17(:.7

CORNELLUNIVERSITYLIBRARY

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

924 087 25 690

ROMANISM EXPOSED

AND

Protestantism Defended

BY

REV. J. O. WHITE.

A Brief Reply to Professor David Swing, PriestCashman and Dr. Withrow.

"ThHce armed is he whose cause is fust"

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of Darkness, butrather 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, onfine book paper, and neatly bound. Price, $1.25.

" Homo."— This pamphlet of 80 pages, in three languages, for menONLY. 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 Detectedand 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 booksand ti'acts be put in every family. Let each pastor take a collection andtest 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 theinstitutions of this our beloved country.

j'n'' te^ We ask the earnest co-operation of all to solicit subscriptions andorders 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 neighborCometh 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 alecture on Roman theology, and who, during the lecture, satpencil in iiand looking wise as an owl. It is evident that not

one of these reverend gentlemen heard the address, and it mayyet become evident that neither of them, nor all combined, can

disprove a single fact disclosed. They certainly did not, in thePost, nor make a square issue with facts stated, and it is possi-ble they will not do it. The facts were sustained by evidenceincontrovertible on the authority of approved Roman books inthe hands of an intelligent committee. The address was deliv-ered by request of the Methodist ministers. The door wasclosed by request of the spefucer. The subsequent unanimousvote of thanks was duly appreciated.

Had not those ministers a right to hold a meeting withopen 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 ofthe 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 madefriends." Truly, history repeats itself. Here in Chicago the

spirit of that old pagan trick is revived. We have no apologyfor 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 booksand facts, or for shame ever after hold their peace.

Were not those Methodist ministers as intelligent, virtuousand modest as our would-be ecclesiastical dictators? We areonly sorry that Professor Swing, Dr. Withrow and their ex-quisitely modest Father Confessor, Priest Cashman, were noton 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 ofPopish priestcraft, and the secret abominations of Auricular

Confession. Let Priest Cashman, if he dare, under oath inwriting, deny that our books, and facts, as disclosed in that ad-dress are well auihenticaled. Let him attempt to di'-prove thefact that vile and libidinous communications are, now requiredof females m Auricular Confession, and that distinguishedRoman theologians have given warning of danger lo chastityfrom 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 apretended ''vicegerent^'' ''vicar''' of Jesus Christ, who pretendsto hold the keys of heaven and hell, with ''judioaP'' power to

save or damn the souls of men. Judas, that parsimonioushypocrite, 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 JesiisChrist, but it was reserved for a priest of Rome in Chicagowith 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 werenot true. If not true. Priest Cashman is the man to show it.If true, why this Jesuit quibbling, and dodging. Self-assumedarrogant 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 danceto 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 damnthe souls of men. Let him prove that a Roman priest, drunkor 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 theCouncil 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 scourgeof scorpions, he may not be disappointed. He boasts of hisexploits at Peliin, III., with his Moral Theology of Peter Dens

" twenty-three years ago." At present we have no recollectioneither of hiin or his books. He doubtless shot after the gamewas gone. He became brave after danger was past. Discre-tion was with him the better part of valor. We are nowin 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 'hisbooks twenty-two volumes more by the same author, as thor-

oughly authenticated, though it may be of different dates. Lethim 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 himshow 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 toit, to conceal the abominations of auricular confession?

Answer.—The moral theology of the Roman churchauthorizes 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. 634and 646; St. Thomas, supplement to question 11, article i and

3, etc.

Q. 2.—Why a priest in the confessional is " as God," andoutside 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 thepenalty 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'sCatholic Christian Instructed, p. 152; Catechism of Trent, pp.

190-195, etc.

Q. 4.—Why fathers, . husbands and brothers may not bepresent 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 Churchof Rome. It would protect modest and virtuous females inconfession from the infamous questions and licentious encroach-

ments of the Roman clergy, and above all it would subject theRoman clergy to the merited chastisement for their lecherousobsenity, and would cause the suppression of auricular confession

by penal enactments.

Q. 5.—Why a husband may not be present when the priestinterrogates his wife in the confessional relative to " De usucoNjuGii," "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. Herabsolution 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 incongruousjumble of superstitution and Popish priestcraft.

