it. The facts were sustained by evidence 
 incontrovertible on the authority of approved Roman books in 
 the hands of an intelligent committee. The address was deliv- 
 ered by request of the Methodist ministers. The door was 
 closed by request of the spefucer. The subsequent unanimous 
 vote of thanks was duly appreciated. 
 
 Had not those ministers a right to hold a meeting with 
 open or closed doors.' Had they not a ri^ht to invite an ac- 
 credited minister to deliver an address on Roman Theology.' 
 Had not that minister a right to shake the sandy foundation of 
 the main pillar of papish priestcraft? Are American citizens 
 
ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 to be denied the liberty of thought and speech? Is a small 
 penny-ii-liiier, a theological rag-picker of Chicago, to establish 
 an inquisition, and become the dogmatic censor of pulpit, pew 
 and press? Are a few egotistic, self-constituted ecclesiastic 
 dictators to do all the thinking and speaking for the clergy of 
 Chicago? Are American citizens to affect a false modesty, 
 close their eyes, stop their ears, shut their mouths, and permit 
 a system of mediasval debauchery to prostitute society, and 
 without rebuke establish in our midst a system of ecclesiastical 
 brothers? No, God forbid it, and may avery drop of patriotic 
 American blood forbid it. 
 
 The spirit manifected by these reverend confederates is 
 neither strange nor new. More than eighteen hundred years ago 
 the chief priests, Pilate and Herod, conspired to destroy Jesus 
 Christ. And on that occasion " Pilate and Herod were made 
 friends." Truly, history repeats itself. Here in Chicago the 
 spirit of that old pagan trick is revived. We have no apology 
 for delivering a lecture on Roman Theology to a select com- 
 pany of Protestant clergvmen. Having stood more than fifty 
 years in active work, with' unblemished credentials, as an ac- 
 credited minister, in one branch of the Presb} terian Church, 
 we ask no dispensation nor endorsement from our self-consti- 
 tuted ecclesiastical censor. We ask them to refute the books 
 and facts, or for shame ever after hold their peace. 
 
 Were not those Methodist ministers as intelligent, virtuous 
 and modest as our would-be ecclesiastical dictators? We are 
 only sorry that Professor Swing, Dr. Withrow and their ex- 
 quisitely modest Father Confessor, Priest Cashman, were not 
 on that committee to attest the Latin books and facts presented. 
 It may not yet be too late for this trinity of reverend gentle- 
 men to test the strength of their Damascus blades in defense of 
 Popish priestcraft, and the secret abominations of Auricular 
 Confession. Let Priest Cashman, if he dare, under oath in 
 writing, deny that our books, and facts, as disclosed in that ad- 
 dress are well auihenticaled. Let him attempt to di'-prove the 
 fact that vile and libidinous communications are, now required 
 of females m Auricular Confession, and that distinguished 
 Roman theologians have given warning of danger lo chastity 
 from that source. It is an easy matter to sneer at facts, or at- 
 tempt an affected Jesuitic " smile" of derision, but such pusil- 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 3 
 
 lanimous imbecilit}' is unworthy of a gentleman, much less a 
 pretended '■'■vicegerent^'' '■'■vicar''' of Jesus Christ, who pretends 
 to hold the keys of heaven and hell, with '■'■judioaP'' power to 
 save or damn the souls of men. Judas, that parsimonious 
 hypocrite, that sacrilegious thief, that betrayer of innocent 
 blood, that would-be assassin, with the malice of a fiend in his 
 heart, and the kiss of a Jesuit on his lips, would betray Jesiis 
 Christ, but it was reserved for a priest of Rome in Chicago 
 with an affected Jesuit air of sanctity to smile at the secret 
 abominations of auricular confession, and millions plunged to 
 perdition through its debauching influence. 
 
 Let there be no dodging a square issue on the subject of 
 that lecture. The disclosures made were true, or they were 
 not true. If not true. Priest Cashman is the man to show it. 
 If true, why this Jesuit quibbling, and dodging. Self-assumed 
 arrogant superiority amounts to nothing. Innuendo, detrac- 
 tion, and defamation are the weapons of cowards. Facts chal- 
 lenge investigation. They can not be refuted by evasion, 
 sophistry, or sarcasm. Priest Cashman has taken a contract, 
 let him hew to the line; he has called for music, let him dance 
 to the tune; he has sneered at character, let him meet facts. 
 
 Let him show the keys by which he pretends to open 
 heaven and hell, and withyanf/c/a/^owe^, as God, save or damn 
 the souls of men. Let him prove that a Roman priest, drunk 
 or sober, virtuous or licentious, or in other condition, is the 
 divinely appointed " vicegerent " and " vicar " of Jesus Christ. 
 Let him show by what authority he requires small children 
 seven years old and upward, and females to answer vile ques- 
 tions in the confessional under obligation of eternal secrecy, 
 that may not with closed doors be exposed to fathers, husbands, 
 and brothers, whose duty it is to protect and defend outraged, 
 and insulted virtue. 
 
 When Jesus Christ said, "Suffer little children, and for- 
 bid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven," by what authority do the Priests of Rome, and the 
 Council of Trent contradict Jesus Christ and declare that " In- 
 fants unless baptized can not enter heaven "? 
 
 Must infants be excluded forever from heaven for want of 
 a few drops of water from the hands of a Roman Priest, a 
 "Midwife, "a Pagan," " a Jew," "Heretic" or " Infidel"? 
 
4 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 Must unborn infants, and fetal abortions be christened to 
 save tlieir souls? 
 
 " O shame where is thy blush ! was ever Satan so out- 
 deviled?" It is the madness of folly for Priest Cashman to 
 affect a false modesty, to screen the abominations of the Baby- 
 lonish Harlot. He has voluntarily bared his back for a scourge 
 of scorpions, he may not be disappointed. He boasts of his 
 exploits at Peliin, III., with his Moral Theology of Peter Dens 
 " twenty-three years ago." At present we have no recollection 
 either of hiin or his books. He doubtless shot after the game 
 was gone. He became brave after danger was past. Discre- 
 tion was with him the better part of valor. We are now 
 in Chicago, let him bring out his Peter Dens to vindicate 
 " Auricular Confession," " Ante-natal Baptism," " Caesarean 
 Section," etc., and if requisite we will place by the side of 'his 
 books twenty-two volumes more by the same author, as thor- 
 oughly authenticated, though it may be of different dates. Let 
 him by Peter Dens prove that a Roman priest may perjure him- 
 self to conceal the vile communications of auricular confession. 
 Let him by the Moral Theology of Dens prove that all heretics 
 ought now to be put to death, and above all things let him 
 show by the authority of Peter Dens " How long Jesus re- 
 mains in the stomach" (of a Romanist) " after the Host is 
 swallowed "? 
 
 These and inany other matters may at the proper time de- 
 mand attention. But for the present this Rev. "Vicegerent" 
 and " Vicar " of Jesus Christ is referred to 
 
 The Shorter Catechism Made Easy, For 
 Priest Cashman of Chicago. 
 
 BY REV. J. G. WHITE. 
 
 Question i. — Why may a priest tell a lie and swear to 
 it, to conceal the abominations of auricular confession? 
 
 Answer. — The moral theology of the Roman church 
 authorizes equivocation, menial reservation, and perjury to 
 conceal the hidden mysteries, and criminal intercourse of auri- 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 5 
 
 cular confession (see Peter Dens, Vol. VI., pp. 227-8; F. P. 
 Kennck,Vol. III., pp.172; St. Liguon,Vol. VI., p. 276, No. 634 
 and 646; St. Thomas, supplement to question 11, article i and 
 3, etc. 
 
 Q. 2. — Why a priest in the confessional is " as God," and 
 outside of the confessional he is " as man"? 
 
 A. — Roman theologians teach this doctrine. (See Dens, 
 Kenrick, Liguori, etc.) 
 
 Q. 3. — Why the priest and penitent are bound, under the 
 penalty of eternal damnation, not to reveal the secrets of the 
 confessional.'' 
 
 A. — It is the approved doctrine of the Roman church. 
 (See Bishop David's catechism, p. 105; St. Liguori on the 
 commandments and sacraments, pp. 325-227; Dr. Challoner's 
 Catholic Christian Instructed, p. 152; Catechism of Trent, pp. 
 190-195, etc. 
 
 Q. 4. — Why fathers, . husbands and brothers may not be 
 present in the confessional and hear the obscene questions which 
 bachelor priests are instructed to propound to females. 
 
 A. — It is contrary to the laws and customs of the Church 
 of Rome. It would protect modest and virtuous females in 
 confession from the infamous questions and licentious encroach- 
 ments of the Roman clergy, and above all it would subject the 
 Roman clergy to the merited chastisement for their lecherous 
 obsenity, and would cause the suppression of auricular confession 
 by penal enactments. 
 
 Q. 5. — Why a husband may not be present when the priest 
 interrogates his wife in the confessional relative to " De usu 
 coNjuGii," "De Luxuria," and kindred subjects? 
 
 A. — -A priest dare not, at the peril of his life, in the pres- 
 ence of a husband, propound to a wife those infamous ques- 
 tions, and a wife dare not, under penalty of eternal damnation, 
 disclose the facts to her husband, nor refuse to answer all ques- 
 tions propounded to her by the priest in the confessional. Her 
 absolution and salvation are suspended upon a thorough con- 
 fession, and implicit obedience and submission to the dictation 
 and domination of her ecclesiastical superior. (See Dens, 
 Kenrick, Liguori and other approved systems of Roman theol- 
 ogy, now in use in our midst.) 
 
 Q. 6. — Where in the Bible is there authority for a " Pa- 
 
6 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 gan,"a "Jew," an "Infidel," a " Heretic," a midwife, a man, 
 woman, or child to baptize an infant when in danger of death ? 
 (See Dens, Catechism of Trent, etc.) 
 
