Transcribed from the [1848] Hamilton, Adams and Co. edition by David
Price.





                              Bible-Burning:


                                   THE
                          SUBSTANCE OF A SERMON

                               PREACHED IN

                     ST. MARTIN’S CHURCH, BIRMINGHAM,

                    ON SUNDAY EVENING, DEC. 10, 1848;

                                * * * * *

                                  BY THE

                       REV.  JOHN C. MILLER, M.A.,
                         RECTOR OF ST. MARTIN’S.

       IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE BURNING OF A SCHOOL GIRL’S COPY OF THE
              AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY A
                      PRIEST OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
            HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.; WERTHEIM AND MACINTOSH.
                        BIRMINGHAM: BENJAMIN HALL.

         _Price Threepence_, _or Sixteen Shillings per Hundred_.

                                * * * * *




BY THE SAME AUTHOR.


VISITATION SERMON—Neglect of the Holy Spirit a Main Hindrance to
Ministerial Success.  Published by Request.  Price 2d., or 8s. per
hundred.

VISITATION SERMON—Preaching: a Sermon preached in St. Philip’s Church,
Birmingham.  Published by Request.  Price 2d., or 8s. per hundred.

SERMONS (TWENTY), preached at Bexley Heath Episcopal Chapel.  8vo.  Price
10s. 6d.

“THY KINGDOM COME!” a Sermon preached in obedience to the Queen’s Letter,
for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Published by Request.  Price 6d.  8vo. 1s.

“HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD,” UPON THE BELLS OF THE HORSES: a Sermon on
Zechariah xvi. 20.  Price 6d.  8vo. 1s.

“GIVING THANKS ALWAYS FOR ALL THINGS;” a Sermon on Ephesians v. 20.
Published by Request.  Price 6d.  8vo. 1s.

THE “LITTLE MAID;” a Sermon on 2 Kings, v. 2–4.  Published by Request.
Price 6d.  8vo. 1s.

SERMONS (FIFTEEN), preached at Park Chapel, Chelsea.  1 vol. post 8vo.
Price 6s. 6d.

“THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST;” a Sermon on 2 Corinthians, xi. 3.
Preached at Park Chapel, Chelsea.  Published by Request.  Price 6d.  8vo.
1s.

PSALMS AND HYMNS for the Sanctuary, Family Altar, and Closet.  12mo. 2s.




JEREMIAH xxxvi. 22, 23.


    “—_And there was a fire on the hearth burning before him_.

    “_And it came to pass_, _that when Jehudi had read three or four
    leaves_, _he cut it with the penknife and cast it into the fire that
    was on the hearth_, _until all the roll was consumed in the fire that
    was on the hearth_.”

IF among the vast multitude which is now thronging this sacred building,
there be one who has come up hither with the expectation that it would be
my object to excite or fan a flame of bitter hostility against the
members of the Church of Rome, I trust that he will be disappointed.

If there be any who have come up hither from a feeling of idle curiosity,
it is my earnest prayer that they may not leave this Church without
obtaining a blessing, though unsought by themselves.

It _is now_, my beloved Brethren, and it _has been_ this day, my earnest
and heartfelt prayer that, while I discharge what, perhaps mistakenly,
yet conscientiously, I feel to be my bounden duty, I may not forget that
I am called upon as a minister of Christ to manifest the spirit of my
Master; and that while I speak _the truth_, I may do it _in love_.  And
if, at the close of this discourse, my memory should recall one bitter
expression towards the members of that Church whose corruptions I feel it
my duty to expose, no one in this congregation could deplore it more than
the preacher himself.

May God, in His infinite mercy, send down His blessing on my present
endeavours!  May He send on us the spirit of candour, the spirit of love,
the spirit of faithfulness, that while we strive, as far as in us lies,
to “live peaceably with all men,” we may not forget that there is one
thing dearer than peace—HIS TRUTH!

I shall say but little on the text itself.  The roll which is here spoken
of as having been cut and consumed by Johoiakim was written, as you will
observe from the previous context, by Baruch, at the dictation of
Jeremiah, a prophet inspired of God; and contained God’s threatenings
against the corrupt and degenerate Jews.  When this roll had been read in
the hearing of the king, his conduct was that which is narrated in the
text.