Q. 7.—Where do priests find Scripture to prove that theymay 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 simplyan 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, whymay it not be buried in holy ground?

—

(i.

PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 7

" The marriage of a Catholic with an unbaptized person, unlessa 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 churchdo 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 marriedaccording 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 nosalvation for persons not members of the Roman CatholicChurch ?

A.—Roman theologians have so declared and they professto hold the keys of heaven, and hell, with power to save ordamn the souls of men at pleasure; and all Romanists are re-quired to adopt the creed of Pope Pius IV., and affirm in anobligation, equivalent to an oath; "I acknowledge the HolyCatholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistressof all churches; * * * * out of which no one can be

saved." (Golden Manual, p. 771.)

Q. 14.—Do not Romanists sometimes manifest greatfriendship for Protestants?

A.—Yes, especially when they are trying to wheedle richwidows and orphan children for their property. When theyare endeavoring to locate a Roman church or school, or con-vent, in a Protestant community. When they are wormingtheir way into wealthy Protestant families to entice theirdaughters to a convent, or their sons to a Jesuit college. Whenthey 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 popularman," or the " most beautiful young woman," etc. Then, asfawning 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 RomanCatholic cemetery.

A.—No reason except inherent fiendishness and unmiti-gated Popish intolerance.

Q. i6.—Why Popes John X., XL and XII., and otherdrunken and licentious popes, are included in the catalogue of

Infallible Popes, through whom the Roman clergy profess toreceive 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 fewlinks 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, andnumerous 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 tomention.

John XII., Gregory V., John XIII., Boniface VII., Bene-dict IX., Innocent III., were murderers. Many popes wereinstigators of jeal'ousies and discord which cost the lives ofthousands.

Several popes have been schismatics ; two and three con-tending for the supremacy at the same time. These schismsvaried from two to six, seven, thirteen, sixteen, twenty, and tothirty-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 goldenlinks 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, insubstance: " 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 wereraised to the Papal throne by faction, by intrigue, and by three

notorious prostitutes. To these disorders the popes themselvescontributed in no small degree."

Thirty-one popes passed away in io8 years, and this

Roman Catholic historian says: " Their number is clear proofthat 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 Chicagoclaims his succession ?)

Q. 17.—In brief, will Priest Cashman and the Romanclergy 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 notinstruct 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 thatthe Moral Theology of Dens, Kenrick, and Liguori are approved

works, now in our midst, and that it is their duty to propoundto 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 PriestScheuren, 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; butif 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 ofpriests 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, virtueand chastity ?

A.—No; it ever has been, and is now a prolific source ofcrime 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 XIV., ( C. V. and can. 8, etc. ) That it hasdebauched 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 maybe 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,Housesof the Good Shepherd, Foundling Institutions, and many of theso-called orphanages are the legitimate results of corruption

through Auricular Confession. Holy Rome, (not half so largeas Chicago, or St. Louis), with her Holy Pope, Holy Caiydi-nals. Holy Archbishops, Holy Bishops, Holy Priests, HolyMonks, Holy Nuns and Holy Water, could recently boast ofone 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 couldboast that of all the children born within that year 1,213 weresupposed to be legitimate, 3,160 illegitimate ; or for every 100legitimate children they had 260 illegitimate. The figures arebut a shadow to the substance and they exhibit the legitimateresults of Auricular Confession in connection with professedsacerdotal 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 ifthey are very devotional, or have special pleasure in a morefrequent tete-a-tete with a young " Father Confessor."

Q. 22—Who authorized the priest to grant absolution tohis 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 asMethodists, 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 theirproperty for the Roman Catholic Church?

A.—They prove that " heretics " ought to be put to deathnow by the edicts of Popes and Councils, and by the practiceof the Roman Church in past ages when it had the power, andespecially 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 theRoman Church ?

A. All who discard popish priestcraft, and maintain theright 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 offaith."

" Instruc.—He is a heretic who obstinately maintainsanything contrary to the known faith and doctrine of the holyCatholic 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 opinionis, 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 inmatters 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, whohad 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 theyhave in their character of sects, hostile to true religion (Popery,)

no rights under the law of Nature or the law of God ; theyare neither wronged or deprived of liberty if the state refusesto 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 ortacitly 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 ofconscience is a most pestilential error,' and that unbridled lib-erty of opinion is that pest of all others most to beDREADED IN THE STATE.' He also denounced 'that worst andnever to be sufficiently execrated and detested libertyof 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 thematter. And in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain forinstance, where all the people are Catholic, and where theCatholic 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. Thomasanswers 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 prophetsshould 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. Butthose 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 acceptedto 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 areadmitted 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 arereleased 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 whatorder?

