"If this review and this letter were the separate productions of two witnesses, on which of their conflicting testimonies could we depend ? But being, if the Courier speak truth, from the pen of the same gentleman, we must leave it to you, sir, to reconcile them to any principles of truth, for the shortness of the interval that elapsed between their appearance forbids the ordinary mode of accounting through any failure of memory, for the contradiction.

"But my more immediate business is with the letter. Let us take this as a production of a most learned member of the church of Rome.

"Now, it is clear from Coyne's letter to Dr. Troy, that he sent to that prelate the very advertisement of which an original was produced at Exeter-hall, in which it is stated that those Rhemish notes are 'according to the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church, which is our infallible and unerring guide in reading the Holy Scriptures, and bringing men to salvation.' Yet, this authoritative approbation of this infallible interpretation was obtained, you say, through the culpable neglect of this priest, Mr. Walsh; this is your statement in the letter; or, if you prefer the Review, it was given without hesitation to a speculating bookseller. So that, on your own showing, the interpretation of this infallible and unerring guide' goes forth to the nation, and having blinded and deceived the poor Roman Catholics who depend on it, it turns out, as you tell us, that it is no interpretation of this infallible guide at all; but that an archbishop of an infallible church has been cajoled by one of his own priests of this infallible church: or, if you choose, humbugged by a speculating bookseller of this infallible church, to give out as infallible that which is not only fallible, but false, yea, that which you owe it to your religion, as a Catholic and a Christian, to your country as an Irishman, to your feelings as a human being, to utterly denounce,' &c. &c.

"So, sir, this is your speaking judge,'-this is your heavenly guide,'-to which, as you remember, in your letter to Mr. Daly, you tell him you bow with such reverence, &c. Now, sir, where is infallibility here? Is it in the archbishop who sanctions this infallible interpretation, or in the priest, who you tell us cajoles him to sanction it? or is it in the speculating bookseller? or is it in your own bright self, who utterly denounce them all? Make out of your own statement where the infallibility is to be found; shew us where we are to depend upon your argument or your evidence, or where you yourself are to depend upon your superstition.

"Your review proves that you read both the reports of my speech at Exeter-hall, and also Mr. Blair's book. Now you perfectly knew,

that though Dr. Troy's name alone appeared affixed to the Bible, of 1816, when it came out under the auspices really of Mr. Cumming, though nominally of Mr. Coyne--yet that this same Bible, when M'Namara commenced it in 1813, had the patronage of your Primate, Dr. O'Reilly, of Dr. Troy, Dr. Murray, and all the influential bishops of your church. Yet, though you knew this, and acknowledged in your review that McNamara obtained the subscriptions of most of your bishops,' yet, in your letter in the Chronicle, you totally suppress this fact, and the advertisement of 1813, which proved it, and you make it appear as if Dr. Troy was the only bishop who approved the Bible, and that his approbation was procured by the culpable neglect of Mr. Walsh.

"But you say that 'Dr. Troy's approbation having been obtained by this means, it became incumbent on that prelate to disavow the objectionable parts of that Bible.'

"When, sir, was he sensible of this necessity? Was not the Bible being printed in the city of Dublin, in his own diocese, under his own auspices, and those of his coadjutor, Dr. Murray? Was it not revised and corrected by the man of his own appointment, by your own confession? Yet, from 1813 to 1817, even a year after it had been printed and completed, he never felt it incumbent on him to disavow one letter of these notes, till the British Critic dragged them out before England. You try to put a face on the transaction, as if his disavowal proceeded from principle, while you know as the facts prove, that it proceeded not from principle, but from compulsion.

"What is the reason that he himself assigns for his disavowal ? What is his testimony to Coyne before Dr. Hamill and Mr. Kenny? Did he express the least compunction for the infamous principles inculcated in those notes-the least regret for the doctrines of tyranny, intolerance, persecution, sedition, and murder, which they instil? Not one syllable of the kind. What is Coyne's own testimony, in his letter to Dr. Troy himself, of the expression he used on the occasion ? 'You then observed that you were sure I had no bad intention in putting your Grace's name to the work, but that very bad consequences had followed; that finding its way into England it had armed our enemies against us, and that at a time when we were seeking emancipation.' Here was the only evil of the Rhemish notes; not that their principles tended to arm Roman Catholics in hatred, and crime, and murder, against Protestants, but that the discovery of the fact tended to arm Protestants with political apprehensions against them. Your miserable attempt at a defence is disproved in principle and in fact by the very man himself in whose vindication you attempt to impose on the public.

"But now, sir, since you seem to be so well acquainted with the history of this affair, be so good to tell the public how the approbation of your primate and the rest of your bishops was procured. You have quite satisfied us as to Dr. Troy; now pray be equally explicit as to them. Was it through the culpable neglect of Mr. Walsh that their sanction was obtained? Did Mr. Walsh go from Cork to Armagh, or from Armagh to Cork, to procure the approbation of the prelates in those and the intermediate dioceses? If so, you may call this 'culpable neglect,'-I call it marvellous activity. But again, sir, you say that since Dr. Troy's approbation was obtained by those means, it became incumbent on the prelate to disavow the objectionable parts of that Bible.' Pray, sir, was it not equally incumbent' on your primate, Dr. O'Reilly? Was it not equally incumbent' on Dr. Murray, and on all the rest of the prelates? Yet where was their disavowal? Which of them came forward to deny? to disclaim? to object? Was it that their slumbering sensibility had not been awakened by the thunder of the British Critic? or that although Dr. Troy had been aroused 'then for the first time to read and consider those notes,' as he informs us, your other good prelates slept quietly on, in ignorance and infallibility, to this good day, while their names were printed as patrons to the next edition, to assure the laity who subscribed for copies of the work, that this was the infallible interpretation of their church that should guide them to eternal life. You charge me, sir, with suppressing a date, in my speech, of July, 1817, which you pretend would have exculpated your bishops. I did not suppress that date, but brought it prominently forward, as it stands reported in the Evening Mail, and it only tended to substantiate Dr. Troy's hypocrisy and your own, in pretending to abjure the Bible.