 A. — The Bible nowhere authorizes such an incongruous 
 jumble of superstitution and Popish priestcraft. 
 
 Q. 7. — Where do priests find Scripture to prove that they 
 may baptize fcEtal abortions and infants before they are born, 
 and in case of the death of the mother, perform csesarean sec- 
 tion to save the soul of an unborn infant by water baptism ? 
 (See Dens, Vol. V., from page 147 to page 169 inclusive.) 
 
 A. — There is no such Scripture, and the practice is simply 
 an unmitigated abomination, a device of the Pope and devilish 
 men, to extort money for baptism from their confiding dupes, 
 under a false pretense that " infants, unless baptized, can not 
 enter heaven." (See Catechism of Trent, p. 124.) 
 
 Q. 8. — If an infant is born dead and without baptism, why 
 may it not be buried in holy ground? — (i. <?., ground sprinkled 
 with salt and water.) 
 ' A. — The Roman church and its bigoted clergy forbid it. 
 
 Q. 9. — Why the Roman clergy may keep concubines and 
 may not have lawful wives? 
 
 A. — The church of Rome has permitted the former, and 
 prohibited the latter. (St. Ligouri, Vol. IX., p. 41^, etc.) 
 
 Q. 10. — Why priests and nuns who live in seclusion and 
 conform to the obscene ritual of the confessional should be con- 
 sidered more virtuous than other people? 
 
 A. — There is no reaaB)n whatever for inferring superior 
 virtue, on the contrary, history shows that convent and monas- 
 tic life, in connection with Auricular Confession, has ever been 
 a prolific source of crime and licentiousness. 
 
 Q. II. — Why a drunken and licentious priest (as some 
 are) can validly administer the Eucharist and grant judicial 
 absolution as God Almighty? 
 
 A. — The Roman theologians have so declared it. (See 
 Catechism of Trent, pp. 172-196, etc.) 
 
 Q. 13. — Why the marriage of a Catholic to an unbaptized 
 person by a Protestant clergyman " without a dispensation from 
 a Romish bishop," is " null and void, illicit and criminal "? 
 
 A. — Such is the intolerant law of the Roman church, and 
 Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, O., reaffirmed it when he said: 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 7 
 
 " The marriage of a Catholic with an unbaptized person, unless 
 a dispensation be previously obtained, is null and void, illicit 
 and criminal." (Pastoral letter to the clergy and laity, p. 4.) 
 
 Pope Pius VII., in 180S, said: " The laws of the church 
 do not recognize any civil privileges as belonging to persons 
 not Catholic; that their marriages are not valid; that they can 
 live only in concubinage; that their children, being bastards, 
 are incapacitated to inherit; that Catholics themselves are not 
 validly married except they are united according to rules pre- 
 scribed by the Court of Rome; and that when they are married 
 according to these rules, their marriage is valid, had they in 
 other respects infringed all the laws of their country. (Quar- 
 terly Register, Vol. III., p. 89.) 
 
 Q. 13. — Why, according to Catholic theology, there is no 
 salvation for persons not members of the Roman Catholic 
 Church ? 
 
 A. — Roman theologians have so declared and they profess 
 to hold the keys of heaven, and hell, with power to save or 
 damn the souls of men at pleasure; and all Romanists are re- 
 quired to adopt the creed of Pope Pius IV., and affirm in an 
 obligation, equivalent to an oath; "I acknowledge the Holy 
 Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress 
 of all churches; * * * * out of which no one can be 
 saved." (Golden Manual, p. 771.) 
 
 Q. 14. — Do not Romanists sometimes manifest great 
 friendship for Protestants? 
 
 A. — Yes, especially when they are trying to wheedle rich 
 widows and orphan children for their property. When they 
 are endeavoring to locate a Roman church or school, or con- 
 vent, in a Protestant community. When they are worming 
 their way into wealthy Protestant families to entice their 
 daughters to a convent, or their sons to a Jesuit college. When 
 they want donations for their sectarian institutions, gambling 
 fairs and festivals; when they want money for any purpose, 
 and by any plausible process of jugglery, including raffling for 
 gold-headed canes, or to determine "who is the most popular 
 man," or the " most beautiful young woman," etc. Then, as 
 fawning sycophants, they come with the smile of a Jesuit and 
 the kiss of a Judas. They love your money but hate your 
 
« ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 Protestant principles, and the Roman clergy would damn your 
 souls if they had the power. 
 
 Q. i^. — Why Protestants may not be buried in a Roman 
 Catholic cemetery. 
 
 A. — No reason except inherent fiendishness and unmiti- 
 gated Popish intolerance. 
 
 Q. i6. — Why Popes John X., XL and XII., and other 
 drunken and licentious popes, are included in the catalogue of 
 Infallible Popes, through whom the Roman clergy profess to 
 receive power to forgive sins, to save or damn the souls of men, 
 and to create from bread and wine, by a few Latin words, " the 
 body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ ?" 
 
 A. — The exclusion of wicked Popes, including drunkai'ds, 
 murderers and fornicators, would cause the boasted chain of 
 " holy unbroken apostolic succession " to fall as a rope of sand. 
 A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Look at a few 
 links and blusli for shame. 
 
 Boniface VIII., Calixtus III., John XII., and Boniface IX. 
 were notoriously covetous. Benedict XII., Adrian IV., Celes- 
 tine III., Innocent IV., Alexander III., Gregory XIII. , Clement 
 v., VI., and VIL, Boniface VIIL, Paul II., John XXIIL, and 
 numerous other popes, were as proud as Satan, which is but one 
 characteristic of all the popes. Sylvester III., and all his suc- 
 cessors for nine or ten popes, were professed conjurers. Licen- 
 tiousness has been a distinguishing characteristic of the popes — 
 their number too numerous, and their crimes too abominable to 
 mention. 
 
 John XII., Gregory V., John XIII., Boniface VII., Bene- 
 dict IX., Innocent III., were murderers. Many popes were 
 instigators of jeal'ousies and discord which cost the lives of 
 thousands. 
 
 Several popes have been schismatics ; two and three con- 
 tending for the supremacy at the same time. These schisms 
 varied from two to six, seven, thirteen, sixteen, twenty, and to 
 thirty-nine years ; and during these periods of ecclesiastical 
 strife, popes cursed each other, and fought against each other 
 while multitudes were slaughtered by their cruel ambition. 
 The base and licentious popes, John X., XL, XII., were golden 
 links in the apostolic chain of Romish succession, with- 
 out which, this chain would be ruinously broken. 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 
 
 Rev. Joseph Reeve, a distinguished historian of the Romisli 
 church, exhibits a few specimen brolten links. He says, in 
 substance: " Italy from the end of the ninth century, was the 
 seat of faction and civil discord. By petty tyrants the patri- 
 mony of St. Peter was torn to pieces and sacrilegiously usurped. 
 The popes were not masters of their own capitol. They were 
 raised to the Papal throne by faction, by intrigue, and by three 
 notorious prostitutes. To these disorders the popes themselves 
 contributed in no small degree." 
 
 Thirty-one popes passed away in io8 years, and this 
 Roman Catholic historian says: " Their number is clear proof 
 that the reign of many of them was short and their end dis- 
 honorable. (See "Deeds of Darkness," pp. 111-112; Reeve, 
 pp. 291 and 315-316.) 
 
 ( Wonder through what line Priest Cashman, of Chicago 
 claims his succession ?) 
 
 Q. 17. — In brief, will Priest Cashman and the Roman 
 clergy state definitely whether the moral theology of Dens, 
 Kenrick, Liguori, etc., are not now approved books on theol- 
 ogy in the Roman Catholic church and whether they do not 
 instruct the Roman clergy to propound to females, in confes- 
 sion, libidinous questions which they dare not reveal to fathers, 
 husbands and brothers? 
 
 A. — The Roman clergy dare not, under oath, deny that 
 the Moral Theology of Dens, Kenrick, and Liguori are approved 
 works, now in our midst, and that it is their duty to propound 
 to females obscene questions in the confessional in a whisper, 
 and under obligation of secrecy. Their only escape is to dodge 
 the issue as Priest Cashman did or plead ignorance as Priest 
 Scheuren, of Chenoa, did, and thereby expose themselves to 
 the liability of an indictment for perjury, otherwise prove them- 
 selves know-nothings, and ecclesiastical frauds. 
 
 Q. 18. — Why a priest, guilty of fornication in the con- 
 fessional, can absolve his female penitent from every other sin, 
 and from that also, if she is in danger of death? 
 
 A. — The Moral Theology of Peter Dens, so instructs; but 
 if the female accomplice is not in danger of death another priest 
 must absolve her; the case is not reserved for the Bishop. 
 (Dens, Vol. VT., p. 397.) 
 
lO ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 Q. ip. — Is there any restriction to the licentiousness of 
 priests in the confessional? 
 
 A. Yes ; a confessor who " falls " or " slays his own soul " 
 
 two or three times a month ought to doubt his qualification for 
 the holy .office. (Dens. Vol. VI., p. 1S5.) 
 