Without further reference to my text, I conceive that the most open and
honourable manner in which I can proceed is, first to read to you the
simple account of the circumstance which has given rise to the delivery
of this discourse.  Some of my own dear people will remember with
gratitude the ministrations of one of the Clergy in this town, now the
Incumbent of St. Peter’s Church, who was for some months the senior
Curate of this parish.  That gentleman, I need not say to you, is of such
unimpeachable integrity and Christian character as not to admit of any
doubt of the truth of his public statement.  A little girl attending the
Free Industrial School which has been set on foot by my beloved and
zealous brother the Rector of St. Philip’s, became possessed, it does not
appear by what means, of a copy of the Protestant authorised version of
the New Testament.  To this Testament Mr. Greaves’s Letter has reference.

                       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—

    “When I was curate in the parish of —, diocese of Cork, my esteemed
    rector the — established a scriptural school in the parish of — which
    was attended by a considerable number of Roman Catholic children.  A
    Father — the parish priest, visited the house of a man named
    Sullivan, whose daughter went to our school.  Mr. — asked how the
    little girl was improving, and said he wished to hear her read.  She
    brought him her Bible, which he no sooner saw than he made a rush at
    her, snatched it out of her hand, called in the neighbours to warm
    themselves by the light of a “Bible fire,” and then burned it, and
    heaped the fire to make the blaze the brighter.”

If any person present wishes to see the names he is perfectly at liberty
to do so to-morrow morning at my house.  I merely mention the
circumstance, to show that the Bible-burning in St. Peter’s district is
not a solitary instance.

Before however I go to the main line of argument which I shall endeavour
to pursue, I will mention a fact which occurred in my own parish, not a
hundred yards from this spot, the truth of which a person present is
prepared to substantiate on oath.  One of my Scripture Readers, in the
course of his visits among the poor Irish, found a considerable number of
them almost or entirely unable to read.  He came to me (though teaching
them to read was no part of his duty, but merely to read to them) to ask
whether I should have any objection to his teaching them to read as they
seemed willing to learn.  I allowed him to purchase a few elementary
reading Books; not Testaments or Bibles.  He went three or four Sundays,
and some of his scholars seemed willing and thankful to avail themselves
of the privilege.  At last he found they began to look somewhat shy on
him.  He told them to show the Priest the books from which they were
learning to read.  The books were produced, and the priest said there was
no harm in the books themselves but _they would lead to the Bible_.  And,
as if to form a complete counterpart to the case in St. Peter’s district,
as if scurrility and insult were to be added to the burning of God’s
Word, my Scripture Reader was actually kicked, not by a Priest, but by an
Irishman, as he went out of the Court, who used the strongest language,
and exclaimed “Break his neck!”  “IT WOULD LEAD TO THE BIBLE!”  And these
poor Irish are doubtless still unable to read, though had my Scripture
Reader been permitted to pursue his labours, there is no doubt that by
this time they would have been fully able to do so.

Before I pass on to the views and conduct of the Church of Rome in
reference to her own versions, I would bring before you the language in
which Rome speaks of _our_ endeavours to circulate our Scriptures.

You are invited to-night by a seasonable coincidence, to attend a Bible
Meeting in the School Room of the very District in which the circumstance
which gives rise to this discourse occurred; and I trust if any of you
are lukewarm about the Bible Society, you will feel that it is high time
for us to meet to circulate the Word of truth, when Priests are burning
it.  Now what is the language of Rome towards the Bible Society?

    Pius VIIth calls the Bible Society “a most crafty device by which the
    very foundations of religion are undermined—a pestilence—a defilement
    of the faith most imminently dangerous to souls.”

    Leo XII. declares of it “That it strolls with effrontery through the
    world, contemning the traditions of the Holy Fathers, and contrary to
    the well-known decree of the council of Trent, labours with all its
    might and by every means to translate or rather pervert the Holy
    Bible into the vulgar language of every nation, from which proceeding
    it is greatly to be feared that what is ascertained to have happened
    to some passages may also occur with regard to others: to wit that by
    a perverse interpretation the gospel of Christ is turned into a human
    gospel, or what is still worse into the gospel of the DEVIL.”

To the same effect is the language of the present Pope in one of his
Encyclical Letters. {8}

But I acknowledge that all this does not apply to the main point which I
desire to urge this evening.  The question that now presents itself is
“what is the practice of the Church of Rome in reference to the
possession of the Scriptures by their people, even in their own received
versions.”  And one of the reasons why I am not satisfied with this
document issued by the Romish Priests, is, that it would seem to imply—(I
acknowledge it is not _stated_, but I ask any man of common sense what
would be the impression produced on his mind on reading this
acknowledgment) that the Church of Rome does circulate the Scriptures
generally?  I ask any candid man, would not you conclude and infer from
their words, that the only objection of the Romish Church is to the
circulation of _what they consider erroneous versions_, _but that they
are endeavouring to circulate their own_?  I appeal to your judgments
whether what I say is not a fair and legitimate inference from their
language.  I believe, in my conscience, that it is intended to convey
that impression.

