by the members of the Latin church as opprobrious. And yet, with what right, or even policy, the appellations can be disclaimed, is difficult to discover; since the form of the religion intended is mainly distinguished by its connexion with, and dependence upon, the Bishop of Rome, denominated the Pope, as its supreme head and sovereign. This is unquestionably the fact with respect to all the subjects of the Roman See, even those of France and Ireland, who, although certainly in different ways, take the liberty of qualifying their obedience. And why they should decline a denomination, which most accurately designates the principal peculiarity of their religious persuasion, can hardly be accounted for on any other supposition than one which they would repel as an insult, that they are ashamed of their spiritual Lord. On the other hand, an abstinence, equally rigid, will be perceived, from the use of the term Catholic - an abstinence, which courtesy, and a desire to avoid offence, would have effectually and permanently forbidden, had not the contrary conduct, prompted

by the honourable motives just suggested, been perverted into an admission of exclusive right to the appellation. But when, with a degree of ignorance and ungenerousness which could only be expected from the most degraded and illiterate, the collected papal hierarchy of Ireland, in their Pastoral Instructions, subjoined to the Encyclical Letter of their present terrestrial Supreme, blush not to assert, that their church is one, which alone can glory in the title of CATHOLIC-a title which she has borne from the apostolic times, which her enemies themselves concede to her, and which, if arrogated by any of them, serves only to expose her shame *'-it is time to

*Page 53. The late Bishop MILNER, Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District in this country, has, in his End of Religious Controversy, Letter xxv., lowered his reputation by the use of the same argument; of the nullity and puerility of which his general good sense could not allow him to be ignorant. Nothing more, indeed, is needed, to put an end to all controversy respecting the competency of the author to settle any religious one, than the perusal of the letter referred to. The reader has only to think of the word Unitarian, and the whole fallacy stands out. I cannot forbear adding, with respect to this plausible, because deceitful work, that the reflection, which but a cursory examination of it most constantly and forcibly impresses upon the mind, is, the facility with which, particularly when aided by opportune suppression, invention, and adjustment, Romanists may prove anything; since the authors and authorities respected by them haye maintained everything. The degree of correctness exhibited in the work, in

inform them, and all who think with them, that no true church of Christ concedes that title to the Church of Rome, exclusively, if at all; and that every such church, with every member composing every such church, claim the title for her and themselves, with a confidence and a justice which they know to be, at least, superior to any belonging to that corrupt and usurping community.

The only remaining duty of the author is, to disclaim the presumption of imagining that a faultless work is presented. He is sensible of much imperfection, and believes that some may exist of which he is not sensible. He has, however, endeavoured to escape all, either false, or deficient, representation; and certainly has never wilfully offended in this respect. He should have considered himself unjustifiable in obtruding upon the world a work of this description, which might not in some degree be considered as com

some particular instances, where correctness could hardly be avoided without intention and pains, is ably and incontrovertibly ascertained in "A Letter to the Right Rev. John Milner, D.D., &c. By the Rev. JOHN GARBETT, M.A., 1826. See likewise Two Letters to the same, by the Rev. T. H. LOWE, M.A.

plete; and he will thankfully avail himself of any additional information or correction, should the opportunity be presented of using them. Criticism simply hostile will be useless.

May a light from above shine into the darkness, of which the damnatory Catalogues of Rome are both an example and a cause; and may its blessed and emancipating influence encounter less and less of effectual obstruction, either from anti-christian bigotry or from antiprotestant infatuation!

CHAPTER I.

PAGE

Definition of Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes-Francus and James on the subject-Defence of the practice by Gretser, with the qualification necessary to render it just-Sources of the Censures

CHAPTER II.

1

ANGLICAN Lists of Prohibited Books, from 1520 to 1558-Ordinance of Leo X. in Council of Lateran-Supposed Index at Venice, 1543-Index of John della Casa, 1549-SPANISH and BELGIC Indexes from 1539 to 1550-GALLICAN Indexes from 1544 to 1551-ROMAN Indexes from 1549 to 1559-Bull in Coena Domini-Index of Paul IV., 1559, with Reprints by Vergerio and Naogeorgus in the same year-SPANISH Index of 1559-Censura Generalis, 1554 and 1562 . 15

CHAPTER III.

Council of Trent-ROMAN Index of Pius IV., 1564-Rules of the Index-BELGIC Indexes from 1568 to 1570-Expurgatory Index of 1571, with Reprints, by Junius 1586, by Pappus 1599, 1609, 1611PORTUGUEZE Indexes, Latin and Portugueze, 1581-SPANISH Index 1583, Expurgatory 1584, the latter reprinted thrice, wholly or in part, 1601, 1609, 1611-NEAPOLITAN Index, Greg. Capuccini, 1588-ROMAN Index of Sixtus V., 1590-Of Clemens VIII., 1596-EXPURGATORY Index of Brasichellen, 1607, &c.-Zobelius on that Index-Counterfeit edition of it

58

CHAPTER IV.

SPANISH Index Prohibitory and Expurgatory, 1612-Reprint in 1619-MS. notice in a copy of the original edition in the Bodleian Library-POLISH Index, 1617-Decreta from 1601 to 1637-PORTUGUEZE Index Prohibitory and Expurgatory, 1624-Index by Dr. Thomas James, 1627-SPANISH Index, Prohibitory and Expurgatory, 1632-Elenchus Capiferrei, 1632, 1635, 1640-SPANISH Index Prohibitory and Expurgatory, 1640, 1662, 1666-Reprint in 1667, with