 Q. 20. — Does Auricular Confession promote purity, virtue 
 and chastity ? 
 
 A. — No; it ever has been, and is now a prolific source of 
 crime and debauchery. History attests the fact that it origi- 
 nated in the licentiousness of the Roman clergy in the ninth, 
 tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. That it assumed the 
 form of canon law at the fourth council of Lateran under In- 
 nocent the Third, A. D. 12 15, and was confirmed by the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, Session XI V., ( C. V. and can. 8, etc. ) That it has 
 debauched and enslaved every people and nation where its un- 
 restrained influeniie has predominated. The present degrada- 
 tion of Italy, Spain, South America, Mexico and Cuba is largely 
 the result of debauching the female and youthful minds through 
 the confessional. The proverbial licentiousness of Paris may 
 be largely attributed to the same source. American cities are 
 beginning to exhibit the plague spots of this vile traffic in 
 human souls and female virtue. Magdalene Institutions,Houses 
 of the Good Shepherd, Foundling Institutions, and many of the 
 so-called orphanages are the legitimate results of corruption 
 through Auricular Confession. Holy Rome, (not half so large 
 as Chicago, or St. Louis), with her Holy Pope, Holy Caiydi- 
 nals. Holy Archbishops, Holy Bishops, Holy Priests, Holy 
 Monks, Holy Nuns and Holy Water, could recently boast of 
 one Foundling Institution for illegitimate babes that contained 
 4,000 foundlings . The Italian States could boast that two- 
 thirds of the children born within a period of ten consecutive 
 years were illegitimate. And in the year 1845 Rome could 
 boast that of all the children born within that year 1,213 were 
 supposed to be legitimate, 3,160 illegitimate ; or for every 100 
 legitimate children they had 260 illegitimate. The figures are 
 but a shadow to the substance and they exhibit the legitimate 
 results of Auricular Confession in connection with professed 
 sacerdotal celibacy, Convent and Monastic life. 
 
 Q. 21. — How often are Nuns required to make Confession? 
 
PROTESTANTISil DEFBNDKI). II 
 
 A — Canon law requires them to confess once each month, 
 custom once a week; but they are not necessarily restricted if 
 they are very devotional, or have special pleasure in a more 
 frequent tete-a-tete with a young " Father Confessor." 
 
 Q. 22 — Who authorized the priest to grant absolution to 
 his accomplice " in theft and homicide " when he in law is 
 
 " PARTICEPS CRIMINIS "? 
 
 A. — Roman Theology. (Dens, Vol. VI., p. 228, etc.) 
 
 Q. 23. — By what authority does Peter Dens, St. Thomas, 
 and other Roman theologians, prove that " heretics," such as 
 Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and others, ought to be 
 put to death, their property confiscated and turned over to 
 Roman Catholics who will put them to death and hold their 
 property for the Roman Catholic Church? 
 
 A. — They prove that " heretics " ought to be put to death 
 now by the edicts of Popes and Councils, and by the practice 
 of the Roman Church in past ages when it had the power, and 
 especially by the infallibility of the Pope, and the Church 
 which they declare never changes so that '' what it has done, it 
 would do again if it had the power." (Brownson.) 
 
 Q. 24. — Who are heretics according to the teaching of the 
 Roman Church ? 
 
 A. All who discard popish priestcraft, and maintain the 
 right to think, and act for themselves. 
 
 These intolerant sentiments are taught to children and 
 youth in America, as may be seen in their common books, circu- 
 lated in our midst, with the approbation of Popes and Bishops. 
 [See the following extracts.] 
 
 " Q. What vice is opposite to faith? A. Heresy. Q. 
 What is heresy ? .A. It is an obstinate error in matters of 
 faith." 
 
 " Instruc. — He is a heretic who obstinately maintains 
 anything contrary to the known faith and doctrine of the holy 
 Catholic Church. — Poor Man's Catechism^ p. 10. 
 
 " ' A heretic is one who has an opinion, for such is the ety- 
 mology of the word. What is understood by having an opinion 
 is, following one's fancy and particular sentiment. A Catholic, 
 without maintaining any particular sentiment, follows unhesi- 
 tatingly the doctrine of the Church.' — Garden of Soul, p. 392. 
 
 " Also, Ursuline Manual, f. 504. 
 
12 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 " A person is not to be called a heretic so soon as he errs in 
 matters of faith; then only is he to be so called, when in defi- 
 ance of the authority of the church he maintains impious 
 opinions with unyielding pertinacity." (Catechism of Trent, 
 p. 70.) 
 
 With Roman Catholics this book is infallible authority. 
 Tt is the exponent of canon law. It requires implicit obedi- 
 ence to ecclesiastical superiors, and unreserved submission to 
 their teaching; otherwise the penalty of heresy, which unre- 
 strained by Protestant influence, is corporal punishment, confis- 
 cation of property, and death without the benefit of the clergy 
 or a Christian burial, and exposure to the pains of an endless 
 hell. 
 
 This is, and ever has been true, wherever and whenever 
 popery has had the power to persecute. 
 
 Brownson, the great apostle of American Popery, who 
 had the endorsement of twenty-five Bishops and Pope Pius IX. 
 said: 
 
 " The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not a natural right 
 * * * All the rights the sects have, or can have, are 
 derived from the state, and rest on expediency, hs they 
 have in their character of sects, hostile to true religion (Popery,) 
 no rights under the law of Nature or the law of God ; they 
 are neither wronged or deprived of liberty if the state refuses 
 to grant them any rights at all." — Brownson's Review, Oct. 
 1852, p. 456. 
 
 Again, he said : 
 
 " What the church has done, what she has expressly or 
 tacitly approved in the past — that is exactly what she will do, 
 expressly or tacitly approve, in the future, if^ the same circum- 
 stances occur. 
 
 "Pope Gregory XVI., in 1832, declared 'that liberty of 
 conscience is a most pestilential error,' and that unbridled lib- 
 erty of opinion is that pest of all others most to be 
 DREADED IN THE STATE.' He also denounced 'that worst and 
 never to be sufficiently execrated and detested liberty 
 of the press.'" 
 
 These intolerant sentiments are taught on both continents. 
 
 Bishop Kendrick of St. Louis who wants to be Cardinal 
 says 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. I3 
 
 " Heresy and unbelief me critnes ; that is ihe whole of the 
 matter. And in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain for 
 instance, where all the people are Catholic, and where the 
 Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, 
 they will be punished as other crimes." 
 
 "Are heretics rightly punished with death? St. Thomas 
 answers in the affirmative; because forgers of money, or other 
 disturbers of the State, are justly punished with death; there- 
 fore, also heretics, who are forgers of the faith, and, as experi- 
 ence shows, greatly disturb the State. This is confirmed by 
 the command of God, under the old law, that the false prophets 
 should be killed. The same thing is proved by the condemna- 
 tion, in article 14, of John Huss, in the Council of Constance." 
 (Peter Dens, Vol. II., see's 88-89.) 
 
 " An excommunicated man is deprived of all civil commu- 
 nication with the faithful, in such a way that if he is not toler- 
 ated they can have no communication with him, as it is in the 
 following verse: 'It is forbidden to kiss him, pray with him, 
 salute him, to eat or to do any business with him.' " (St. 
 Liguori, vol. 9, p. 162.) 
 
 " Though heretics must not be tolerated because they de- 
 serve it, we must bear with them till, by a second admonition, 
 they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But 
 those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate in their 
 errors, must not onl}' be excommunicated, but they must be de- 
 livered to the secular power to be exterminated." * * ^ 
 
 " Though the lieretics who repent must always be accepted 
 to penance as often as they have fallen, they must not, in con- 
 sequence of that, always be permitted to enjoy the benefits of 
 this life. * * * When they fall again, they are 
 
 admitted to repent, * * * but the sentence of death 
 
 must not be removed." (St. Thomas, vol. 4, p. 91). etc. 
 
 " Wh':n a man is excommunicated for his apostasy, it fol- 
 lows from the very fact that all those who are his subjects are 
 released from the oath of allegiance by which they were bound 
 to obey him," (St. Thoma'^, vol. 4, p. 94.) [See Facts for the 
 People, 9j««io, 11, 13, etc.] 
 
 Q. 35 — Why are Roman Catholics forming secret militar}' 
 organizations throughout the United States with the approba- 
 
lA. ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 tion of many of their clergy; arming and drilling secretly and 
 getting into State guards? 
 
 A. — They are intended to aid the Roman Catholic " Revo- 
 lutionary Organizations " in our midst, which are plotting the 
 destruction of Protestantism, civil and religious liberty in Eng- 
 land, Canada and the United States. 
 
 Q. 26. — Wliere is the first blow to be stricken, and in what 
 order? 
 
 A. — First against England, under pretext of liberating 
 Ireland, when, in fact, it is Popery against a Protestant Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The second effort will be made to sever Canada from the 
 British CroN^'n. 
 
 The third effort, according to the present program will be 
 a special effort to subvert or destroy our system of free schools, 
 intimidate pseudo Protestants, manipulate partisans, and, so far 
 as possible, by secular and political influence, subsidize or muz- 
 zle the secular ]5ress, suppress the freedom of speech, hold the 
 balance of power, legislate in the interest of Popery, and ulti- 
 mately endeavor to subvert American Independence and 
 " establish Popery on its ruins." Futile and vain as may be 
 their theory, their present purpose is understood. 
 
 Q. 27. — Why did the Legislature of the State of Illinois, 
 by special act, disarm all the independent Fenian and Commu- 
 nistic organizations of the State? 
 
 A. — Because the peace and safety of the State imperiously 
 demanded it. 
 
 It passed an act which took effect July ist, 1879, which 
 de^clared " It shall not be lawful for any body of men, whatever 
 other than the regular organized Volunteer Militia of this 
 State, and the troops of the United States to associate them- 
 selves together as a Military Company or Organization, or drill 
 or parade with arms in any city or town in this State, with- 
 out the license of the Governor thereof, which license may 
 at any tinu be revoked, etc." (Military Code, Act IX., Sec. s ) 
 This act ostensibly struck at Co nmunism in Chicago, but 
 it doubtless had a wider and deeper signification. It disbanded 
 the secret Fenian Military Organizations throughout the States. 
 It ought to have prohibited the secret collection of arms,ammu- 
 nition, nitro-glycerine, dynamite, and instruments of' death for 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. I5 
 
 unlawful uses. Roman Catholics have no better right to be 
 collecting the instruments of death in our midst than other re- 
 ligious denominations. And there is no necessit}- that Chicago 
 No. 2 State Guards should be largely Romanists (which fact 
 has not been generally known). 
 