"To give the public some little idea now of the dependence to be placed on those who are determined to maintain a system of popery, I shall close this letter with the testimony of three individuals as to the Bible published in Cork, of 1818. Dr. Murray, in his letter to Dr. Murdoch, Roman Catholic Bishop of Glasgow, dated February 6th, 1836, declares that he was 'wholly unacquainted with the history of that Bible;' that he never patronized this edition, nor subscribed for a copy of it, nor recommended it, nor knew any thing whatever about it;' that he had no connection whatever with the publication of that edition;' and that he never even saw it, until Dr. Murdoch's letter induced him to send in search of a copy of it, which, after some difficulty, he procured'-this is Dr. Murray's testimony, while his name stands in print in the advertisement, as a patron to these two Bibles, as well as in the list of subscribers to the last. Mr. Coyne says, in a letter dated the 11th of last April, addressed to

me on behalf of Mr. Maguire, that he could prove that I have slandered the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, by attempting to show that his Grace was a party to the publication of the Rhemish Bible in 1818, if I do not admit that I am now aware that no such publication ever took place this is Mr. Coyne. Now, what say you in your review, p. 515? You say, speaking of me 'He then entered into a long argument to show that, of which nobody ever entertained a doubt, that the Bible of 1818 was in all respects a reprint of that of 1816.'

"Dr. Murray never saw or heard of it, or knew any thing about it,' although it had been circulated under his patronage for eighteen long years, till a letter from Glasgow induced him to send out for a copy of it, which he procures in his own city, one fortunate winter's morning, February 6.

"Mr. Coyne, notwithstanding the Doctor procured this copy-Mr. Coyne, his own bookseller-bookseller to all the bishops-bookseller to the College of Maynooth-the best informed man in Ireland on all such subjects, avers, that no such publication ever took place.' This he states on April 11.

"Mr. O'Connell, in his celebrated review of the meeting at Exeter Hall in the July following, declares that no one ever entertained a doubt,' not only that the publication took place, but that the Bible of 1818 was in all respects a reprint of that of 1816.'

"One gentleman never hears of it for eighteen long years, but when informed, with difficulty procures it one morning-another gentleman positively states it never was published-and a third, though last not least, declares not only that it was published, but that no one ever entertained a doubt about the matter. I believe this is enough about your bishops. I must, in my next, conclude with some considerations as to your own share in the transaction; meantime, sir, recommending you earnestly, before it be too late, to reject the notes and study the text; and sincerely hoping you may derive true instruction from it, and be delivered from the apostacy of the Church of Rome, I remain, sir, a faithful friend to the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

"R. J. M'GHEE."

RHEMISH NOTES AND ROMISH DEMAGOGUES.

SECOND LETTER.

"Dublin, August 19, 1836.

"SIR-Leaving your bishops to struggle through the difficulties by you have increased the embarrassments of their situation, and

which

the odium of their conduct, we now come to yourself. They say a man makes a miserable lawyer in his own cause: we shall try how far you exemplify the adage.

"You inform us, in the fourteenth head of your letter, that you 'believed your next application to parliament might be unfavourably affected by the publication of these notes, unless they were in some way disavowed by the laity.' The justice of this I never disputed, sir; I give you ample credit for the sincerity of the sentiment. I never expressed a doubt that all your movements were directed more by the fears of your politics than by the principles of your religion. You tell us too, sir, that you had already, on oath, repudiated the worst part of the opinions and doctrines contained in these notes.' Had you, sir? You had repudiated them on oath! This, too, is a sentiment which stands above the reach of comment-every man anticipates all that could be said upon the subject. Who is ignorant of the value which you attach to the solemnity of such an obligation?

6

"You employ three long succeeding sections in giving us quotations from the speeches you made, and all that you felt, promised, vowed, and threatened, on the occasion; and the printer of the Morning Chronicle has done ample justice to your directions, by distinguishing these passages with all the powers of typographical emphasis that the press can command. Well, sir, I read all these passages, or at least as many of them as I could procure, on the platform at Exeter Hall. I expressed my regret that you were not there to do justice to them yourself: but I assure you I read them with the most emphatic intonation which my poor abilities and voice could compass; so that I anticipated your own statement. We all know what you said-but the point is, what did you do? You said all that you would do. But then the question still comes-did you do any thing you said?

"I take your own letter; there is no forgery here, sir. You state, in the seventeenth head, that your disavowal was to be that of an aggregate meeting of the Catholics of Ireland.' Was there ever such a disavowal? Never!

"You tell us, again, you had proposed a denunciation by the Board itself.' Did you procure such a denunciation ? Never!

"You say "My resolution was amended, and the amendment was unanimously agreed to in these words, "that a committee be appointed to draw up an address on the occasion of the late publication of the Rhemish Testament, with a view to have the same submitted to an aggregate meeting." Here now is your conclusion-here is the result of all your speeches-all your promises-all your bluster. Here is the consummation of all your projects for vindicating yourself and your