No. III.

Extracts from Dr. Murray's Examination before a Committee of the House of Commons, May 17, 1825.

"Are you aware that an edition of the Testament, with Notes, was published in Dublin, in or about 1816, by Dr. Troy ?--I am. That edition was published under a misconception. Dr. Troy had given his sanction to an edition of the Bible, supposing it to be the same that he had before sanctioned; but as soon as he found his mistake he withdrew his approbation, and I do not find that the edition is in use among Roman Catholics.*

By what document can you show that Dr. Troy withdrew his sanction?—He wrote a letter to that effect, which was published at the

time.

"Were not those notes the usual notes in use among Roman Catholics; were they not extracted literally from those to be found in the Douay version?-They were not used in Ireland before; for there had not been in that country any previous edition of them.

"Where were they obtained; by Cowie, the printer, or by whom were they furnished?—They were furnished in an edition known in England, and which proceeded from certain exiles who left this country in very angry times, and carried a little of the spirit of the times along with them. It is a subject of regret in many sincere Catholics that too much of that spirit has been infused into these notes. They have, however, been gradually softened down, so that in the last edition there are very few notes, and those very unobjectionable.

*

"Were not those notes to the Scriptures, which have been considered as objectionable, published at Rheims in France, and are they not called the Rhemish notes ?-They are: they were published by exiles, who had been obliged, during the angry times of persecution, to forsake their native country.

"Were they English or Irish exiles?—English.

"The Douay version is one thing, and the Rhemish another: are not editions of the Douay Bible published in Ireland without those notes?—The Rhemish notes were never published in Ireland, except on the occasion already alluded to, when they were published by mistake. They were called Rhemish, because the Testament was translated at the College of Rheims. The College was afterwards removed to Douay, and the remaining part of the Bible was translated at the latter place.

"Have you conversed with Dr. Troy upon this subject?--I have. + Ibid. III.

First Appendix II.

"Are you aware, from those conversations, whether Dr. Troy was aware of the intention of republishing those Rhemish notes at the time his approbation was obtained?—I know he was not.

"Do you know whether Dr. Troy's approval was withdrawn from the circulation of the Scriptures as soon as his attention was called to the objectionable character of those notes?-I know that to be the case, and, in consequence of that, the book was not circulated.*

"Do you believe the edition of the Scriptures, with those objectionable notes, is at the present moment circulated under the authority of any one individual of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland?-My belief is, that it is not; I do not know of a single instance of it, nor did I ever happen to meet with a copy of it in circulation.†

"Was not publicity given, by publication in the papers, to Dr. Troy's disapprobation of those notes ?-Certainly."

Now, one document more to show the results of the publication of this Bible in 1816, and of the notice attracted to it by its exposure in the British Critic. Among those who were naturally most apprehensive of the effect likely to be produced on England, the foremost was Mr. O'Connell, and his proceedings on the subject are not a little important, as the following documents extracted from the Dublin Evening Post of that day, will testify :

"CATHOLIC BOARD," December 1, 1817.

Dublin E. Post, December 2.

Mr. O'Connell expressed his intention to move for a disavowal of the Rhemish Notes.‡

Dublin Evening Post, December 6.

Mr. O'Connell moved for a Committee to disclaim the Rhemish Notes; stated that an action was pending between Dr. Troy and a respectable bookseller; and while the Board should not interfere with the subject of this action, "they should not let the present opportunity pass of recording their abhorrence of the bigoted and intolerant doctrines promulgated in that work." "There was not a moment to be lost." "He would not remain a Catholic one hour longer, if he thought it essential to the Catholic faith, to believe that it was lawful to murder Protestants, or that faith might be innocently broken with heretics; yet such were the doctrines to be deduced from the Notes to the Rhemish Testament." Mr. O'Connell moved for a Committee to disavow the Notes. Mr. Eneas M'Donnell opposed the motion. Mr. Nicholas Mahon thought the business should be left to the clergy. * First Appendix IV. + Ibid. V. + Ibid. VI.

Mr. O'Connell replied, that, "if, under pretence of this being a polemical subject, you stop short, the people of England will say that you had not the spirit or the liberality to condemn those very ɛcandalous Notes, and that you got rid of them by a side-wind." In the end, a motion was put and carried, the words being amended thus:— "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."

Dec. 9.-Dublin Evening Post, Dec. 11.

The Committee appointed to prepare an address on the occasion of the re-publication of the Rhemish Notes, obtained time (until Saturday next) to make up their Report.

Dec. 13-Dublin Evening Post, Dec. 16.

Mr. O'Connell stated, that the Committee appointed to prepare a disavowal of the] Rhemish Notes, would be ready to make their report on Thursday next. They would probably adopt the disclaimer of the Archbishop of Dublin, omitting, of course, the preliminary part, with which they had no concern; for it was couched in language as strong and as general as could be desired.

Dec. 18.-Dublin Evening Post, 20-18.

