FOOTNOTES.

At a Meeting of the Committee of the Birmingham Auxiliary to the British and Foreign Bible Society, held December 11th, 1848.

It was unanimously resolved:

That the object of the British and Foreign Bible Society being the circulation of the Word of God without note or comment, this Committee cannot pass unnoticed the dishonour done to the Word of God by the act of a Roman Catholic Priest in this town, who, during the last month, burned a copy of the New Testament; nor the attempt made by his coadjutors and himself in repudiating that act, to excuse it in some respect, inasmuch as that excuse rests upon principles which, carried out to their legitimate conclusion, would infringe upon our undoubted right to circulate the Word of God, wherever parties of any and of every creed are willing to receive it.

To the Editor of Aris’s Gazette.

Sir—It is with much regret that I am obliged again to come before the public on the subject of the Testament which was burnt in London ’Prentice-street, in this town, by the Rev. W. Molloy, a Priest of the Church of Rome, but the cause of truth demands it of me. It is stated in the apology put forth by that Rev. Gentleman and his coadjutors, “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,” and that it was “under the excitement of the moment that the act, which it is not attempted to justify, was done.”

Now Sir, I ask you, as I ask the public, are these statements consistent with the following facts:—The Testament was burnt on Thursday, Nov. 16, about two o’clock p.m., and it was not till the following Saturday, about midday, that I had any conversation with the Priest upon the subject.

Being in London ’Prentice-street on the Saturday, Mr. Molloy sent for me to the house where he had burnt the Testament, to ask if I supposed that the woman to whose daughter the book had been given was a Protestant, because he had heard that I had visited her the day before. It was upon that occasion that I enquired of him whether or not he had burnt the Testament; he told me that he had, and would burn every Bible and Tract he found in the houses of his people. I warned him that I should make his words public, and he told me I was perfectly welcome to do so. I further remember saying that I had often been told that I had unjustly charged the Romish Priests with denying the Bible to their people, and his reply was to this effect—“You have stated the truth, and are perfectly welcome to state it when you will; you are furthering our objects by doing so.” There are several other points in the apology on which I should much like to dwell, but I think it best simply to state facts, and leave the public to judge for themselves whether the apology that this act was done in the excitement of the moment can apply to Mr. Molloy, who, after the reflection of two days, threatened to repeat the act again and again.

I remain, Sir, your obedient Servant,

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

December 14, 1848.

“You are already well acquainted, Venerable Brethren, with other monsters of error, and the frauds with which the children of the present age strive bitterly to beset the Catholic religion and the Divine authority of the Church: to oppose its laws, and to trample on the rights of the sacred as well as of the civil power. To this point tend those guilty conspiracies against the Roman Chair of the blessed Peter, on which Christ laid the irremovable foundations of his Church. To this point tend the operations of those secret Societies, emerging from their native darkness for the ruin and devastation of the common weal, as well sacred as social, who have been again and again condemned with anathema by the Roman Pontiffs our predecessors, in their Apostolic Letters, which we, in the plentitude of our Apostolic power, confirm, and command to be most strictly observed. This also is the tendency and design of those insidious Bible Societies, which, renewing the crafts of the ancient heretics, cease not to obtrude upon all kinds of men, even the least instructed, gratuitously and at an immense expense, copies in vast numbers of the Books of the Sacred Scriptures, translated (against the holiest rules of the Church) into various vulgar tongues, and very often with the most perverse and erroneous interpretations; to the end that (Divine tradition, the doctrine of the Fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church being rejected,) every man may interpret the revelations of the Almighty according to his own private judgement, and, perverting their sense, fall into the most dangerous errors. Which Societies, emulous of his predecessor, Gregory XVI., of blessed memory, (to whose place we have been permitted to succeed, without his merits,) reproved by his Apostolic Letter (16) and we desire equally to condemn.”—Forty-third Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Hear again extracts from the evidence of these Roman Catholic Bishops before the Parliamentary Commissioners, 1825—

“Ques. Are the Commissioners to collect that you think it improper for the children to read through the Gospels and Acts? Ans. Without explanation I think it is improper; I think no portion of scripture ought to be read without being accompanied with explanation and instruction. Ques. Is it a venial or a mortal sin in an adult peasant to persevere in reading the New Testament in the authorised version of the Church of England, after his priest has forbidden it? Ans. I should feel great delicacy in fixing the amount of guilt which constitutes the one or the other. Ques. Would you allow any of the peasantry of Ireland who might persevere in reading the Scriptures in the authorised version, after having been prohibited by your clergy, to be received to the Sacrament? Ans. No, I certainly would not. Ques. Should you think it improper for such an individual to bury the Word of God? Ans. I should be highly amused with such a proceeding. Ques. Would you think him highly deserving of approbation? Ans. I do not know but I would: it might show a disposition which I would prize highly, though I do not think the act a very laudable one, but attending to the disposition more than the act itself, I would reward the man. Ques. You would consider it in the man a proof of orthodoxy? Ans. Yes, a proof that he was filled with a right faith, only pushed to an extreme.”

Now compare with these answers what Dr. Doyle said in his evidence respecting the authorised version.

“Though it has many errors I consider it one of the noblest of works—one of the ablest translations that has ever been produced.”—See No. IV. Tract of the British Reformation Society, pages 5, 6, 7.