A.—First against England, under pretext of liberatingIreland, when, in fact, it is Popery against a Protestant Gov-

ernment.

The second effort will be made to sever Canada from theBritish CroN^'n.

The third effort, according to the present program will bea 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 betheir 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 imperiouslydemanded it.

It passed an act which took effect July ist, 1879, whichde^clared " It shall not be lawful for any body of men, whateverother than the regular organized Volunteer Militia of thisState, and the troops of the United States to associate them-selves together as a Military Company or Organization, or drillor parade with arms in any city or town in this State, with-out the license of the Governor thereof, which license mayat any tinu be revoked, etc." (Military Code, Act IX., Sec. s )

This act ostensibly struck at Co nmunism in Chicago, butit doubtless had a wider and deeper signification. It disbandedthe 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 becollecting the instruments of death in our midst than other re-

ligious denominations. And there is no necessit}- that ChicagoNo. 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'DonovanRossa 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 CatholicConspiracv- Exposed, by Rev. J. G. White.)

. Q. 29.—If the military organizations and skirmishingfunds are to be used exclusively in Ireland, why have the con-tributions from Canada and Ireland been sent to Ford andO'Donovan Rossa in New York City?

A.—The skirmishing movement originated in New Yorkcity with O'Donovan Rossa, an ex-British convict. Ford ofthe 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 andendorsing 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 thempublicly contribute to the funds?

A.—The Roman clergy, and their leading papers arelargely in the interest of the Roman Catholic conspiracy againstthe English government, because they desire to make Irelandexclusively Romish and under the Roman clergy. If theysucceed the Protestant Irish will remember the days of theirancestors and panal persecutions.

l6 ROMANISM EXPOSED AND

Q. 31.—If the ''skirmish movement^^\s not in the interestof 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 havethey 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 imprisonedfor life.

If the leaders attempt assassination as they threaten they

ought 10 be hanged high as Haman, or Priest Garnett for hisgunpowder conspiracy. In either case all true patriots andProtestants should scorn a system of so-called religion that will

wink at treason, arson and assassination.

Q. 33.—If Roman Catholics, to gratify their fiendishmalignity, may with nitro-glycerine, dynamite, gunpowderand the knife assassinate Protestants in England and Irelandwhy mav they not do the same in America?

A.—They may, with equal justice when the interest ofPopery demands it ; but there is no necessity for such infamousconduct on either continent, and Americans who are aiding theFenians and Clan-na-Gaels, are sowing to the wind and mayreap the whirlwind.

Q. 34.—Why did the little red-headed priest, Scheuren,and his saloon-keeper Hickey, and the bigoted papists of Chenoamake such consummate asses of themselves in Bloomino-ton111., on the I2th of April, 1883?

A.—They could not do otherwise. They had been plot-ting and plftnnin

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 toprosecute, and having taken every precaution to crush his in-

tended victim he came into court, and through his RomanCatholic 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 thedecision of the court?

A.—It settles the question, beyond a doubt, that the bookby "HOMO" is a legitimate publication, that it is simply fairextracts and literal translations from the approved "Moral The-

ology" of the Roman clergy now in use in our midst, relativeto 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 nowapproved 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 inChenoa would not protect him in a Bloomington court.

Q. 37.—Since Hickey had eight months to prepare hismalicious prosecution, with the priest of Chenoa at his back,

with the character of the whole Roman Church involved inthe 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 cometo his relief and disprove books and facts.

A.—Not one of them dare come into a Bloomington courtand swear that the original Latin books are not genuine and

now in use by the highest authority of the Roman Church, andthat 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 Hickeywas 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 wouldhave been in court, and as his hirelings and dupes would havebeen compelled to testify against him.

Q. 39.—Since M. Cowley, the underground whisky guz-»zler, published in the Lexington paper that he would pay $25if the speaker would repeat the lecture to men within thirtydays, giving one day's previous notice, and since the lecturercomplied strictly with every condition in his proposed contract,why did he not pay?