Now let us examine carefully—and I earnestly crave _your_ attention to
this point, my Roman Catholic hearers—what is the language of your
Church?  You shall not have _my_ words.  I will give you the words of
_your own Church_.  And I presume I am not saying anything which a member
of the Church of Rome will deny.  Nor am I relying on an authority which
the Church of Rome can now repudiate.  For before I read the extract
which I am about to read to you from an Italian writer, it is necessary
that I should prove to you that the writer is one fully recognised and
endorsed by the Church of Rome.  It appears that on the 26th of May,
being Trinity Sunday, 1839, Alphonsus Liguori was canonised at Rome, that
is to say, he was admitted into the muster roll of the Saints of the
Roman Catholic Church.  On the 18th of May, 1803, Pius VII confirmed the
decree of the sacred College of the Jesuits, which declared that all the
writings of St. Alphonsus had been most rigorously examined, and I beg
you to mark what follows—“That not one word” (after this rigorous
examination) “_not one word had been found worthy of censure_.”  I think
then what I can bring forward from writings thus examined, from writings
which have been thus broadly endorsed and declared free from censure,
from the writings of a man who has been recently canonised, may safely be
dealt with as recognised by the Church of Rome.

Many of you are aware that certain books are prohibited to her people.
There is a congregation called the “Congregation of the Index,” appointed
to examine books to put them into the class of prohibited works.  Will
you believe the fact that “THE WORD OF GOD”—Protestants!  Romanists! let
it sink deeply into your hearts—THE WORD OF GOD!—not in the Protestant
translation, not in a heretical version, but the WORD OF GOD as received
by the Church of Rome—is IN THE ROMISH INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS!  I do
not ask you to take my word for a fact so incredible.  Rome shall speak
for herself.  Here are the words of the Index.—

    “Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bibles are
    allowed everywhere without difference in the vulgar tongue, more harm
    than good would arise from it on account of the rashness of men.  Let
    the judgment of the Bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this matter,
    so that with the advice of the parish priest or confessor _they may
    grant_ the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, translated by
    Catholic authors to those whom they shall have ascertained to be
    likely to derive no harm, but rather an increase of faith and piety
    from this sort of reading, _which permission they must have in
    writing_; _but if any one shall presume to read or possess them
    without such permission_, _he may not receive absolution of his sins
    unless he first deliver up the Bibles to the ordinary_.

    From Pope Pius 4th, we have the following cautionary rule—That since
    it is manifest from experience that if the Bible be indiscriminately
    permitted in the vulgar tongue, more injury than benefit will result
    through the rashness of men, the use of Catholic versions _shall be
    granted_ by the voice of the priest or confessor to those alone who
    it is understood will not be hurt by the reading of them, but will be
    advanced in faith and piety.”

—“_they may grant_”—“_shall be granted_!”—Man giving permission to read
the Bible!  That is, on Romanist principles, if one of you, my
parishioners, wants to read the Bible, he must come to me, as his Rector,
for permission—for a written certificate!

Mark also the _condemnation_ by Pope Clement XI of a proposition made by
an eminent writer (Quesnel) of the Romish Church.

    “It is useful and necessary in every time, in every place, and for
    every degree of persons, to study and to know the spirit, and piety,
    and mysteries of the Sacred Scriptures.”

This was laid down by Quesnel, and Pope Clement condemned it.

But I ask “Is it a fact that in this very town, where we have a
considerable number of Romanists, the Scriptures are disseminated _in the
Romish version_?”  One of the excuses which might be urged for the Priest
is, that the Testament which was burnt by him was not the authorised
version.  Two or three weeks have elapsed since he burnt that one, but
has he given, in its place, one of his own Testaments?  He had not done
it up to yesterday morning.  What! has he burnt the Testament of a little
child without the slightest restitution?  Had I taken away what I deemed
an erroneous version, at least I should have gone to the first Bible
depository and should have said “At any rate, if I take away what I
consider erroneous _I must supply what I think is right_.”  On his own
showing, he was bound to have given the child a New Testament _according
to the Romish version_.

But it will be said, “There are many towns where you can buy the Romish
version of the Scriptures at their booksellers.”  I can attribute this to
nothing else than that Rome skilfully accommodates herself to
circumstances of time and place.  This remark will be deemed uncharitable
by many.  Brethren, it is not very easy to avoid the appearance of
uncharitableness when speaking of the practises of the Church of Rome.

