[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.