A.—He evidently saw that another effort to raise a mobwould not pay. That he could neither intimidate the mayornor 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 backquietly into his underground bummer's den and never discloseto the people of Chenoa who it was that told the lie.

Q. 40.—Why did " Q. E. D." become so wonderfullyhysterical over the lectures?

A.—Possibly his craft was in danger, he might miss thesale of a few suger coated pills, or might not be called upon toofficiate in some future difficult case of " ante-natal baptism "

or " csesarean section."

Q. 41.—Why did Hickey not pay that boy the $1 10 forswearing out the complaint, and pay Thorp, principal sustain-ing witness?

PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. I9

A.—Hickey found no blood money in that business, andthe criminal court of Livingston county found work for Thorpin Joliet for " highway robbery," and the citizens of Chenoacould send Thorp to the State's prison a third term for burglaryand grand larceny, committed while he was Hickey's witness.

Q. 42.—What does this malicious prosecution and papalfersecutioii 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 anew lesson and a ten-cent chaplet of wooden beads and a fewdrops of holy water to keep away the " divil " and to protecthim 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 descendto earth to establish a civil despotism,or an ecclesiastical brothel?

Is the God of Love the autlior of a system of debauchery andintolerance? 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 theCross, institute the flames of Auto-da-fe? Did He who said" I am the way, and the truth," authorize perjury? Did H!ewho said, " I am the door," " I am the Good Shepherd," " Igive unto them Eternal Life," transfer His power and author-

ity over the way of Life and the destiny of immortal souls to aclass 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 hadbeen 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 bloodOf 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 wrathThe lion pause—the groans of suffering mostSevere were naught to her ; she laughed at groans ;No music pleased her more ; and no repastSo sweet to her as blood of men redeemedBy blood of Christ. Ambition's self, though madAnd nursed on human gore, with her comparedWas merciful. Nor did she always rage

;

She had some hours of meditation, set

Apart, wherein she to her study went;

The Inquisition model most completeOf perfect wickedness, where deeds were done,Deeds ! let them ne'er be named,—and sat and plannedDeliberately, and with most amusing pains,

How, to extremist thrill of agony.The flesh, and blood, and souls of holy menHer victims might be wrought ; and when she sawNew tortures of her laboring fancy born,She leaped for joy, and made great haste to tryTheir force,—well pleased to hear a deeper groan."

J|@"Priest Cashman when you require another lesson callagain.

Our respects to

PROFESSOR SWING,with whom we have no personal acquaintance, whose positionis supposed to be some where among the Protestant clergy,though not very clearly defined. He doubtless has split all thefine hairs of theological exegesis from Calvin to Wesley, butmanifests an inexcusable indifference, or want of informationon Romanism. He has evidently permitted himself to bemtide the cat's-paw of a tivo-penny paper published in the in-terest of popery. He was not present to hear the address atthe meeting of Methodist ministers. And as yet there is noevidence that his informer was competent to report a singlesection or paragraph from the Latin books used on that occa-sion. He predicated his verdict on the exparte statement of anincompetent witness, against the united testimony of six lin-guists chosen at discretion by the meeting, and probably notless than 150 intelHgent ministers, many of whom were doubt-

PROTESTANTISM DEFENDED. 2 1

less as competent to judge of facts as Rev. David Swing. Hesays, " 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 byRev. J. G. White in a paper read before the meeting of Meth-

odist ministers.

Here is conclusive evidence that Rev. D. Swing was notpresent to hear the address, and that he had not a truthful re-

port from the meeting. The truth is Rev. J. G. White didnot " 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 personhave an opportunity to test the books and facts in presence of

all the Roman Priests and Protestant clergy of Chicago. Nowlet 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? Whoi% '' abusing the. Roman Catholic church "? When ProfessorSwing 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 todo 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 infallibilitychanged 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 thisline. He might have jsroved from Roman history that notonly priests, but Bishops and Popes not a few have been menof 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 legalenactments 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 forhorses, the licentious inmates by shiploads are dotting their

plague spots on American soil. That the Council of Trentsanctioned sacerdotal celibacy and clerical concubinage, whichby a general council has never been repealed. Again he says:"It may have been that the confessional was abused and usedfor bad purposes." Why this evasion? Does he not know thatauricular confession ever has been, and is now, a prolific sourceof crime and debauchery? He knows it, or he does not knowit. If he does not know it his ignorance is inexcusable. If hedoes know it, why this ignoble and Jesuitic evasion ?