    “Dr. Dens, having given the Fourth Rule of the Index, and stated that
    it is strictly binding in Romish countries, says—‘Yea, rather
    according to Steyaeret, the law (4th rule of Index) was received and
    hitherto observed (with some variety, according to the peculiar
    genius of nations), in by far the greatest portion of the Catholic
    world, nay, in the whole of that part of the world which is
    completely Catholic: _it was more dispensed with only where Catholics
    lived among heretics_.’” {11a}

Where the Protestant Bible is extensively circulated, there you will find
the Romish Scriptures may be purchased.

But, in the face of the hundreds here to-night, I state it as a fact
which may be substantiated by superabundant evidence, that the Church of
Rome is still, as by her own showing she is not ashamed to own, opposed
to the general circulation of the Word of God in the vernacular tongue,
even according to her own received version. {11b}  And now let us inquire
into the reasons for this conduct.  The first is, as the words just
quoted bear me out in asserting that _they consider that danger and
mischief would arise from the general circulation of the Word of God
among the masses of the People_.  Men and Brethren! I desire to put a
bridle on my spirit and on my tongue to-night, but when I hear a man
telling me that the Word of the living God—that that revelation which our
Heavenly Father has graciously given to us his fallen sinful creatures,
to tell us of his love, to make known his will, and to declare the way of
salvation—that this is to be denied to the masses of the people, I feel
within me (I trust a _holy_) indignation.  Why is it not the very glory
of the Word of God—is it not one of the best evidences of its adaptation
to the wants of man—that while there are mysteries which neither a Bacon,
nor a Newton, nor a Locke could fathom, and into which even an archangel
can but desire to look—there are lessons which the simplest can fully
understand, which a Timothy may learn at his mother’s knees.  Is it not a
blessed and irrefragable proof of the fact that God intended _all_ to
have the Bible—that the Bible in its great and vital truths (I do not say
its every mystery) is open, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not
merely to the Priest or to the scholar, but to the most ignorant of men?
And I will venture to assert that, so far from the Bible being above the
comprehension of an uneducated man, whenever you find such an one become
a humble, prayerful, reader of the Bible, it expands and strengthens the
powers of his mind.  Yes!  You will find in the courts and alleys of this
vast town, many a man who could not discourse to you of this world’s
lore, but his eye would kindle, his mind would be all intelligence, and
his tongue all fluency, as he began to talk of the wondrous themes of the
Word of God.

It is to me one of the strongest proofs that the Bible is the Word of
God, that the mind of the most ignorant cannot come into contact with it
without becoming elevated thereby:—_The testimony of the Lord is sure_,
_making wise the simple_:—_The entrance of thy words giveth light_; _it
giveth understanding unto the simple_.

But a second reason for the non-circulation of the Written Word by the
Church of Rome, is that _she does not regard it as the alone standard of
faith and practice_.  Hear one of her champions.  You will not find that
the Church of Rome repudiates Dr. Wiseman.  He plainly says—“The
Protestant asserts, and the Catholic denies, that God intended the
Scriptures to be the rule of faith.”

Hear also the decree of the Council of Trent—

    “Having constantly in view the removal of error and the preservation
    of the purity of the gospel in the church, which gospel promised
    before by the prophets in the sacred scriptures, was first orally
    published by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who afterwards
    commanded it to be preached by his Apostles to every creature, as the
    source of all saving truth and discipline, and perceiving that this
    truth and discipline are contained both in written books and
    unwritten traditions which have come down to us, either received by
    the Apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted by the
    hands of the same Apostles under the direction of the Holy Spirit,
    following the example of the orthodox fathers, this Council doth
    receive and reverence, _with equal piety and veneration_, all the
    books, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, the same God being
    the author of both; _and also the aforesaid traditions_, pertaining
    both to faith and manners, whether received from Christ himself, or
    dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by
    continual succession.”

Thank God for the contrast which we can present between Rome and our
Protestant Church!  What then is the language of our own Church?—“Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”—ARTICLE vi.  And then
again in the XXth Article she says—“The Church hath power to decree rites
or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,”—(the word
“authority” is rendered in the Latin Articles not by a word signifying
_imperial_, _absolute_, authority, but _weight_, _influence_,)—“and yet
it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to
God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture,
that it be repugnant to another.  Wherefore although the Church be a
witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree
anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce
anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

Men and Brethren beloved! let this be distinctly impressed upon your
minds—that the universal right of the laity—yes, of the uneducated part
of the laity—to the Word of God, in their own tongue, is a distinctive
principle of the blessed Reformation.  As it was the Bible which
contributed mainly to enlighten and emancipate the mind of the great
Luther, so have the translation and circulation of the Bible in the
vulgar tongue been co-extensive with the progress of true religion in
this country, since the Reformation.  From the time when the large Bible
stood in the Parish Church, with its chain to secure it; when the
multitudes who wanted to read the Word of God had to flock there and to
wait in turns to get to the sacred treasure, or one had to be the reader
for the rest; from that time down to the present, when the Christian
Knowledge Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and other
Institutions have successively given their aid, the Word of the Lord has
had free course and been glorified.

