explain and remove a second argument founded upon the absence of the names of the parties from the title-page as standing in the Index. The pontiff was not willing to expose personally either himself or his co-penitents, then repenting of their penitence. The general title de emendenda Ecclesia was quite sufficient, particularly when the circulation of the Indexes was confined and select. But the critic adds, there were many books published concerning the Reformation of the Church; he fails, however, in producing any de emendanda. The same consideration nullifies his next argument from the book being placed under the class incertorum authorum, whereas in the case in question the authors were known. But who can wonder, when the plain policy of the censors was, to get through the matter as quietly and smoothly as possible, and particularly to spare the names of their own people. The truth is, the speculation was working the wrong way, and it was imperative to stop it. But the apologist has not yet done. He finds in CAPIFERRI's Elenchus Lib. Proh. mention of the ipsissimus liber with the authors under C. Consilium delectorum Cardinalium, and referring to Equitatis discussio super Consilio delectorū Cardinal. &c. Both the entries, Mansi ought to have known, are extant in Paul IV.'s own Index in 1559, but the Consilium itself under L. Lib. inscrip.—not a very obvious place. Mansi likewise should have told, for he knew, but did not choose to tell, that the author of the Equitatis, &c. was Cochlæus, as COCHLEUS himself, de Actis et Script. M. Lutheri sub anno 1539, fol. 312, Colon. 1568, informs us. The fact, therefore, of the authorised condemnation of Carafa and Co. by Paul IV. stands as firm as ever. And if the Annotations of VERGERIO, which were published with the publication of the Index that very year, 1559, and in which is a long statement of the fact, precluding all evasion at the time and ever after, till the modern swindling attempt of

Benedict XIV.'s Index in 1758, as above, be considered, no doubt can be entertained any longer on the subject by any reasonable and unbiassed judge. In order to detect the quibbling attempted more completely, I transcribe the title. entire from the first edition Consilium Delectorum Cardinalium, & aliorum Prælatorum, de emendanda Ecclesia, S. D. N. D. Paulo III. ipso jubente conscriptum, M.D.XXXVII. It is worth while to frustrate literary cunning, and add to the proofs of the dominant and necessary character of the Church which is tempted to the commission of such acts and cannot resist the temptation.

Line 9,

After "Index" add—(under A second class).

Line 10,

To "damnavit" affix the Note —

This entry with the name referring to it, both under A, appear for the last time in the Index of Benedict XIV. in 1744. It is well to watch these silent discontinuations.

Line 15,

After "&c." add the Note

This most curious document, although inserted in the Bullarium, and usually called a bull, is no bull at all. It is a letter directed to the Rector and University of Cologne. It has nothing of the common sanction, Nulli igitur, nor has it the form of a Breve, sub annulo Piscatoris. The date is singular, 1463, the year before Pius's death, and he sat seven years. Not even the year of his pontificate is added.

So that his holiness took some time to consider of his conversion and retractation—if he were converted or retracted at all.

Page 51, at the end of the Note.

The evidence for the ascription of this reprint of Paul IV.'s Index to Naogeorgus is not perfectly decisive. It is a simple reprint without any addition, and it is only given to that writer on the ground of the satire added to it, to which his name is affixed. That satire appears to be typographically identical, except in the paging, which might be altered for the purpose, with the edition of NAOGEORGUS's Regnum Papisticum, printed in the same year, 1559, pp. 270, et seqq. (second set, for the same pages, in part, occur before). The Index, therefore, may have been supplied by Vergerio, or by some other person. A regard to accuracy must be the apology for this criticism which I owe to a valued friend.

Page 55, at the end Note* add

He will likewise find a Papal revocation of licenses on the same ground, namely, the apprehended conversion of those who were to refute the heretics, by Julius III. 1550. See before, p. 7. FERRARI, Prompta Bibl. under FIDES, will shew with what alarm Rome beheld the discussions of her sons with heretics, and how carefully the Propaganda provided against mischief.

Line 8,

From "The," to the end, substitute

There is a date in the body of the breve, Romæ, Dec. 21, 1558 but the final date is Jan. 4, 1559.*

Page 57, at the end,

An instance of an earlier date, 1546, is supplied by BEZA, in his Hist. Eccles. i. pp. 53, 54. The offender was Jean Chapot.

*Of the same date is another breve to the same effect, withdrawing licenses to particular theologians, bishops, and cardinals. It is given from the MSS. of the Vatican by RAYNALDUS, Annal. Eccl. xv. pp. 29, 30. Ed. Mansi. Such iteration lets out something.

Page 62, at the end of Note*, add

By a strange oversight, ZOBELIUS, in his Notitia, has twice given the impossible date of 1559 to the Index of Pius IV. He was doubtless thinking of his predecessors. See pp. 8, 18. There was yet another edition of the Index of 1564 issued in the same year in 4to. by the press of Milan. It appears in the Catalogue of Messrs. Payne and Foss for 1837.

Page 82, line 4.

To "philosophy" affix the note.

In accordance with this ignorance, it is the fact, that Bertram (or, as he should more correctly be named, Ratramn), almost uniformly uses the term species to signify substance, or the nature of a thing. See the valuable edition of Bertram's celebrated work by Dr. WILLIAM HOPKINS, though without his name, in 1686, and secondly in 1688, enriched with a preliminary dissertation and an Appendix. In the Appendix, to which I particularly refer, is examined, and completely exploded, the artful and selfdestructive sophistry by which the Sorbonist Boileau would papalize Bertram, and make his doctrine that of the Roman Church. See pp. 428, and following, on Bertram's use of the word species, which is the current use in the church to his time. The editor, indeed, asserts, I am confident the word Species was never used in the sense of the present Roman Church before the eleventh century, and that not before the disputes against Berengarius, whose adversaries were the first who advanced the notion now current.'.

Page 86, line 4.

For "edition," read "Spanish Expurgatory of 1571." Page 92, line 19.

To" doctrine," affix the Note

Should it, in order to nullify the effect of these questions,

с

be suggested that the Papal throne was, in the time of the poet, not at Rome, but Avignon, certain Letters, Sine Titulo, from the same pen will prove that mere place had little to do with the quality and severity of his censure. And another evasion, that the Court, not the Church, is intended, is effectually precluded by DONNE, in his Pseudomartyr, pp. 338, 339, who scouts the distinction, and corrects Bellarmine, who would avail himself of it, by pointing out the Cardinal's omission of the most significant terms used by Petrarch, who, though he might mean the Court by the name of Babylon, and by imputing to it covetousness and licentiousness, yet, when he chargeth Rome with idolatry, and calls it the Temple of Heresy, can this be intended of the Court of Rome?'

Page 96, at the end of Note *, add

Mr. GIBBINGS, in the Preface to his reprint of Brasichellen, p. xlviii. observes, that here I have made a slight mistake; and after quoting my words, says, The license just mentioned appears to have been for the first edition of the book, of which Capuccini thus speaks, in his Dedication, dated v. Calend. Julii, 1587: Cum proximis annis ... editus fuerit libellus... nunc primum expresso auctoris nomine. In fol. 238, vers. is given a new license for this book, with additions, beginning, Opus hoc alias impressum, Neap. die 5 Feb. 1586; and after the name of the second Censor we find, Idem, folio 47, which I think should be 4 b, for in that place the former approbation of the same Carmelite appears.' The reader must judge for himself, as the subject escaped me, when alone I had an opportunity of consulting the work in Oxford.

Page 102, line 9,

After "them" add this Note

The ninth rule, as concerning vulgar translations of the