The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1910-08-18

ton Of the Bible in the public schools.
In that connection he saidTsome very
strange things, that have no historic or
other proof. In one place he accuses
me of ignorance, and do not know of
any word that fits him better than the
word Ignorance" in his discussion of
the Bible. | think it is only fair in
quoting man to quote him correctly.
He bases his whole argument on a mis-
quotation. Here are his words. THE
reverend gentleman goes out of his way
to inform US that the Catholic church is
not only averse to the reading of the
Protestant B1ble in the schools, but is
hostile to the Bible generally" Now.
| never said a word about the Protest
ant Bible. - don't know of any such
Bible. | spoke Of the Hible. the King
James version Of it which contains all
the canonicai books of the Holy Scrip
lures. This Bible is sometimes called a
"sectarian book" Please, Mr.. c.. to
what sect does it belong? The King
James translation was begun by Wick
life in the Romish church. 1t was re
viewed and continued by Tyndale, Cow
erdale and other Romanists. 1t was
printed, published, and circulated by
Romish king. 1t IS not a Protestant.
but an English Bible, pronounced by Dr.
Alexander Geddes, an ecclesiastc Of the
RomiSh church, ''of all versions the
most excellent for accuracy, fidelity,
and the strlcteSt attention to the letter
Of the text What say YOU, Mr.. Con
nell? Will you still call it "emascu-
lated?' Such bigotry and narrowness
are with those who would cast the Bible
out of the public schools. No, my dear
priest, the Bible is not the property of
any sect. 1t belongs to mankind Like
the air and the sunlight, it is Incapable
of beng mOnOpoliZed.
Poor Father Council, his education
has, of course, been one sided, medieval
and preJudlced. pity the dear man,
and IN the discussion OF the next point
will be as charitable as consistency with
the truth will permit. The priest says
the King James version has left out of
it certain books considered canonical.
Pray tell US by whom considered? OF
course, he alludes to the so called apoc-
ryphal books, which have been repudi-
ated by the best scholarship of the last
five hundred years, and are not consid-
cred today by any scholar of real stand
ing as having a place in the canonical
scriptures.
But here is the trouble with our dear
priest. The Catholic church is cumber-
ed with lot of pagan rubbish, and the
people must be made to believe that
this idOlatry is grounded in scripture |
refer to the iniquitous mass, the
hail Marys, 'purgatory,' and other
unspeakable horrors perpetrated upon
a deluded and long suffering people
This then is the kind of appendage Mr.
c. would hang to the English Bible and
ask Americans to read. Sixty million
Protestants in this great country say
may, verify, " and, my dear sir, your
own people are waking up to the facts,
and were it not for the hordes of Eu-
rope S scum that pour into this country
each year your numbers would be rapid
ly decreasing. You may, Mr. c., come
back at me with an article in which you
viii attempt to argue away the above
propositions. | have one argument.
however, that | dare and defy you to
successfully assail. "A tree is known
by its fruits" You say, where in the
name of God did we get our Bible?"
and then make reference to the monks
of the dark ages. | am surprised at
this. Had 1t not been for the errors,
falsehoods, and awful sins Of the church
there need not have been any dark ages.
Rome IS responsible for the dark ages.
We give no credit whatever to the
monks for our Bible. You yourself
/ know that manuscripts of the Holy
Scriptures are in existence today, writ
ten long before that monstrosity called
''mOnk" was ever born.
by their fruits We shall know them. "
Tell me, Mr.. c., of one country on this
/ planet where the Catholic church has