To the Editor of Aris’s Gazette.

Sir—I see in your paper of last Monday a statement that a Testament was burnt by a Priest of the Church of Rome in a house in London ’Prentice-street, in this town.

I had written you a letter on the subject immediately on its occurrence; but upon consulting with the Hon. and Rev. Grantham M. Yorke, Rector of Saint Philip’s, in whose Free Industrial Schools the Testament in question had been given to a little girl, I determined first, if possible, to obtain the admission of the Priest to what passed between us in conversation. As, however, publicity has been given to the occurrence before I have had time to carry out my plans, I think it best, as the Minister of the district in which London ’Prentice-street is situated, to write to you at once, and say that the statement is strictly true. The Priest acknowledged to me that he burnt the Testament, and also declared that he would burn every Bible or Tract which he found in the houses of any of his people. He also charged me never again to enter the house of a Romanist in my district; and upon my assuring him that I should pay no attention to his command, and that the law of the land would protect my person, he said he would order his people to use “scurrilous” language towards me, and to offer me insult, if I ventured to pass their doors. Upon my appealing to him, and asking “how he dared to burn the Word of God?” he told me “to go and preach in my pulpit, and not to preach to him.” I merely state facts, and leave your readers to draw their own inferences from them.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

JOSHUA GREAVES,
Incumbent of St. Peter’s, Birmingham.

November 29, 1848.

Now I have no desire to act dishonourably or uncandidly, and therefore I feel it to be my duty to read a document put forth by the body of Roman Catholic Priests in this town, in reference to the above letter. It was published in our local paper of yesterday morning.

“We, the Catholic Clergy of Birmingham, having seen it stated in a letter from the Rev. Joshua Greaves, that one of our body had burnt a copy of the Protestant version of the New Testament, found in the house of a Catholic, have no hesitation at once to admit the fact; but wish at the same time to add that the act was regretted afterwards by the Clergyman by whom it was done, and strongly disapproved of by his brother Clergy, as soon as known. Justice, however, requires us to state that the Catholics of Birmingham had suffered constant and great annoyance from the interference of certain Protestant Clergymen or others, their agents, who frequently intrude themselves into the houses of poor Catholics, unsought for and uninvited, for the purpose of perverting their faith. It was with the knowledge that such a system was going on, and under the excitement of the moment, that the act, which it is not attempted to justify, was done. We take this opportunity of stating that the Catholic version of the Sacred Scriptures is considered by us as the only one authorised for circulation amongst our own people.

Bernard Ivers, Thos. M. Leith, Wm. Molloy. St. Chad’s.
George Jefferies, Michael O’Sullivan. St. Peter’s.
J. P. Burke. St. Mary’s. Handsworth.

St. Chad’s, Birmingham, Dec. 7, 1848.”

The signatures include that of the priest who burned the Testament. [5]

Now I have no doubt that two objections to my sermon will arise in many minds. First, I can quite imagine that some persons who are here, and many more perhaps who are absent to-night, may be disposed to say, “Is it not unfair”—(I am now speaking of an objection which might have been urged previous to the published statement of the Priests,) “Is it not unfair to charge a whole body with the act of a solitary individual? Would it be fair to the Church of England to identify her, as a body, with the indiscretion or sin of any one of her ministers?”

If it were true that there were nothing in the doctrines or laws of the Church of Rome to identify her with this act, then I should acknowledge the force of the objection; I should fully acknowledge that it would be grossly unfair to charge on any body the act of an isolated individual, unless there were something in the principles, in the laws, or in the practices, of that body which accorded with it.

But a still stronger objection may occur to your minds, after the acknowledgment of the Romish Priests. You may say, “Is not this document signed by the priest who burnt the Testament? Would it not therefore be more generous and more Christian, when he who has done wrong acknowledges his error and expresses his sorrow, to accept his apology and be silent?” This objection, I feel, must be answered.

Now with regard to the reply of the “Catholic Clergy” as they style themselves, it admits the fact, namely, that a New Testament was burnt. And in candour we are to take it for granted that the Priest expresses his regret for having said he would burn other Bibles at any future time. You will remark however, by the way, (though I shall not now dwell upon it,) that there is not a word of regret for the utterance of the threat of scurrilous and abusive language. Not one word is said in reference to this point—that a man calling himself a minister, not of a branch of Christ’s Church, but of the Catholic Church, tells a Protestant Clergyman, in the precincts of his own parish, in the house of one of his parishioners, that though he shall not advise any to resort to violence against his person, he shall encourage them to use scurrilous and insulting language towards him, if he attempts to pass the door.

But to return to the burning of the Testament.

Making every allowance for the members of a Church who regard the Protestant version as erroneous, I am prepared to show you that this is not a solitary instance of such proceedings in the Romish Church. And therefore it is that, notwithstanding the public expression of regret now read to you, I feel justified in dwelling upon this point. During the past week I received a visit from a Protestant Clergyman from Ireland. I was mentioning this incident to him, and he began to narrate to me one or two other facts of a similar kind. I appeared interested in the subject, and, without any solicitation on my part, yesterday morning, as I was reading the apology of the Priests, the post brought me a letter from this gentlemen, wherein he narrates the circumstance which occurred in the parish of which he was once Curate. I should say, that I have the names of place and persons in my hand and am quite prepared to give them up if necessary. He says—