Mr. O'Connell moved, That further time be granted to the Committee appointed to prepare a disavowal of the Rhemish Notes, until Saturday sen'night.

Dublin Evening Post, January 18, 1818.

The Catholic Board were to have met on Saturday week, for the purpose of devising means to remunerate Mr. Hayes, &c. &c. The Board, we have heard, is extinct.

The writer from whom I quote, adds—

"What the secret influence was which demanded such a sacrifice of liberal and honorable feeling, it would not, perhaps, be easy at this day to ascertain."

The writer of this thinks it would be hard to tell at this day, what secret influence prevented Mr. O'Connell from carrying into effect his attempts in the Catholic Board, and, after all his blustering parade, leaving, as he did, the Notes undisclaimed to this hour. That secret

influence is now developed-he shrunk under the authority of his spiritual masters. You see him, therefore, begging time for this Committee, at the same Board where he had, with such mockery of liberalism, voted for its appointment, and at last content that its operations should be dropped. His masters, I say, did not really choose to disclaim these Notes, and therefore he dared not carry his mockery

into effect.

Now you have heard Dr. Troy's letter disclaiming upon his oath that publication-you have heard Dr. Murray's examination before the Committee of the House of Commons, declaring on his oath that,

Captain Gordon-It was only on his affirmation.

Mr. McGhee-Well, on his affirmation be it, surely it is no question that the affirmation of a bishop, in evidence before the House of Commons, is equal to his oath. You have heard, then, an affirmation which ought to be an oath-you have heard Mr. O'Connell's empty bluster on the subject; now, I ask, what will this meeting think, what will this empire think, when I testify THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS

WHICH I READ TO YOU, ARE EXTRACTS FROM THE NOTES OF THIS

BIBLE, [holding up another quarto,] which is an identical reprint of this other Bible of 1816, with the exception of a few Notes, namely, those in this Red book, bearING THE SANCTION of twelve bishops SANCTIONED AND PATRONIZED BY Dr. O'REILLY, Dr. TROY, and Dr. MURRAY, and brought out at Cork in 1818, under Mr. M'Namara, the very man that was engaged in the publication of the former Bible? If we felt as we ought to feel, we would weep; for I verily believe that such a fact has never been laid before an audience.

Now, let me ask you to reconsider the awful evidence of this case. Dr. Troy, in his letter, dated in 1817, declares, that he had read those Notes, considered, and rejected them. Thus, in 1817, he solemnly rejects them-he says he has solemnly abjured them upon oath; while in the year 1818, here is this Bible published at Cork, by M'Namara, stating that this edition of the Roman Catholic Bible contains the New Testament, as sanctioned by the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, and embellished with maps and engravings. The names of Dr. Troy and Dr. Murray are here in the list of subscribers, and the names of Dr. Troy and Dr. Murray down, not as subscribers but as patrons. Here is the testimony-the cover of the Bible, while the title-page proves that it was published in 1818. Here is the cover of another edition,

which I have torn off, having given the work to be bound. But you have to consider not only Dr. Troy's testimony, but Dr. Murray's; for he was asked in his examination, if he had conversed with Dr. Troy on the subject, and he declared "that he had, and that he knew his approval was withdrawn from the circulation of the Scriptures as soon as his attention was called to the objectionable character of the Notes." Thus he declares on his oath, that he knew Dr. Troy had approved of the Bible of 1816 being withdrawn from the public, while all the time he knew that the same Bible had come out at Cork in 1818, with the approbation of Dr. Troy, and his own approbation subjoined to it. He declares that, "He believed that the Bible with those Notes was not circulated under the authority of one individual of the Roman Catholic clergy:" while, as I have already proved, he knew that in 1818 this new edition was brought out at Cork, bearing the names of twelve bishops, with his own among them, and 1827 subscribers, of whom 155 were Roman Catholic priests. There is a note also mentioning that some are omitted, owing to not having sent in their names for insertion. I have got two thousand copies of this document struck off, to be distributed among the members of this meeting. You will find, first, the title-page of Coyne's Bible, published in 1816; second, the letter of Dr. Troy disavowing this Bible; third, the extract from Dr. Murray's examination before the House of Commons; fourth, the title of M.Namara's Bible; fifth, the dedication of M'Namara; and next the advertisements of the Bible, printed, as you have seen, on the covers. You have read the three first. No. IV.

The title-page of McNamara's Bible, published at Cork, A.D. 1818. "The Holy Catholic Bible, containing the whole of the books in the sacred Scriptures, translated from the Latin Vulgate; the Old Testament, first published at the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609; the New Testament, first published at the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582, explained and illustrated with valuable and copious notes; to which are added, &c. &c.

*

"BY JAMES A. M'NAMARA.

"This edition of the Catholic Bible, containing the Old and New Testament, is sanctioned and patronized by the Roman Catholic Prelates and Clergy of Ireland.

Cork: Printed for the Proprietor, A.D. 1818."