And now I submit that I have proved, my case against the Church of Rome.
I have shown that the act which, notwithstanding the explanation of the
Priests, has excited the astonishment and indignation of Protestants
throughout this town, does not stand alone.  And more, that even the
version which is authorised by the Romish Church is not permitted to be
generally read, without the permission of a Priest or authorised person.

Without saying one word which is not entirely consistent with Christian
charity, I now ask of you, whether that Church is more in accordance with
the will of God, which tells you that, before you read his Word in
private, you must have the written permission of the Priest—or that
Church which, without exception or reserve, puts into the hand of her
every member the written Word of God?  What, I would ask, was the
language of David?  He was not a Priest—“O how love I thy law! it is my
meditation all the day.”  The poor Romanist, unless he has the written
permission of his Priest cannot, amid his troubles and his sorrows, say
with David, “Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my
pilgrimage.”—(PSALM cxix. 54.)  Remember too what is said of the Bereans,
when they heard Paul preach—“These were more noble than those in
Thessolonica, in that they received the word with all gladness of mind,
and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, whether these things were so.”—(ACTS
xvii. 11.)  No Romanist will assert that his Priest is superior to St.
Paul.  But what did the Bereans do when Paul preached to them?  They
“SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY” to see whether he was preaching truth.
And I tell you that if St. Paul himself, yea, if an angel were to preach
to me, I would do the same.  But what would be said to a poor Irishman
who should go to his Priest and say “I have been looking to my Bible to
see what is said there about what you told us yesterday, and I find that
what you taught us is not according to the Word of God?”  And what does
St. Paul say when warning Timothy in his second Epistle (iii. 14, 17)
against “perilous times” and evil men?  “All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that”—_Who_? the
priest?—the scholar?—No!—“That the MAN OF GOD”—whether priest or layman,
whether scholar or no scholar—“may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works.”  And contrast his language to Timothy with the case of
the little girl from the Industrial School—“From a child thou hast known
the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation,
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”—There were no Bible-burners in
St. Paul’s days.  The little girl in Birmingham receives a Testament, and
it is not only taken away, but is burnt by the Priest.  We read in the
Epistle for this morning’s service “Whatsoever things were written
aforetime _were written for our learning_, that we through patience, and
comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”  It is evident therefore that
they were not written to be kept back from the people, but that they were
“_written for their learning_.” {15}  Yet the Church of Rome which
arrogates to itself the title of the only true Church puts the Bible into
the Index of prohibited books.  One more example which the Scriptures
furnish—the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. (Acts viii. 27, &c.)  He was
sitting in his carriage, reading his Bible, and God sent his minister to
him saying—“Understandest thou what thou readest?”  Beautiful
illustration of a minister’s place!  It is to explain the Scriptures.  He
did not say “You cannot understand them—You ought not to be reading
Esaias the prophet.”  If he took it out of his hands, it was not to throw
it either into the fire or into the water, but he took the book from him
and “_began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus_.”  And
this is our office now, not to stand between the people and the Bible,
but to open up the Bible to them, grounding our every sermon, our every
lecture, our every lesson, upon it.

I proceed, Brethren beloved, to draw from this mournful occurrence
practical lessons, and, in doing so, I trust I shall not violate the rule
which, in perfect sincerity, I laid down at the commencement.  Of course,
the Romanist will think I am violating it, as will some latitudinarian
Protestants.

But, I urge, learn from this transaction in our town the _true unaltered
character of Popery_.  Yes—though many haply do not like that statement,
I repeat it—_the true unaltered character of Popery_.  We are _bigots_
forsooth! which was the bigot?—the man that gave the _Bible_ or he that
burnt it?

Mark the published statement of the Priests.  I am to be told that, put
as I am, in some measure, at least, in charge (in accordance with the
laws of this country,) over the souls of the people in my parish without
exception, I am not to go into the houses of some of my parishioners; or,
if I do so, I am to be treated with _scurrility_ and _insult_!  Let me
ask you, does any man or woman here believe that there is a Protestant
Clergyman or a Dissenting Minister who would have said that if any Romish
Priest came into the house of one of his people he was to be treated with
_scurrility_ and _insult_?  I can only say from the depth of my heart
that I should be utterly ashamed of any Protestant Clergyman who so
disgraced himself.  We are told however by the Priest that if we venture
to pass the door of a Roman Catholic we shall be treated with
“_scurrility_ and _insult_”—I repeat the words because I was careful to
ask the Incumbent of St. Peter’s for _the very words_ employed.  But are
we to receive this doctrine? is there any man in this country except the
owner of the house or tenement—be it among the humble tenements of London
’Prentice-street, or the villas of Edgbaston—who has the power to say to
me that I shall not enter that house?  Is it come to this, that, in these
days of freedom, in the 19th century, I am not to be at liberty to enter
the house of one of my parishioners, whether he be a Roman Catholic or
Protestant, (so long as the householder permits my visit) without
receiving scurrility and insult at the instance of a Priest!  I, for one,
unhesitatingly declare, and I believe I shall be supported in the
declaration by the body of my brethren, that I do not mean to abide by
any such rule.

But the Priest was provoked, forsooth, by the conduct of certain
Protestant Clergymen and their agents who enter the house of the poor
Romanist, to pervert his faith!  The charge is that we are making
proselytes.  If by this it be meant that we are trying to get people over
from one Church to another, I demur to it.  It is my object, with God’s
assistance, to make them Christians, to draw them to Christ, but I wish
to make them _converts_ and not _proselytes_.  I wish indeed to see them
Church of England Christians, because I believe that my own dear Church
exhibits Christ in her Articles and formularies, and is a truly
Scriptural Church.  But I confess that I was almost provoked to a smile
when I read of _the complaints of Rome_ that we are seeking to
proselytise!  Rome which is literally setting wife against husband,
daughter against father, by the most insidious artifices; perverting
Protestants, and even the children of Protestant Clergymen, by artifices
the most subtle!  Rome which is not content with contesting the ground
with us in our own land but in heathen countries also, as well as in our
colonies!  The charge of proselytising comes with a very bad grace from
the Church of Rome!  Let me however say that though I do not wish to
_proselytize_ but to _convert_, I will not undertake to keep my Scripture
Readers out of any house at the dictation of Priest or Pope.  I will not
undertake to leave men in error and darkness.  Let us use lawful, open
handed, means, let us not have recourse to subtle artifice.  Let us have
all as open as the day, and I have no fear for the ultimate progress of
the truth.  And we ask all members of the Church of Rome to confine
themselves to honourable, straightforward, proceedings.

It will perhaps be said that in what I am now about to urge I am
trenching on party politics.  I appeal to my two years’ ministrations in
this town, whether I have at any time been guilty of advancing anything
in the shape of party politics.  But there are some questions in which
politics and religion are so intimately blended, that I hold it to be
false delicacy to abstain from the bold avowal of our sentiments.  I put
it to you—are we prepared to pay money to the Romish Priests for burning
Bibles in Ireland or in England, without a manful, constitutional,
struggle?  I know that if you deviate from the simple ground of
principle, and begin to talk of _expediency_, a strong case may readily
be made.  On grounds of expediency, I myself should be disposed to yield,
but _as a sworn minister of the Church of England_, _I have proclaimed
Rome to be_ IDOLATROUS; _and if you are ashamed of your Church_, I AM
NOT; and I will not consent, either directly or indirectly, to support
idolatry—I will not consent to pay money for a Priest who goes into
London ’Prentice-street or into Ireland to burn the Word of God.

But bear with me awhile, while I advance my _second_ lesson.  _Be
thankful for the Protestant Reformed Church of England_.  We are not half
thankful enough for the Church of England.  And though some of our
Dissenting enemies desire to pull her down, they little know how much
they risk.  They little know what a protective position the Church of
England occupies between them and the tyranny of Rome. {18}  Whatever the
Church of England may have been in times gone by, and I do not say that
the bitter weed of bigotry is entirely eradicated, yet she is now
practically a tolerant Church.

But it is the fashion of the day to decry _Protestantism_, “Protestantism
is a mere negation!”  We do not mean to say that Protestantism will take
a man to heaven.  But we _do_ say that it is the glory of our Church
that, when the truth of God had been overlaid with error and corruption,
she came out of the corruption herself, and made a bold protest against
it.  Let us not be ashamed of the name Protestant.  We want not
Protestantism as a mere toast at a jovial dinner—as the mere shibboleth
of a party.  Our Protestantism is a _holy_ thing.  It is a protest
against the corruption of the truth of God.  And, if you love
Protestantism, _dally_ not with _Popery_.  Don’t go to Roman Catholic
Chapels to hear the pretty music!  Don’t let your children have tales and
novels which contain poison, simply because they are nicely got up and
illustrated.  A man may drink poison out of a golden cup; but it is
poison still.  Your only safety is to have nothing to do with it.  Touch
not the unclean thing.

Thirdly.—_Circulate the Scriptures_.  If you cannot do it by your own
individual exertions, join those Institutions which are established for
this purpose.  Join the Christian Knowledge Society; join the British and
Foreign Bible Society.  Support our Parish Scripture Readers’ fund; and
if the emissaries of Rome are going up and down in our town, let us at
least be equally diligent; and ask whether we ought not to determine to
have an enlarged band of Scripture Readers to counteract their efforts.

Fourthly.—Remember the solemn privilege and responsibility of possessing
the Bible.  It is a privilege to possess the Bible; but that privilege
entails an awful responsibility.  For when the Lord Jesus shall come a
second time, to judge the world, he will demand an account, not merely
from the Priest who burns the Bible, but the Protestant who neglects it.
A neglected Bible is as bad as a burnt Bible.  At the last day, it would
be better for us to have been members of a Church which withheld the Word
of God from its people, than, having the Word, to have neglected and
despised it.  All you that have the Scriptures in your houses, first
given perhaps by some affectionate parent, now no more—Servants, to whom
some kind and pious Mistress has given a copy of the Word of God, which
you have left unread—you little Children who have received a copy of this
Holy Book in the Sunday or the National School—beware lest the Word of
God neglected and despised should rise up against you at the last great
day.  Beware, lest, being Protestants in name, ye be wanting in Bible
faith, Bible hope, Bible lives.

Before I sit down, I desire to address another portion of the
congregation to-night.

My Roman Catholic hearers, you have not often listened to a Protestant
preacher.  Perhaps you may never listen to another.  And perhaps from
what you have read of speeches and sermons against Romanism, you think
that we are one and all fire-brands, cherishing and indulging bitter
animosity against you.

I am free to acknowledge, and I say it with all honesty, that I much
regret the way in which some persons talk about Romanists.  I believe
that a great many rash and bitter words have been employed; much that is
inconsistent in the sight of God with Christian charity.  I admit this,
but let me also say that you must learn to distinguish between language
against _your system_ and language against _yourselves_.  We _do_ believe
your system to be idolatrous.  We _do_ believe it to be opposed in many
essential points to the Word of God.  And though there be some traitors
in our camp who eat our bread and want to fraternize with you, we tell
you that the great body of the Protestant Churchmen of England have no
sympathy with these traitors.  But I earnestly invite your candid
attention while I solemnly ask you one question.  _Does your Church
circulate the Word of God_?  I do not say does your Church, in some
particular cases, withhold her objection? but as a Church is it a
_Bible-circulating_ Church?  I am dealing with fellow immortals, fellow
sinners.  Let me a moment put aside the distinctions of Protestant and
Romanist.  Let us, my Roman Catholic hearers, recollect that we are both
poor worms of the earth—with immortal souls—passing into an awful
eternity—an eternity into which you and I may be plunged speedily.  I say
unto you then, as dying men and fellow sinners, that all is not right, if
your Church or your Priests stand between you and the Word of God.  I say
to you, though the Pope himself preach to you, “_Search the Scriptures_”
for yourselves; assert the right of examining the Word of God.  I do not
say to you “Become a Protestant,” “Become this, become the other;” all I
now say is “_Search the Scriptures_” with honest, hearty, humble,
childlike prayer.  Search them “_daily_.”  They will enable you to test
the rules and doctrines of the Church of Rome.

When you turn to your Bibles, you will find the _Virgin Mary_ there.  You
will find her there as “highly favoured” and blessed among women—but you
will _not_ find her as a mediator between yourself and her Incarnate Son;
you will _not_ find her as the object in any sense or measure, of
religious worship.  And when you turn to your Bibles, you will find
_Confession_ there—but you will _not_ find confession to your priest
necessarily enjoined; you will _not_ find that, in order to absolution,
you are bound to open to a fellow man all the secrets of your inmost
soul.  On Calvary alone, and at the foot of the cross, must you confess
your sins.  And when you turn to your Bibles, you will find _Good Works_
there—but you will not find good works to have in any measure an atoning
efficacy—but that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
And when you turn to your Bibles, you will find in them the blessed truth
that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners—but you will
_not_ find the doctrine of the mass there.  “Christ was _once_ offered to
bear the sins of many.”—“By _one_ offering he hath _perfected for ever_
them that are sanctified;” and that offering is never to be, and never
can be, repeated.  When you turn to your Bibles you will find that in the
Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper we do, in a _spiritual_ sense, by faith,
eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—but you will
_not_ find that by the prayer of the Priest, common sense is
contradicted, and the bread, and the juice of the vine, turned into the
body and blood of the Son of Man.

Beloved, all I ask of you is to test these things by Scripture, and when
you have done this, compare the Church of England with that of Rome, and
may the Spirit of God be with you as your helper and your guide!

This congregation is now about to separate.  The Roman Catholic who is
here, will perhaps never more set foot within these walls.  But remember
we shall meet again at the last great day.  On that solemn day no priest
can stand in your stead; no Church doctrines or dogmas can be put in as
your plea or excuse before your Judge.  You will stand in the presence of
Him who made you and hath redeemed you.  And if I have seemed to speak
bitterly, believe me, in these last words, it is my soul’s inmost prayer
for every Romanist here present to-night, that, if he be not brought out
of that Church before that solemn hour when the wood and hay and stubble
shall be burnt up by the judgment-fires, he may yet, spite of his
Romanism, be so found on the ONE FOUNDATION—even Jesus—as that we may
meet in the Church in glory!

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                B. HALL, PRINTER, HIGH-STREET, BIRMINGHAM




FOOTNOTES.


{5}  I subjoin the following documents, issued since the preaching of
this Sermon:—

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.

    {8}  “Hopes had been raised of a new order of things, as a new Head,
    of a widely different character from any of his predecessors,
    ascended the Papal Throne.  Yes—rail-roads and gas-lights shall be
    admitted for the first time in the dominions of Him of Rome: but, not
    the Bible Society; that shall be denounced with as loud a voice of
    thunder, as ever proceeded from the City of the Seven Hills.  That
    voice of thunder has been re-echoed by Cardinals and others, in
    France, Holland, and elsewhere; and so re-echoed, that many a faint
    heart has quailed; and some, who before stood half-prepared to
    encourage the dissemination of the Scriptures, have drawn back and
    closed the door before half-opened.  And yet, even among Roman
    Catholics, the distribution of the Scriptures has proved as large as
    ever.—In no previous year has the Society been counted worthy of
    suffering a fiercer vituperation from this quarter than during the
    past.  Take as an example, the following paragraph from a famous
    Encyclical Letter, and see with what company the Society is
    associated:—

    “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_.

{11a}  “Awful Disclosure, being Extracts Translated from the Moral
Theology of Alphonsus Liguori,” by Rev. R. P. Blakeney.

    {11b}  “When Drs. Doyle, Murray, and Kelley, the Irish Roman Catholic
    Bishops, were examined before a committee of the Parliament, the
    following confessions were made by them:—(_Question to Dr.
    Doyle_)—You were educated in Portugal?  Yes.  Did you ever see in
    Portugal any translation (of the Scriptures) into the vulgar tongue,
    whether allowed or not?  No, I did not.  (_Question to Dr.
    Murray_)—You were educated in Salamanca?  I was.  Can you give any
    information as to any authenticated version of the scriptures in the
    Spanish language?  I did hear that there was a Spanish version of the
    Holy Scriptures, but I do not happen to know the fact.  Have the
    Scriptures any practical circulation in the vulgar tongue in Spain?
    They had not then.  Have the people seen the Scriptures in a language
    they could understand?  I believe they were not generally read by the
    people.  Do you imagine that any material portion of the people have
    so much as seen the Scriptures in a language they could understand?
    I do not know that they have.”

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.

    {15}  “Do we still then ask why the Holy Scriptures were given to us
    by Divine Providence?  That question I conceive admits only of the
    following answer. They are a gift to us and to our children,
    collectively and individually, that we may lay them to our hearts,
    that they may be to us our rule of life, and that by following their
    precepts we may daily approach nearer and nearer to God.  This I
    repeat must be their great and primary object.  They are not then,
    nor were they ever intended to be, a hidden treasure, hoarded up in
    the sanctuary of the Church, to be visited only on solemn occasions,
    to be held up at a distance to the veneration of the multitude, to
    serve only as a test of the accuracy of our oral teaching, but they
    are at once the individual possession, the personal friend, the
    monitor, the familiar oracle of every servant of Christ.”—_Dr.
    Shuttleworth’s Not Tradition but Scripture_.

{18}  Greatly should I rejoice, were those of our Dissenting Brethren who
refuse to take part in such proceedings as those of the Anti-State Church
Association, publicly to repudiate, at least, their language and spirit.