Again, " th^Protestant Church though, has not been freefrom scandal." Not content to apologize for papal licentious-ness he must misrepresent and slander the Protestant Churchand men who have the moral courage to speak the truth.

Hear him: "As I said abuse of Catholicism 'never did anygood. There is Father Chiniquy. For forty years he hasbeen traveling over the country exposing the confessional andhas accomplished naught in the way of good. Dr. Fulton aBaptist, has been ' roaring ' all his life against Catholicism."

Here again is evidence of consummate ignorance of facts ora 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-priestshave 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 tothe following program of the Boston committee of " one hun-dred " in the year 1890. Will Professor Swing say that "thecommittee 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 thousandspacked the building and hundreds more could not gain admit-

tance, when the police were compelled to clear hundreds ofmen from the aisles and platform for the better protection oflife 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. (Seeprogram.)

MUSIC HALL.

Patriotic DiscoursesEvery 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. SMALLWOOD. 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 andother converts from Romanism who from personal experienceknow 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 requireeither his sympathy or personal abuse.

When did the Protestant Church permit its clergy to keepconcubines ?

When did it permit and authorize its clergy to absolvetheir own licentious prostitutes ?

When did it require its clergy to cloister females in darkcentry 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

ofRome does now in Chicago? If there was virtuous modestyin hell, these vile questions would cause the chief of devils to

blush for shame.

What right has Professor Swing to place the ProtestantChurch 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 hourof our country's peril will cater to papal caprice, wink at asystem of debauchery and attempt to smirch the character of

accredited Protestant ministers, merits rebuke.

From Professor Swing's standpoint, it would seem to beall right for the Roman clergy to debauch virtuous modestythrough the confessional, but woe to the man who exposeit. The judge must be hung, but the murderer go free; thesheriff must be imprisoned, but the horse-thief trusted as anhonest man; the faithful minister who defends insulted virtue,must be denounced as vulgar, and the papal debauchers ofsociety regarded as patrons of virtue and morality. Such isthe 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 anaccredited 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 falsemodesty, is to sanction vice. To ignore well authenticatedfacts, is an evidence of ignorance, impertinence, or moral cow-

ardice, or all combined. Would it not be well fon ProfessorSwing to inform himself as to the obligations and practice ofauricular 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 nowpracticed 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 mayprecede a cyclone. In a work for the promiscuous reader, wecannot 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 Americanedition. Published in New York, endorsed by ArchbishopHughes and Cardinal McClosky. Catalogued and sold to thelaity 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 challengeProfessor 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 arebut 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 thepaper on which we write. If any Protestant minister doubtsthe facts, let him turn to the approved Roman Latin Theologynow in use in our midsts, and we will furnish him scores ofvolumes.

The following are a few of the preparatory questions, (seeGarden 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 suchsin, 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? Howoften? and before how many? and were the persons beforewhom you spoke or sung married or single? For all this youare 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. Themost distinguished writer of the Roman Chuixh in America,who had the Apostolic Benediction of Pope Gregory XVI. andPope Pius IX. And whose works are catalogued, and sold inthe large Roman bookstores generally throughout the UnitedStates and in the City of Chicai;o. For instruction relativeto some of the above suggestive questions let Professor Swingrefer 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 thePropagation 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 " lyingbefore us with the seal of the Pope shows that our books arenot prohibited.

NEXT COMES DR. WITHROWAs an exponent of the Reformation in the Roman Church.Of this man personally we know^ nothing, but shall assumethat 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 maybe possible that the reporter did him injustice. He certainlywas 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 aswe are informed, has neither denied nor corrected the report itmay be regarded as substantially true.

Now what has he to say: " I see no use in holding up therelics 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 Christthrough the teaching of St. Paul, and John Knox. Whosechurch has been honored, and blessed, by the labors of so manyable 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 maybe 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 Kenrickand the Jesuit Gury ?

What modification of the vile and unnamable obscenities ofAuricular 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 Inquisitionare not now being fanned to a flame?