 Q. 28. — What is the object of the "skirmishing fund" 
 collected by J. O'Donovan Rossa, late of 182 Chatham Square, 
 New York, and James J. Clancy, 114 Willoughby Street, 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., and by Ford and others of the Irish World. 
 
 A. — The Secret and Confidential Circulars of O'Donovan 
 Rossa sent by mistake declare that the objectof the "skirmish- 
 ing fund " is to aid the Revolutionary Organizations by an 
 irregvdar warfare with dynamite and nitro-glycerine, by indis- 
 criminate destruction of life and property, incendiary fires, etc. 
 " while the regular Military Organizations are preparing for 
 the heavier and more regular war." (See Roman Catholic 
 Conspiracv- Exposed, by Rev. J. G. White.) 
 
 . Q. 29. — If the military organizations and skirmishing 
 funds are to be used exclusively in Ireland, why have the con- 
 tributions from Canada and Ireland been sent to Ford and 
 O'Donovan Rossa in New York City? 
 
 A. — The skirmishing movement originated in New York 
 city with O'Donovan Rossa, an ex-British convict. Ford of 
 the Irish World, wanted to be the biggest toad in the puddle. 
 Rossa could not submit to that, hence their croaking and crimi- 
 nation. There is one point in which both agree, namely: 
 That it is safer at present to plot and plan treason and assassina- 
 tion in New York than in London, where Victoria " neckties " 
 are used to elevate such infamous would-be assassins. 
 
 Q. 30. — If the Roman clergy are not in sympathy with and 
 endorsing the treasonable Fenian and Clan-na-Gael conspirac}-, 
 why do they not from the altar and through the papers de- 
 nounce the treasonable conspiracy ? And why do some of them 
 publicly contribute to the funds? 
 
 A. — The Roman clergy, and their leading papers are 
 largely in the interest of the Roman Catholic conspiracy against 
 the English government, because they desire to make Ireland 
 exclusively Romish and under the Roman clergy. If they 
 succeed the Protestant Irish will remember the days of their 
 ancestors and panal persecutions. 
 
l6 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 Q. 31. — If the '■'■skirmish movement^^\s not in the interest 
 of Popery why are its funds so exclusively contributed and 
 controlled by Romanists? And why are the Hibernians, and 
 members of other secret Roman Catholic, organizations the 
 most zealous contributors and advocates of the movement? 
 
 A.— The "skirmishing fund," the " National Movement," 
 the "Land League," the "Invincibles," etc., are in the interest 
 of Popery, and Protestants should shun their pernicious influ- 
 ence as they would shun an "ecclesiastical despotism." 
 
 Q. 32. — If the '■'■skirmishers''' do not contemplate a simul- 
 taneous uprising and the destruciion of life and property by 
 "fire," the musket, nitro-glycerine, dynamite, etc., why have 
 they persistently asserted, privately and publicly, that this was 
 their intention ? Why have they boasted that they would 
 "make a larger fire than that of Chicago," and that "all the 
 cities of England would be in ashes within five years." 
 
 A. — If the skirmishers do not contemplate the indiscrimi- 
 nate destruction of English life and property, their skirmishing 
 movement is a fraud and the leaders ought to be imprisoned 
 for life. 
 
 If the leaders attempt assassination as they threaten they 
 ought 10 be hanged high as Haman, or Priest Garnett for his 
 gunpowder conspiracy. In either case all true patriots and 
 Protestants should scorn a system of so-called religion that will 
 wink at treason, arson and assassination. 
 
 Q. 33. — If Roman Catholics, to gratify their fiendish 
 malignity, may with nitro-glycerine, dynamite, gunpowder 
 and the knife assassinate Protestants in England and Ireland 
 why mav they not do the same in America? 
 
 A. — They may, with equal justice when the interest of 
 Popery demands it ; but there is no necessity for such infamous 
 conduct on either continent, and Americans who are aiding the 
 Fenians and Clan-na-Gaels, are sowing to the wind and may 
 reap the whirlwind. 
 
 Q. 34. — Why did the little red-headed priest, Scheuren, 
 and his saloon-keeper Hickey, and the bigoted papists of Chenoa 
 make such consummate asses of themselves in Bloomino-ton 
 111., on the I2th of April, 1883? 
 
 A. — They could not do otherwise. They had been plot- 
 ting and plftnnin<]f for eight month's to rlc^troy thp character and 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. I7 
 
 take the property of an accredited Protestant minister for sim- 
 ply telling- the truth, and exposing the abominations of Auricu- 
 lar Confession. 
 
 They had taken Roman Catholic counsel. They had en- 
 gaged and hired men of the baser sort to swear in their interest, 
 including the gambler, the thief, the saloonist, the highway 
 robber, the burglar and ex-convict of the penitentiary. Hickey 
 had collected money to bribe witnesses and hire a Romanist to 
 prosecute, and having taken every precaution to crush his in- 
 tended victim he came into court, and through his Roman 
 Catholic counsel was compelled to admit that he ' had no cause 
 of complaint against the man. ("Homo.") 
 
 Q. 35. — What is the substance of this admission and the 
 decision of the court? 
 
 A. — It settles the question, beyond a doubt, that the book 
 by "HOMO" is a legitimate publication, that it is simply fair 
 extracts and literal translations from the approved "Moral The- 
 ology" of the Roman clergy now in use in our midst, relative 
 to the secret abominations of Auricular Confession as daily 
 practiced by Roman priests in the confessional. 
 
 It is a public and tacit admission in open court that the 
 "Moral Theology" of Peter Dens and F. P. Kendrick are now 
 approved works on Roman Theology, and that under the obli- 
 gation of eternal secrecy and under the penalty of endless 
 damnation females are required to have libidinous communica- 
 tions with bachelor priests in the confessional, the disclosure of 
 which horrifies and almost petrifies the pious!!! (degraded) 
 souls of Hickey, Tom Powers, M. Cowley, Charles Thorp, etc. 
 
 Q. 36. — Why did Hickey not introduce the resident priest 
 of Chenoa, J. J. Scheuren, to swear in court in Bloomington, 
 that the Latin books were not genuine and not now in use? 
 
 A. — He dare not do it; he knew that he would perjure 
 himself and get a free pass to the State's prison in Joliet if he 
 did. He knew that the feigned ignorance which he affected in 
 Chenoa would not protect him in a Bloomington court. 
 
 Q. 37. — Since Hickey had eight months to prepare his 
 malicious prosecution, with the priest of Chenoa at his back, 
 with the character of the whole Roman Church involved in 
 the issue, with thirteen Archbishops, fifty-nine Bishops and 
 6,546 pric't- in the United States, profc=s;ng to gr;int judicial 
 
l8 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 pardon as God Almighty, and to save or damn the souls of men 
 at pleasure — why did not some one of this 6,618 clergy come 
 to his relief and disprove books and facts. 
 
 A. — Not one of them dare come into a Bloomington court 
 and swear that the original Latin books are not genuine and 
 now in use by the highest authority of the Roman Church, and 
 that it is the duty of priests in the Confessional to have com- 
 munications with females on the most indelicate subjects. 
 
 J|@°='Now let Priest Cashman if he dare accept the issue 
 under oath. 
 
 Q. 38. — What amount of the money collected by Hickey 
 was from the resident Priest at Chenoa and his congregation, 
 and what amount did Hickey contribute in person and collect 
 from other Romanists? 
 
 A. — Hickey prefers not to be interrogated as he would 
 have been in court, and as his hirelings and dupes would have 
 been compelled to testify against him. 
 
 Q. 39. — Since M. Cowley, the underground whisky guz-» 
 zler, published in the Lexington paper that he would pay $25 
 if the speaker would repeat the lecture to men within thirty 
 days, giving one day's previous notice, and since the lecturer 
 complied strictly with every condition in his proposed contract, 
 why did he not pay? 
 
 A. — He evidently saw that another effort to raise a mob 
 would not pay. That he could neither intimidate the mayor 
 nor the lecturer, and that in the end it might be a very unpleas- 
 ant and expensive business to him, and that finally his pri'. st, 
 for the $25 and free drinks could absolve him from the false- 
 hood, and that the safest thing for him was to creep back 
 quietly into his underground bummer's den and never disclose 
 to the people of Chenoa who it was that told the lie. 
 
 Q. 40.— Why did " Q. E. D." become so wonderfully 
 hysterical over the lectures? 
 
 A. — Possibly his craft was in danger, he might miss the 
 sale of a few suger coated pills, or might not be called upon to 
 officiate in some future difficult case of " ante-natal baptism " 
 or " csesarean section." 
 
 Q. 41.— Why did Hickey not pay that boy the $1 10 for 
 swearing out the complaint, and pay Thorp, principal sustain- 
 ing witness? 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. I9 
 
 A. — Hickey found no blood money in that business, and 
 the criminal court of Livingston county found work for Thorp 
 in Joliet for " highway robbery," and the citizens of Chenoa 
 could send Thorp to the State's prison a third term for burglary 
 and grand larceny, committed while he was Hickey's witness. 
 
 Q. 42. — What does this malicious prosecution and papal 
 fersecutioii of Priest Scheuren and Hickey merit? 
 
 A. — It merits a fine of not less than $10,000 and the un- 
 mitigated contempt of all right-minded persons. 
 
 Now let Priest Cashman thoroughly commit this 
 " Shorter Catechism Made Easy," and he shall be entitled to a 
 new lesson and a ten-cent chaplet of wooden beads and a few 
 drops of holy water to keep away the " divil " and to protect 
 him against ghosts and witches. 
 
