re.d/ Scsire. How exe. r.w, these rules, are ?l?ed ? re? ?e Sc?es? ? ?g ?i?en ? r? ?e Bible, i.e., ?y m nev? ?ce? ?ence n? f?m ?eir e?d ?e acq? ? ?e wo? Ve? few ever apply for lice? m re?; for ?ey ?, for ?e ?t ?? for herefi? ff they apply for a license ? ?e b?h?. How m?y in western Pennsylv?, where I now ?, apply m ? P?l?elp?a for a p?ege ? re? or ? a Dotmy Bible ? Add ?, ?t when ?e p?vilege is ?ven ? a ?n of mmrd �e Bible, how b?y is such a one ?r? ? unde?d ?e ?rd G? ? h ? no wonder ?t ?e knowledge d Scg?re ? ?cely th?g? of ? ?e ?m? Ca?o?c Church. The a?ve ? ?e e?t ?ciphne of ?e Ch?h of Rome on ? ?t, which eve? p?m ?p ? ?und on O?TH ? believe ?d e?orce. (3.) Wm c?ge ?e Roman Cathobos ?th ?? word of ?, ?d fwm ?s cha?e it is im?ible m exc? ?em. They ?ve ? ?ong opted the circdafion of ?e Segares vem?ar l?e of ?e ?ple. ?en Wickfie p?h?ed ??on, Pope Ore? sent a b? m ?e Udve?i? of O?o?, 1378, ?nde? le ?lator ? "r? into a det?ble ?d ne?." When Tind? ?bhshed ?s ?ansla?on, h was aim conde? in 1546. ?en Lu?er pubhshed the Sc?pt?es in ?e ?an ?e, P? L? X. publ?hed a bull ? ?, couch? ?e and opprobrious ?a?. A?r ?e Reformation ?e C?ch m (not or mskfi? of ?e Scrip?es ?to m?em ?ages, ? ?p?h ?om, b? ?wa? ?m?ed ? not?. Y? t?s w? ?ewed ?mus e?ent; ?d it w? ?ought b? not m ?ve �e ?ple, except where there w? d?ger of ?e? recei?ng the ?nt venice. The Rh?sh ?1? a?w th?s ? ?e mo?ve ? tmde?ekln?. We a? ?ve mple profs ?t they a? afr?d ? t? ?e ?ple ?e?y ? the Sc?p?s. When the B?tish Bible Society pwf- d ? ?b?h ?e ?y Bible, ?ut n?e or comment, for the ? the ?m? C?ho?ca, ?e Eng?h Rom? Ca?o?c cler? wo?d not ?w it. ?en ?e pw?i?on w? ? m?e to them, Mr. ?ndol- phy, a pri? of L?don, ?d, "If ?y of the Bible ?cie?es feel ? ? ? o? ?t?m for ?e Bible by p?sen? us ?me copies a Ca?o?c vetoion, ? or ? ?, we will ?a?y ?cept ?ly ?s?b? them." Yet when the Bible Society ? a?ut ?blish ?e ?y Bible, ?e Rom? Catho?c cle? ?f? ik ?d Mr. ?dolphy 8dd, "?e Engl?h Catholic B? ?d ?t ?w in?nd to ?e ?l? even ?ek o? stereo? e?on for ?ey co?d not go a?t ? d?ire ?ns w receive Testament, They le?ed ?d taught ?r m?n by m? of c?c?m ?d ele- moRtsty tracts." Thus they are against the Bible, because the? are eonsciotm the Bible is against them. It is true, they frequontty speak with glatt reverence of the Bible as it is locked up from the people in I. miin; but when it appear? in the vulgar language of any comatry,, ami wlmm it
�
