Priest with two names

[Wexflyer]

Here's the grave, I can find no other certain reference to him as "Lewis."
http://www.enfieldgraveyards.com/Gravestone.aspx?GravestoneID=684

I'm not a 100% sure, but I assume the inscription dates to much later.  Would they say "vicar general", when a bishop was hiding in the same parish in 1704?

Well, the diocesan history refers to him as Lewis - but clearly on the basis of this memorial inscription.  And that brings me back to my earlier point - confirming the transcription of the memorial. For all we know, the transcription on the website (above) may derive from the diocesan history. I say that, because one can take the photo on the website, download it, and then magnify it (not using the online magnifying tool). If I do that, I can make out that I can confirm most of the inscription referring to "Lewis" - with two exceptions. The exceptions are:
- His year of death, which is very weathered/worn on the stone, and
- His Christian name. It does NOT look like "Lewis" to me! Specifically, the first letter does not look like "L", but looks more like B or D. Take a look yourself.

As for there being a VG at same time as a bishop - not an issue. Every bishop is supposed to have a VG!

[Ghostwheel]

I have read that part of Comerford's history of the diocese before.

My original theory is that they just flubbed writing down the transcription.  Maybe, it was hard to read.  But it is almost a bit like they did read it, if you refer to that other part, where they say "kin" and "predecessor."

If one takes it for granted that the "ruled his flock for 47 years" is correct and refers to one parish, then it almost seems hard to fit Lewis into another timeline.  Granted there was a priest in 1731 with the name, but he wasn't there in 1704, and doesn't seem to have been there in 1749.

I think I can clearly read the L in Lewis.  B looks to me like an optical illusion caused by circular lichen.

As to the two vicars: Lewis is called a vicar on his grave.  Dominick was apparently a vicar in the same parish in 1673 and probably 1672.  He was still alive in 1703, and I would suppose it follows he was still a vicar, though, of course, there was a bounty on vicars, so they were probably discreet about it.

The issue with the bishop being in the parish is that he was in hiding because there was a bounty on bishops too.  Find the vicar, and it is presumably easier to find the bishop.

But I actually think they knew where he was was (he was not using an alias) but let him be as long he was discreet.

I may try to contact the people at Maynooth, and see what they make of my theory.

[Wexflyer]

I have read that part of Comerford's history of the diocese before.

My original theory is that they just flubbed writing down the transcription.  Maybe, it was hard to read.  But it is almost a bit like they did read it, if you refer to that other part, where they say "kin" and "predecessor."

The problem with that theory is that Frs. Lewis and Dominick are mentioned again in the diocesan history in the section on "Succession of Pastors" for the parish of Balyna, pp 74-76. There it is stated with regard to Dominick that "He lies interred in Cadamstown, in the same grave with the first Lewis Dempsey; the inscription on the tomb gives no particulars respecting him."

That is not saying hard to read - it says there is nothing in addition to the single line that I quoted earlier from page 67 in the same source.

[Wexflyer]

And I tried pretty hard to explain it that way.  But he was mentioned in a will as Dominick, one year before he died.

You have us a link for the grave. What about this will?

[Wexflyer]

It seems to me that there is an obvious answer to this issue, one staring us in the face. It lies in the fact - as OP pointed out - that we are dealing with penal times (ante 1704 in this case).
Fr. Lewis was a vicar general. As such, he would have been subject to the death penalty.  I have read over the years that Catholic priests had to resort to aliases, disguises, and live in hiding, so as to escape "priest hunters". This was especially so of bishops and vicars general, who were special targets. So, what I am suggesting is that if indeed there were two names for the same man, then one was an alias, to avoid capture.

[Ghostwheel]

Looking at some memorials that I am personally familiar with, it seems like a common mistake that the bottom of the inscription was cut off, when it was first written down.  In the case of upright tombstones, it is easy to understand that this part may have been buried in the dirt.  Not sure whether the grave is a table one or meant to stand upright.  But anyway Comerford spoke with the clergy.  He wouldn't have left off details that were locally known but by mistake.  Perhaps, he didn't look at it directly, or was confused by interpreting a note.

William and Anne were allied with some Catholic countries.  as far as I know, they didn't kill any priests (at least excepting a few who died in prison.). Their policy was to deport the ones they saw as problematic.  Regulars, vicars, and bishops and anyone that seemed to them to be bucking their authority, or keeping too high a profile.  But, after a time, some were tolerated, as long as they weren't too obvious.

I've considered the idea the name was an alias.  I guess it might be possible in a roundabout way - if you go all the way back to when he was ordained or getting his education, presumably on the continent  (1650s?).  They had informers in such places.
 Maybe, it became his name of habit. 

But I don't think it makes sense in a later timeframe.  Most local aliases seem to have involved changing both names as far as I can tell.

A lot of clergy registered wills under their own names, in this period.  Though often leaving off their titles.  At least after a time, some number of them seem to have been clearly known but tolerated.

If you are interested in the will, you can read it beginning at the bottom of p80 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Xqg0AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA80&dq=bishop+John+Dempsey+will&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC25ek7eaAAxWwmIkEHahlDDAQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=bishop%20John%20Dempsey%20will&f=false

[Wexflyer]

9 Will III c.1 (1697):
An Act for banishing all papists exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all regulars of the popish clergy...
Sec. 1. Whereas it is notoriously known, that the late rebellions in this kingdom have been promoted by popish bishops and other ecclesiastical persons of the popish religion, and forasmuch as the peace and publick safety of this kingdom is in danger by the great number of said the clergy now residing here, and settling in fraternities contrary to law, and to the great impoverishing of his Majesty's subjects who are forced to maintain them, and said the clergy do not only endeavour to withdraw his Majesty's subjects from their obedience, but do daily stir up and move sedition and rebellion , all popish archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, deans, jesuits, monks, friars, and all other regular popish clergy shall depart out of this kingdom before the 1st day of May, 1698, and if any of said ecclesiastical persons shall after that day be in this kingdom, they shall suffer imprisonment, and remain in prison until transported out of his Majesty's dominions, wherever his Majesty or the chief governors of this kingdom shall see fit, and if any person so transported shall return, he shall be guilty of high treason.

[The penalty for high treason was to be hung drawn and quartered].

9 Will III c.1 (1697):
An Act for banishing all papists exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all regulars of the popish clergy...
Sec. 4-5. Anyone who shall knowingly harbour such popish clergy shall for the first offence forfeit 20 pounds, for the second offence, double that sum, and for the third offence, shall forfeit all his lands during his life, and also his goods and chattels, one half to his Majesty, one half (not to exceed 100 pounds) to the informer.

Sounds like a reason to assume an alias to me...

[Ghostwheel]

The bishop went into exile, but came back.

Dominick used the name Dominick as a vicar general in1672/1673, when he was operating with a high profile.  At that time, Charles II had a Catholic queen consort, and was relatively tolerant.

So, if Dominick was some kind of alias, it must have been one of legacy, because he (presumably) needed to employ it before the Restoration, assuming he was a priest or educated before then.

The only other option, presuming they were the same man, would be that Lewis was an alias, but it doesn't make sense to use one on a grave, especially when Dominic was used a year previously.