 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. 
 
 Before dismissing this subject, reader, pause and ask in 
 the name of all that is sacred, did the Prince of Peace descend 
 to earth to establish a civil despotism, or an ecclesiastical brothel? 
 Is the God of Love the autlior of a system of debauchery and 
 intolerance? Did He who wept at the grave of Lazarus, san- 
 tion tlie corruption of Sodom and the spirit of the Inquisition? 
 Did He who prayed for his enemies when expiring on the 
 Cross, institute the flames of Auto-da-fe? Did He who said 
 " I am the way, and the truth," authorize perjury? Did H!e 
 who said, " I am the door," " I am the Good Shepherd," " I 
 give unto them Eternal Life," transfer His power and author- 
 ity over the way of Life and the destiny of immortal souls to a 
 class of inen— who, as Pollock might have said: 
 
 "Steal the livery of tlie court of Heaven, 
 To serve the devil ; in virtue's guise — 
 ***** transact villainies, 
 That common sinners durst not meddle with—" 
 
 Believe it who can, I could sooner believe that wolves had 
 been divinely appointed shepherds, and hyenas the protector^ of 
 helpless infancy. I could as soon believe that devils liad be- 
 come intercessors, and hell had been translated to Paradise. 
 Is not this the Babylonish harlot of the Apocalypse, who 
 
20 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 ***** " With horrid relish drank the blood 
 
 Of God's peculiar children — and was drunk ; 
 
 And in her drunkenness dreamed of doing good, 
 
 The supplicating hand of innocence, 
 
 That made the tiger mild, and in his wrath 
 
 The lion pause — the groans of suffering most 
 
 Severe were naught to her ; she laughed at groans ; 
 
 No music pleased her more ; and no repast 
 
 So sweet to her as blood of men redeemed 
 
 By blood of Christ. Ambition's self, though mad 
 
 And nursed on human gore, with her compared 
 
 Was merciful. Nor did she always rage ; 
 
 She had some hours of meditation, set 
 
 Apart, wherein she to her study went ; 
 
 The Inquisition model most complete 
 
 Of perfect wickedness, where deeds were done, 
 
 Deeds ! let them ne'er be named, — and sat and planned 
 
 Deliberately, and with most amusing pains, 
 
 How, to extremist thrill of agony. 
 
 The flesh, and blood, and souls of holy men 
 
 Her victims might be wrought ; and when she saw 
 
 New tortures of her laboring fancy born, 
 
 She leaped for joy, and made great haste to try 
 
 Their force, — well pleased to hear a deeper groan." 
 
 J|@"Priest Cashman when you require another lesson call 
 again. 
 
 Our respects to 
 
 PROFESSOR SWING, 
 with whom we have no personal acquaintance, whose position 
 is supposed to be some where among the Protestant clergy, 
 though not very clearly defined. He doubtless has split all the 
 fine hairs of theological exegesis from Calvin to Wesley, but 
 manifests an inexcusable indifference, or want of information 
 on Romanism. He has evidently permitted himself to be 
 mtide the cat's-paw of a tivo-penny paper published in the in- 
 terest of popery. He was not present to hear the address at 
 the meeting of Methodist ministers. And as yet there is no 
 evidence that his informer was competent to report a single 
 section or paragraph from the Latin books used on that occa- 
 sion. He predicated his verdict on the exparte statement of an 
 incompetent witness, against the united testimony of six lin- 
 guists chosen at discretion by the meeting, and probably not 
 less than 150 intelHgent ministers, many of whom were doubt- 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 2 1 
 
 less as competent to judge of facts as Rev. David Swing. He 
 says, " I do not think any good is accomplished by abuse of 
 the Catholic church," said Professor David Swing, referring to 
 the 1 litter attack against the followers of the pope made by 
 Rev. J. G. White in a paper read before the meeting of Meth- 
 odist ministers. 
 
 Here is conclusive evidence that Rev. D. Swing was not 
 present to hear the address, and that he had not a truthful re- 
 port from the meeting. The truth is Rev. J. G. White did 
 not " read a faper,"" he stated facts and sustained them by ap- 
 proved Roman books in the hands of linguists, and if the Rev. 
 David Swing does not accept their verdict he can in person 
 have an opportunity to test the books and facts in presence of 
 all the Roman Priests and Protestant clergy of Chicago. Now 
 let us have no back-handed slaps, or evasive dodges. Note 
 again: 
 
 '' I do not think anv good is accomplished by abuse of the 
 Catholic church." Is not this a gratuitous misrepresentation ; 
 is it not a false insinuation; is it not manifestl}' unjust? Who 
 i% '■'■ abusing the. Roman Catholic church "? When Professor 
 Swing opposed the doctrines of John Calvin as taught in the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, was he intending to abuse 
 the Presbyterian church? would he have thanked the Metho- 
 ists for employing an ignorant penny-a-line (or printer's devil,) 
 to interview and report from St. Augustine, or would he have 
 permitted the venerable saint to think for him? Is the Rev. 
 David Swing the only man on the globe competent to think? 
 Must he do all the thinking for the clergy and the people of 
 Chicago? Are there not thousands of Protestants clergymen 
 as competent to think as he? "Whence our Cfflsar's great- 
 ness?" Who constituted him an infallible umpire over pul- 
 pit, pew and press? "And," continued Professor Swing, 
 " meetings for that purpose I can scarcely believe to be wise." 
 What if he does not "believe it wise"? What has his faith to 
 do with the discussion of Romanism, with the duties and re- 
 sponsibilities of other men? The fact is, he hardly had sutli. 
 cient faith to retain him as an accredited minister in the great 
 Presbyterian Church. Stop parson, and swing around in your 
 .own small orbit. 
 
 Again he says, "Two hundred years ago, when vices were 
 
22 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 more prevalent in the Catholic church, the attack might have 
 been more advisable." What does this mean? Was vice 
 "more prevalent two hundred years ago" in the palmy days of 
 the Roman church than now? Has unchangeable infallibility 
 changed for the better? Is Professor Swing playing the Jes- 
 uit to mislead uninformed Protestants, oris he so consummately 
 ignorant of Romanism that he unwittingly offered a gross in- 
 sult to his Roman friends by stating to the world that the "infal- 
 lible holy mother church " has changed, and that " its priests 
 were often licentious." He might have added much along this 
 line. He might have jsroved from Roman history that not 
 only priests, but Bishops and Popes not a few have been men 
 of the " baser sort." That the moral theology of the church 
 and auricular confession have not changed for the better. 
 That Rome to-day restrained by Protestant influence and legal 
 enactments is the " mother of harlots drunk with the blood of 
 saints." That while convents, and monasteries, in the city of 
 Rome are becoming barracks for soldiers, and livery stables for 
 horses, the licentious inmates by shiploads are dotting their 
 plague spots on American soil. That the Council of Trent 
 sanctioned sacerdotal celibacy and clerical concubinage, which 
 by a general council has never been repealed. Again he says: 
 "It may have been that the confessional was abused and used 
 for bad purposes." Why this evasion? Does he not know that 
 auricular confession ever has been, and is now, a prolific source 
 of crime and debauchery? He knows it, or he does not know 
 it. If he does not know it his ignorance is inexcusable. If he 
 does know it, why this ignoble and Jesuitic evasion ? 
 
 Again, " th^Protestant Church though, has not been free 
 from scandal." Not content to apologize for papal licentious- 
 ness he must misrepresent and slander the Protestant Church 
 and men who have the moral courage to speak the truth. 
 
 Hear him: "As I said abuse of Catholicism 'never did any 
 good. There is Father Chiniquy. For forty years he has 
 been traveling over the country exposing the confessional and 
 ■has accomplished naught in the way of good. Dr. Fulton a 
 Baptist, has been ' roaring ' all his life against Catholicism." 
 
 Here again is evidence of consummate ignorance of facts or 
 a willful Jesuit mud fling at our faithful Protestant ministers. 
 We challenge investigation. Thousands of Romanists have 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 23 
 
 been recently converted from superstition and idolatry by the 
 labors of Rev. Charles Chiniquy, Dr. Fulton and other minis- 
 ters of similar faith and works. Not less than six ex-priests 
 have recently lectured in Boston, and in harmony with Rev. 
 Charles Chiniquey, Dr. Fulton and others. Among this num- 
 ber were Rev. Father O'Connor, of New York; Father Walsh, 
 of Brooklyn; Father Slatterly, of Philadelphia, Pa.; Rev. 
 Daily, of Boston, etc. 
 
 These men were not alone as may be seen by reference to 
 the following program of the Boston committee of " one hun- 
 dred " in the year 1890. Will Professor Swing say that "the 
 committee of one hundred " and the Boston clergy are a set of 
 cranks, fools, and fanatics, " roarrz;^^ " all their lives "against 
 Catholicism "? 
 
 We recently sat on the platform and heard Dr. Fulton 
 "roar" in the Tremont Temple, Boston, when thousands 
 packed the building and hundreds more could not gain admit- 
 tance, when the police were compelled to clear hundreds of 
 men from the aisles and platform for the better protection of 
 life and property. Rev. Charles Chiniquy and Dr. Fulton 
 require no commendation from Professor Swing. The follow- 
 ing '^roup includes distinguished Protestant clergyman of 
 Boston, who stand with them in defense of the right. (See 
 program.) 
 
 MUSIC HALL. 
 
 Patriotic Discourses 
 
 Every Sunday at 2:30 P. M. 
 
 The following Speakers are engaged: 
 
 Rev. PHILIP S. MOXOM, I). D. Rev. ANDREW GRAY, D. D. 
 
 Rev. JOHN J. SMALL WOOD. Rev. J. a. WHITE. 
 
 Rev. CHARLES CHINIQUY. Rev. J. A. HAMILTON, D. D. 
 