What evidence that the Pope of Rome, the Jesuits andRoman 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 whichhe 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 wishto blind ourselves and say certain sins never have existed ; but

when there is a quicksand in the road we place a stick in theground to warn off people and do not keep continually stirr-ing up the quagmire." Why ignore the fact that the ''certainsins " referred to, do now exist to an alarming extent? Whyignore the " quagmire " or apply the mild remedy of merelysticking a " stick in the ground." Why not remove the "quag-mire "and dispense with the small stick? Why permit theroad to be obstructed by such an intolerable nuisance? But ifthe " quagmire " has been removed for " three hundred years "

as he would seem to intimate, where is the necessity for theDoctor's lidle stick? If the Doctor will study the RomanCatechism 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 aidof the little stick. The Doctor's remedy of milk and water, inhomeopathic 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. Toevery 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 untemperedmortar," 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? Thefact is he can not do it, and we hereby defiantly challenge theissue.

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 thePost 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 forthe 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 squarelymet 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 ofa 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 amtruly 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, withthe verbal or written commendation of the Pastors, we insert the following for thebenefit 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 responsiblepositions.

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 exposureof the error.s and dangers of Roman Catholicism. 1 have also examined the authoritiesin tlie original languages, on which he bu.ses his Lectures, and, botli from the hearingand 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, morethan met our expectations, and called forth a free and hearty end(jr,scment of our goodbrother and his mission.

J. ^X. SELLECKPastor, 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 muchacceptance 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

The Rev. Dr. Harkness, a venerable Presbyterian Minister, who is favorablyknown 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 heshowed himself master of the subject. He proved conclusively, from their own books, thatthe dogmas ofEomanism are unscriptural, and its pretensions utterly false and blasphemous.He exposed the abomination ofAuricular Confession with overwhelming effect. It would bewell 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 lecturesin 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 thefollowing 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 inhis 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 ofEoman 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 theEoman 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 wasunanimously adopted:

"Resolved, That we, the members of the Milwaukee District Conference, many (ifus having heard Eev. J. G. White lecture on the subject of Eomanism, knowing of lii.iwork 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, andwe commend him to till lovers o£ truth and Protestantism, and bid him God-speed inhis good work."

After having closed a sermon or lecture on Romanism, pastors of churcheshave frequently grasped us cordially by the hand, and in the following or similarlanguage, exclaimed : " Thank you my brother, that will do my people good ! " Inthe midst ofour arduous labors, we appreciate such kind words ; they, in connectionwith an approving conscience, more than counterbalance the denunciations ofPapists and their fawning sycophants ; and, above all, we have abundant evidenceofgood resulting from our efforts. We, therefore, thank God, and take courage, andask the continued co-operation of all true Protestants, until the Papal power isbroken in America, sacerdotal celibacy discarded; convents and monasteriesopened for inspection, and Auricular Confession declared a nuisance, an suppressedby legal enactments, as an ecclesiastical brotliel. Then, and not till then, will ourmission 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 inr city, we lieartily recommend him to the Christian public as a gentleman ofrning, eloquence, and great logical ability. That he hiis a peculiar mission insting out Romish devils, and closing up confessionals and convents is evidentthe 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 thatportant subject We bespeak for him a cordial reception wherever he may go.e facts and considerations presented by him are well worthy the attention oflericaii 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 theo 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 sinsd corruptions in the creed and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. We)uld unhesitatingly and cordially commend the Lecturer and his lectures to allotestant 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 therve 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 Rivernod at its last meeting, which took place at Smith's Grove, Ky., and whichleting embraced 21, 22, 23, 2o, 2Gth days of Oct., 1875. The resolutions are aslows

:

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 ofI

the Cninlierland Presbyterian Church."

"ClBVE).,\\d,-Ohi >, JiDi. 10, 1877.

"Unsolicited T wisli to give my testimony to tlie eminent fitness ot ttie beaRev. J. ii Whiik, to rllscii>s the subject of J{oinaiiism in all its phases and1 iiioiis to our Aiiieriuau Institutfcns. He lias spoken in my chiireh, givingiiiimeu's mid f.'u-ts which ought to be heard. ' wish to comn. t Bro. Whitithe 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: