“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.