 Rev. LUTHER TOWNSEND, D. D. Rev. J. NELSON LEWIS. 
 
 Rev. ELIJAH HORR, D. D. Rev. HUGH MONTGOMERY. 
 
 The names of Dr. McCalister, of New York ; Dr. Lori- 
 mer, or Chicago ; Dr. Brown, of Dubuque, Iowa, etc., may be 
 
24 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND 
 
 found in other groups. Not excepting Mrs. Siiepherd, Presi- 
 dent of the Loyal Women of Boston ; Mrs. Auffrary and 
 other converts from Romanism who from personal experience 
 know wh&reof they affirm. Let Professor Swin^ save his 
 tears for a more important occasion. Protestant ministers 
 who have the courage of their convictions do not require 
 either his sympathy or personal abuse. 
 
 When did the Protestant Church permit its clergy to keep 
 concubines ? 
 
 When did it permit and authorize its clergy to absolve 
 their own licentious prostitutes ? 
 
 When did it require its clergy to cloister females in dark 
 centry boxes under obligation of eternal secrecy, and under 
 penalty of damnation answer the most infamous questions that 
 debauched humanity can devise or invent — which the church 
 of Rome does now in Chicago? If there was virtuous modesty 
 in hell, these vile questions would cause the chief of devils to 
 blush for shame. 
 
 What right has Professor Swing to place the Protestant 
 Church on a level with such shameless debauchery. It is 
 manifestly unjust to select a few isolated renegades (w^ho had 
 violated every principle of Protestant virtue) to prop a system 
 of unmitigated licentiousness. Shame on such fawning syco- 
 phancy. A professed minister of Jesus Christ who in this hour 
 of our country's peril will cater to papal caprice, wink at a 
 system of debauchery and attempt to smirch the character of 
 accredited Protestant ministers, merits rebuke. 
 
 From Professor Swing's standpoint, it would seem to be 
 all right for the Roman clergy to debauch virtuous modesty 
 through the confessional, but woe to the man who expose 
 it. The judge must be hung, but the murderer go free; the 
 sheriff must be imprisoned, but the horse-thief trusted as an 
 honest man; the faithful minister who defends insulted virtue, 
 must be denounced as vulgar, and the papal debauchers of 
 society regarded as patrons of virtue and morality. Such is 
 the legitimate result of Professor Swing's logic, if he has any. 
 
 Is it right for bachelor priests to have communications 
 with children, youth, and females in the confessional, which an 
 accredited minister seventy-two years old, and with closed doors, 
 may not disclose to oihcr min'stcrs? If ministers may not'pro- 
 
I'ROIKSTANTISM DJil"' KND li I). ^5 
 
 tect outraged and insulted virtue, wlio may? To affect a false 
 modesty, is to sanction vice. To ignore well authenticated 
 facts, is an evidence of ignorance, impertinence, or moral cow- 
 ardice, or all combined. Would it not be well fon Professor 
 Swing to inform himself as to the obligations and practice of 
 auricular confession, otherwise tarry at Jericho till his theolog- 
 ical Protestant beard grows apace? 
 
 Charity suggests that Professor Swing is in blissful ignor- 
 ance of the secret abominations of auricular confession, as now 
 practiced throughout the United States, (including the city of 
 Chicago). We have only coasted along the shore of abound- 
 less ojean of filth. We have only breathed a zephyr that may 
 precede a cyclone. In a work for the promiscuous reader, we 
 cannot disturb the scum of this putrescent cesspool, by trans- 
 lating a single sentence from the original. A few straws may, 
 for the present, indicate the direction of the wind. Take, for 
 example, " The Garden of the Soul" the new American 
 edition. Published in New York, endorsed by Archbishop 
 Hughes and Cardinal McClosky. Catalogued and sold to the 
 laity throughout the United States. It may be found in parlor, 
 dining-room and kitchen ; in the hands of youth and female, 
 maids and matrons. It is as common as a Methodist Discipline, 
 a Presbyterian Confession of Faith, as a Baptist hymn-book, oi- 
 an Episcopal prayer-book. We hereby defiantly challenge 
 Professor Swings or Priest Casliman, to disprove these facts. 
 This is one of the numerous manuals in the hands of the laity, 
 each containing instructions relative to the same subject. 
 
 These leading suggestive questions are only preliminary to 
 refresh the memory, before the soul-searching, cross-examina- 
 tion of the penitent in the confessional at discretion by the 
 priest. And here let it be understood that these questions are 
 but the shadow to the substance. That the communications 
 in the confession, especially with females, are as much blacker 
 than these as the ink with which we write is blacker than the 
 paper on which we write. If any Protestant minister doubts 
 the facts, let him turn to the approved Roman Latin Theology 
 now in use in our midsts, and we will furnish him scores of 
 volumes. 
 
 The following are a few of the preparatory questions, (see 
 Garden of the Soul): 
 
26 ROMANISM KXPOSED AND 
 
 Pages 213 and 214. "VI. Have you been guilty of for- 
 nication, or adultery, or incest, or any sin against nature, even 
 with a person of the same sex, or with any other creature? 
 How often* Or have you designed, or attempted any such 
 sin, or sought to induce others to it? How often? 
 
 " Have you been guilty of self-pollution? or of immodest 
 touches of yourself? How often? 
 
 " Have you touched others, or permitted yourself to be 
 touched by others, immodestly? or given or taken wanton 
 kisses or embraces, or any such liberties? How often? 
 
 " Have 3'ou looked at immodest objects with pleasure or 
 danger? read immodest books or songs to yourself or others? 
 kept indecent pictures? willingly given ear to, and taken pleas- 
 ure in hearing loose discourse, &c.? or sought to see or hear 
 anything that was immodest? How often? 
 
 "Have you exposed yourself to wanton company? or 
 played at any indecent play? or frequented masquerades, balls, 
 comedies, etc., with danger to your chastity? How often? 
 
 " Have you been guilty of any immodest discourses, wan- 
 ton stories, jests, or songs, or words of double meaning? How 
 often? and before how many? and were the persons before 
 whom you spoke or sung married or single? For all this you 
 are obliged to confess, by reason of the evil thoughts these 
 things are apt to create in the hearers." 
 
 " Have you abused the marriage bed by any actions con- 
 trary to the order of nature? or by any pollutions? or been 
 guilty of any irregularity, in order to hinder your having 
 children? How often? 
 
 "Have you, without a just cause, refused the marriage 
 debt? and what sin followed from it? How often?" etc. 
 
 Now let Professor Swing turn to the Latin Theology of 
 Francis Patrick Kenrick, late Archbishop of lialtimore. The 
 most distinguished writer of the Roman Chuixh in America, 
 who had the Apostolic Benediction of Pope Gregory XVI. and 
 Pope Pius IX. And whose works are catalogued, and sold in 
 the large Roman bookstores generally throughout the United 
 States and in the City of Chicai;o. For instruction relative 
 to some of the above suggestive questions let Professor Swing 
 refer to the First Edition of Kenrick's Theology, Vol. III., 
 p. 308, Paragraph II. "Z?e usu Conjugii.'''' 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 27 
 
 See 67 " Conjugii usus, modo ration! lictus, est," etc. 
 
 " Situs naturalis est," etc. 
 
 '' Situs autem innaturalis est," etc., etc., etc. 
 Or refer to the late Mechlin Edition from the Society of the 
 Propagation of the Faith, Vol. II., p. 296, 7, 8, etc. Also 
 Vol. I., p. 20S-209. See 92, etc. Pages of references might 
 be given on the same subject from ail approved works on 
 Theology in the United States. Dens, Liguori, Perrone, Gury, 
 Bellairmin, St. Thomas, and other approved Theologians 
 whese works are in our possession sustain the moral Theology 
 of Kenrick. The " Index Libroriim Prohibitorum " lying 
 before us with the seal of the Pope shows that our books are 
 not prohibited. 
 
 NEXT COMES DR. WITHROW 
 
 As an exponent of the Reformation in the Roman Church. 
 Of this man personally we know^ nothing, but shall assume 
 that he is a gentleman, a scholar, a Christian, and a minister in 
 a large church of a highly respected and much esteemed de- 
 nomination of Protestant Christians. And furthermore it may 
 be possible that the reporter did him injustice. He certainly 
 was liable to commit such a blunder if no more competent to 
 repeat his statements correctly than he was to report the lecture 
 on Roman Latin Theology. But since Dr. vVithrow, so far as 
 we are informed, has neither denied nor corrected the report it 
 may be regarded as substantially true. 
 
 Now what has he to say: " I see no use in holding up the 
 relics of a barbarism past * * * and can see no benefit 
 that can ever accrue from dilating in extensio on prurient sub- 
 jects." 
 
 This certainly is strange language from the lips of a Pres- 
 byterian minister who claims his authority from Jesus Christ 
 through the teaching of St. Paul, and John Knox. Whose 
 church has been honored, and blessed, by the labors of so many 
 able Protestant defenders of the faith once delivered unto the 
 saints. Shades of Breckenridge, Rice, Jacobus, Prime, and 
 others blush for shame. To say the least of it, whatever may 
 be the theological attainments of the reverend gentleman on 
 other subjects, he manifests consummate ignorance of the pres- 
 
28 ROMANISM EXPOSED \ND 
 
 ent theological status of the Church of Rome. What cardinal 
 dogma of the Romish church " is past " ? 
 
 What idolatrous practice has been discarded? 
 
 What intolerant principle in approved theology has been 
 eradicated ? 
 
 What claim to spiritual and temporal universal sovereignty 
 by divine right has been discarded? 
 
 What reformation has there been in the approved dogma 
 of the Roman church from St. Thomas Aquinas to Kenrick 
 and the Jesuit Gury ? 
 
 What modification of the vile and unnamable obscenities of 
 Auricular Confession? 
 
 What change in the blasphemous dogma of Transubstanti- 
 ation? 
 
 What improvement in the pious fraud known as purga- 
 tory ? 
 
 What evidence that the smouldering fires of the Inquisition 
 are not now being fanned to a flame? 
 
 What evidence that the Pope of Rome, the Jesuits and 
 Roman Hierarchy are not at this moment plotting the destruc- 
 tion of civil and religious liberty in the United States? 
 
 What good can result from an accredited minister expos- 
 ing his ignorance of facts w^hich are known to others and which 
 he cannot disprovef 
 
 Why lend his influence to prevent the disclosure of facts? 
 
 He evidently intended to ignore these facts, or prevent a 
 true and faithful exposure of them. He said, " We don't wish 
 to blind ourselves and say certain sins never have existed ; but 
 when there is a quicksand in the road we place a stick in the 
 ground to warn off people and do not keep continually stirr- 
 ing up the quagmire." Why ignore the fact that the '■'■certain 
 sins " referred to, do now exist to an alarming extent? Why 
 ignore the " quagmire " or apply the mild remedy of merely 
 sticking a " stick in the ground." Why not remove the "quag- 
 mire "and dispense with the small stick? Why permit the 
 road to be obstructed by such an intolerable nuisance? But if 
 the " quagmire " has been removed for " three hundred years " 
 as he would seem to intimate, where is the necessity for the 
 Doctor's lidle stick? If the Doctor will study the Roman 
 Catechism as taught in parochial schools (to say nothino- of ap- 
 
PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 39 
 
 proved Roman Theology), he may learn that the "quagmire" 
 of Auricular Confession extends across the road of every 
 Romanist, and that it is impossible to pass around it by the aid 
 of the little stick. The Doctor's remedy of milk and water, in 
 homeopathic doses will not eradicate the disease. His small 
 yellow flag over a pest-house, will not cure the thousand and 
 millions already prostrate with the desolating pestilence. 
 
 His "quicksand quagmire" is not an insignificant obstruc- 
 tion beside the obscure pathway of transient footpads. To 
 every true Roniimist it extends across the pathway of life, it is 
 a slimy cesspool that must be plunged to its lowest depth, 
 otherwise the weary traveler exposed to an endless hell. This 
 is not a subject for witticisms and child's play with small sticks. 
 It is no time for a faithful watchman to refuse to give warning. 
 It is no time to play the "dumb dog" "daub with untempered 
 mortar," and "cry peace." For a man of Dr. Withrow's posi- 
 tion to insinuate "pruriency" and "hypothetical" "indecent" 
 "effusions," is an insult to the intelligence of all true Protest- 
 ants. Why does he not come out in manly attitude and dis- 
 prove the books and facts disclosed in the said lecture? The 
 fact is he can not do it, and we hereby defiantly challenge the 
 issue. 
 
 We have no apology for using plain language and defi- 
 antly vindicating facts, for exposing the abominations of 
 popish priestcraft. The united and unprovoked assault of the 
 Post and these reverend gentlemen was gratuitous, their in- 
 vidious insinuations were uncalled for, and their ephemeral ef- 
 forts to evade facts is worthy of commiseration. 
 
 As to the Post we have no ammunition small enough for 
 the popish game. As to the Reverened Theological Censors, 
 Priest Cashman, Professor Swing and Dr. Withrow, we here- 
 by defiantly challenge either of them, in the absence of youth 
 and females, X.0 meet us in honorable oral discussion, under 
 parliamentary usage, and disprove the facts disclosed in our 
 lecture on Auricular Confession. Now, let the issue be squarely 
 met or the facts be accepted as unanswerable. 
 
 J. G. White. 
 
 National Hotel, Chicago, III., Dec. 26, l8go. 
 
 P. S. — Dr. Withrow will please note the parting words of 
 a venerable Presbyterian minister only a few days before his 
 
30 ROMANISM EXPOSED. 
 
 death, addressed to Rev. J. G. White. In closing a fraternal 
 letter he said: "I think with you, that a battle is near at hand, 
 and our people are asleep. Wishing you great success, I am 
 truly yours, S. Irenaus Prime." 
 
^ 
 
 KIND WORDS. 
 
 Having preached or lectured against Eomanism in twenty-eight churches, 
 of the different denominations in New York, City, Brooklyn, and Jersey City, with 
 the verbal or written commendation of the Pastors, we insert the following for the 
 benefit of those who may not be familiar with our work. These letters were ad- 
 dressed to us at our hotel, in New York, from Ministers occupying responsible 
 positions. 
 
 The Eev. Dr. Parmly writes : — 
 
 "Jersey City, Nov. 30, 1872. 
 
 I have listened with interest and profit to the Rev. J. G. Wwtte, in his exposure 
 of the error.s and dangers of Roman Catholicism. 1 have also examined the authorities 
 in tlie original languages, on which he bu.ses his Lectures, and, botli from the hearing 
 and examination, I heartily commend him for his gentlemanly deixirtnient, eloquence, 
 fair-dealing, yet faithfulness, in treating such momentous, and difficult subjects. 
 
 WHEELOCK H. PARMLY, 
 "Pastor, First Baptist Church, Jersey City, N. J." 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Selleck writes : — 
 
 "New York, Dec. 11, 1S72. 
 
 The sermon on 'Romanism' and the lecture on 'Auricular Confession,' delivered 
 last month by the Rev. J. G. White, in the church of which I am the Pastor, more 
 than met our expectations, and called forth a free and hearty end(jr,scment of our good 
 brother and his mission. 
 
 J. ^X. SELLECK 
 Pastor, J^lh St. M. E. Church, Aeie York." 
 
 The Eev. Mr. Willcox writes ; — 
 
 "Jeesey City, iJec. 15, 1872. 
 I take pleasure in testifying that Rev. J. G. White, has lectured with much 
 acceptance in this City, and that, in the opinion of those who have heard him, his dis- 
 closures of the evils and iniquities of Romanism have great power and fitness to their im- 
 portant purpose. 
 
 G. BUCKINGHAJI WILLCOX, 
 
 Pastor First Con<jregational Church." 
 
 The Eev. Oscar Hugo, the Hungarian exile, who was banished from his 
 native land twenty-one years, on account of his Protestant principles, when 
 about to return to his home, called at our hotel and left the following note : — 
 ^EV. J. G. White. " New York, Dec. 19, 1872. 
 
 Dear Sir and Brother .-—It is with great pleasure that I .state that my personal know- 
 ledge of yourself and your labors is such as to esteem you as a valuable brother, engaged in 
 a good and much-needed work. Indeed, Romanism is the mast dreaded foe to American 
 Institutions, and your exposures of the secret workings of that aboiiiiimble ]iower is 
 calculated to do much good. Commending your labors to the blessing of God, and yourself 
 to the protection of our gracious Lord and .Master, 
 
 I am yours, in the bonds of one Christ, 
 
 OSCAR HUGO." 
 
The Rev. Dr. Harkness, a venerable Presbyterian Minister, who is favorably 
 known as an author, and who has devoted much attention to the Eoman con- 
 troversy, writes: — 
 
 "Jersey City, April 7, 1873. 
 I have heard the Eev. J. G. White deliver two lectures on Eomanism, in which he 
 showed himself master of the subject. He proved conclusively, from their own books, that 
 the dogmas of Eomanism are unscriptural, and its pretensions utterly false and blasphemous. 
 He exposed the abomination of Auricular Confession with overwhelming effect. It would be 
 well if he had the opportunity of delivering, in every church in our land, the lecture which 
 he delivered in my church, on ' Eomanism as it was and as it is.' "We need such lectures 
 in these days, to meet the unblushing aggressions of Eomanism, and to gather God's peo- 
 ple out of the great whore, whom he in his providence is now making desolate and naked. 
 
 J. HAEKNESS, 
 Pastor of Third Presb. Church, Jersey City, N. J." 
 
 When we lectured in Buffalo, New York, the Methodist Ministers caused the 
 following to be inserted in the "Advocate :" — 
 
 " The following Eeaolution was unanimously passed by the Buffalo Methodist Preach- 
 ers' Meeting, at their session on Monday morning last. It is an open and fearless expres- 
 sion of approval : just such an endorsement as will give the worthy lecturer confidence in 
 his great and noble mission. 
 
 Resolved: That we, the members of the Buffalo Preachers' Meeting, cordially com- 
 mend the course of lectures delivered in this city by Ebv. J. G. White, on the subject of 
 Eoman Catholicism. We commend them for their fearless character, their eloquence, 
 their dignified moral tone, their strength of logic, and the overwhelming evidence they fur- 
 nish — drawn from Catholic authorities themselves — of the error and corruption of the 
 Eoman Church. Believing as we do, that there is too much lukewarmness on this subject, 
 on the part of Protestants in this city, we deem these lectures exceedingly opportune, 
 and bespeak for Mr. White the thanks of this Christian public."— (Advocate, of M. 
 E. Church, Buffalo, N. Y., Mwrch 16, 1871.) 
 
 The Milwaukee District Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church be- 
 ing in session, Eev. J. W. Carhart, D. D., offered the following, which was 
 unanimously adopted: 
 
 "Resolved, That we, the members of the Milwaukee District Conference, many (if 
 us having heard Eev. J. G. White lecture on the subject of Eomanism, knowing of lii.i 
 work for Christ, do hereby express our full confidenee iii him as a Christian-gentleman, 
 a scholar, a bold and efficient worker in the cause of Christ against Catholicism, and 
 we commend him to till lovers o£ truth and Protestantism, and bid him God-speed in 
 his good work." 
 
 After having closed a sermon or lecture on Romanism, pastors of churches 
 have frequently grasped us cordially by the hand, and in the following or similar 
 language, exclaimed : " Thank you my brother, that will do my people good ! " In 
 the midst of our arduous labors, we appreciate such kind words ; they, in connection 
 with an approving conscience, more than counterbalance the denunciations of 
 Papists and their fawning sycophants ; and, above all, we have abundant evidence 
 of good resulting from our efforts. We, therefore, thank God, and take courage, and 
 ask the continued co-operation of all true Protestants, until the Papal power is 
 broken in America, sacerdotal celibacy discarded; convents and monasteries 
 opened for inspection, and Auricular Confession declared a nuisance, an suppressed 
 by legal enactments, as an ecclesiastical brotliel. Then, and not till then, will our 
 mission terminate, except by death. 
 
 J. G. ^VHITE. 
 
•ADDITIONAL KIND WORDS. 
 
 " riqri, Ohio, Frb. 20, 1875. 
 Having heard Rbv. J . G. White dellvei* a series of lectures on Romanism in 
 r city, we lieartily recommend him to the Christian public as a gentleman of 
 rning, eloquence, and great logical ability. That he hiis a peculiar mission in 
 sting out Romish devils, and closing up confessionals and convents is evident 
 the terror of the priesthood wherever he goes, and in the additional facts that 
 ;y make vigorous efforts to weaken his influence by the most malicious lying, 
 they did in this place. Mr. White should be heard in every place where Ro- 
 ,nlsm has any strength. 
 
 JAMES STEPHENSON, I'aUnr of Green Street M. E. Chnrch. 
 
 T. M. HOPKINS, Pastur First J'reshi/tenfin Chiircl,:' 
 
 "UliiiANA, 0., Ft-h. 23, 1875. 
 Whom it may Concern • 
 
 The undersigned, pastors of churches in Urbaua, Ohio, take pleasure in i-e- 
 tnniendiugREV. J. G. Wiiitk, of Illinois, who is engaged in lecturing on Ronian- 
 fl, as a gentleman wonderfully well qualified to treat different phases of that 
 portant subject We bespeak for him a cordial reception wherever he may go. 
 e facts and considerations presented by him are well worthy the attention of 
 lericaii citizens. 
 
 J. A. P. McGAW, Pastor First Presbyterian Charcli. 
 H. H. THOMPSON, Pastor U. P. Ghureh. 
 GEO. H. DART, Second M. E. Church. 
 E. W. SOUUERS, Lutheran Clmn-hy 
 
 "Bowling Green, Ky., Oct. IS, 1875. 
 I Whom it may Concern : 
 
 I We, the pastors of our several denominations in this city, having heard the 
 o lectures of Rev. J. G. White, of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, de- 
 ered in the Odean Hall, on tlie 17th inst., take this occasion to express our 
 ;h appreciation of tlie very clear and able exposition made by him of the sins 
 d corruptions in the creed and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. We 
 )uld unhesitatingly and cordially commend the Lecturer and his lectures to all 
 otestant communities which love religious and civil liberty. The lectures of 
 ■. White are replete with facts of history and his earnest and eloquent warn- 
 ;s to Protestants, against the devices and Jesuitry of the " Mother of Harlots," 
 3uld be everywhere heeded by those who love Protestant liberty, and have the 
 rve and principle to defend "the faith once delivered to the saints." 
 
 R. K. SMOOT, Presbyterian. 
 
 C. E. W. DOBBS, First Baptist. 
 
 J. M. STRKATOR, Christian. 
 
 J. G. WILSON, Methodist." 
 
 " IlOPR-INSVILLE, Ky., Oct. 27, 1S75. 
 V. .7. G. White : 
 
 Deak Brother: — I give below the lesolutions adopted by Green River 
 nod at its last meeting, which took place at Smith's Grove, Ky., and which 
 leting embraced 21, 22, 23, 2o, 2Gth days of Oct., 1875. The resolutions are as 
 lows : 
 
 Resolved: By Green River Synod of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 
 It we have heard with interest and pleasure the lectures of Rev. J. G. White, 
 Jacksonville. 111., on the doctrines and practice of Bomanism in this country, 
 'i fullv approve of the manner and ability in which he handles the subject, and 
 .e great pleasure in recommending him to all Protestant denominations iu Ky. 
 elsewhere as being a minister of high standing in our church and fully able to 
 )Ose the heresies and abominations of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Besolved 2nd : That the religious and secular papers of this State be reques- 
 I to publhsh these resolutions, and that a copy of the same be given to him, 
 ned by the Moderator and Clerk. 
 
 ; The above is an exact copy of said resolutions. Yours Erateriuilly, 
 /■ ISAAC B. SELF, Moderator. 
 
 j J. R. BEARD, Eni/rossing Clerk of (iri'i'ii Pircr Synod of 
 
 I the Cninlierland Presbyterian Church." 
 
"ClBVE).,\\d,-Ohi >, JiDi. 10, 1877. 
 "Unsolicited T wisli to give my testimony to tlie eminent fitness ot ttie bea 
 Rev. J. ii Whiik, to rllscii>s the subject of J{oinaiiism in all its phases and 
 1 iiioiis to our Aiiieriuau Institutfcns. He lias spoken in my chiireh, giving 
 iiiimeu's mid f.'u-ts which ought to be heard. ' wish to comn. t Bro. Whiti 
 the f-'rotestant minisfrv, and to the conlldonce of thr Christian public. 
 
 J. E. TWITCHELL, I). D., I'usfor E„clirl Are. CongH Clmrrji.-' 
 
 "RwEN.NA, Ohio, Jan. 22, 1877. 
 Unsolicited I take pleasure in commending Krn". J. G. Whitic to Ihe Chi 
 ian public. His lectures ought to be delivered in e\eiT commnnity in the 1^ 
 I heartily commend him to all churches and jiasiors. 
 
 P.F.v. A. M. HILLS, P'l"! ir Fir:<t (Jimarrii i.tinn.i.l Chm-rh, Ravenna, 0. 
 
 "Akrox, O., Ft'h. 10, 1S77.J 
 Eifr. J. G. White: .■ 
 
 I desire to thank you personally and in behalf of my confrregation for, 
 two lectuH's on ' Romanism,' which you delivered in o.ir church, in Aliron,;; 
 tenlay. Wherever you go may the divine arm protect you, and the cor 
 greetings of all wi»o love the truth and hate error em ,)uiage you. I shall ahv 
 retnember you with great pleasure. Yours Trul\, 
 
 » ' F. M. GHKEX, Pnstiir XViiirrl, (if fHirisl, Akron, 0." 
 
 Ch\s 
 
 . W. Cusiaxf 
 
 ,J E. 
 
 Twi!CHi':i.i., 
 
 it. T. 
 
 iVIOIiROW. 
 
 h. L. 
 
 l)ODI>, 
 
 N. B. 
 
 Bowler, 
 
 J. H. 
 
 .lollNSON, 
 
 John 
 
 C. Covert, 
 
 B.lii 
 
 -TT8. 
 
 (From tile ie«rfec, ('le\ I'land, (i.) 
 
 " The GitEAT Co.n'fuct. — An Inintatian and RfHiiim/ie. — Lecture hij the Tier 
 G. ]'iliite. — The foliovving correspondence between Mr. White and a numbei 
 gentlemen of this eily, explains itself: " 
 
 ■• Clfn'ioland, Januarti 30, 1877.3 
 Rev. J. G White: 
 
 DkarSir;— The undersigned feel a deep ir.terest in the subject of y 
 lectures. We believe the future welfare of the State is prompted by discuss 
 the questions of the hour. 
 
 Will it be consistent with .\ciir encragements to ^iv( :in address at C 
 Hall, Tuesday, February (ith, lH77y Please reply — giviuL.' topic of lecture—: 
 oblige, 
 
 n VNiKL I?. TlLDEN, 
 
 X. E. Paine, » 
 N. B. SiiEitwix, 
 T. D. Pe(k., 
 
 H. 1). i'ARMEE, M. D., J 
 
 -\USTIX Hill ,,A>'D, 
 
 iiPSOX & Wai.tox. 
 
 I'AINKSvai.t.E, ()., .Titniwrij ?t\. 
 
 Rev. J. E. Twitehell, D. D., Rev. Cluis. tV. Cushing, D. D., Hon. Daniel 
 Tilden, Hon. E. F. Paine, Hon. N. B. Sherwin, :ind others. 
 
 GnxTLEjiEX : — Vours of the 30th at ha'hd. Your kind sympathy is duly 
 predated. Itis, aKo, doubtless true that 'the future welfare of the State 
 ])romoted' by a free discussion of the subjects involving the principles of moi 
 ity, civil and religious li^rty. It therefoie affords me pleasure to comply w 
 your request and deliver a lecture in Case Hall at the time specified. Subjec 
 'The Great Conflict.' Respectfully, J. G.White." 
 
 The above and similar kind words gratuitously teijdered by inteflig 
 Protestants of all denominations are more than an equivalent for the deti 
 tion and defamation of the ignoriint dujies of Po|3Jsh priesicrati, independent 
 which we iia\e an approving conscience and the :iccumnlating evidence of "r 
 good resulting from our labors. " 
 
 This hist lecture in Cleveland, by special request, Avas immcdiatelv after' 
 had delivered l-,velve consecutive lectures, and it w:is largely attended notwi 
 st:iniUng it was crowded in, on Tuesday night, between John B. (iough and B 
 Henry Ward Beecher, the former lectured Monday ni-ht and the latFer Weilr 
 day night — immediately preceding and succeeding onr lecture. And the intei 
 of the people was furthei manifested relative to the subject of the lecture in 
 fact that they paid $75 for tlie use of the Hidl, exclusive of other incidental 
 penses. The American mind is being awakened to danger and to duty * 
 there be more light. THE LECTURliR