same year, and by the same printer. I have them all except the first, which may be the same, though varying in title from that given in French by Peignot, as appears by a copy kindly shewn to me by Dr. Bandinel, when I visited the Bodleian in 1841, and of which the title is,-Lordonnance & Edict de le Lempereur Charles le Quint renouvelle au mois Davril MCCCCC Cinquante, pour lextirpation des sectes & conservation de notre saincte foy Catholique. Avec le Cathalogue des Livres reprouvez & prohibitez. Et aussi des bons Livres, &c. Louvain. [The Imperial Arms.] Imprime par Servais Sassenus, par commandemente de sa Maieste. 4to.

Page 34.

For last line, " He," &c., to the 5th line in following page, substitute

The next is as follows:

Page 35, line 11.

At" size," place the Note

I have two copies of this edition, differing, and alone, in the Privilege at the end. In one, the Privilege occupies one leaf only, and is dated, Sept. 19, 1551; in the other, it occupies two leaves, and is, of course, longer, and has the date, Oct. 13, 1551.

Page 38, line 9.

To" Venice" affix the Note

A copy of this I obtained from Mr. Bohn, senior, in 1840, and a reprint is now public property.

At the end of Note*, add

And that is the date in the Italian letter, as well as in

the subscription given, p. 28.

Page 40, line 7 from bottom.

After "Solitus," instead of 1554, place—

(Should be apud Gabrielem Jolitum, or Giolito, Pinelli, Catalogue III. No. 6913), 1554. It is described by SCHOETTGEN, Comm. II. p. 19, who complains of the typography.

Page 41, line 1.

To Urban V. affix the Note

In a bull of Paul II. de Casibus Reservatis, Et si dominici, 5 Nonas Martii 1468, not contained in the Bullarium Magnum, but found in the collection which I have already referred to in 1550, the Bulla Cœnæ is thus noticed- & generaliter in casibus contentis in Bulla, quæ consuevit in die Cœnæ Domini per predecessores suos Romanos Pontifices publicari. The beginning, or preamble, of the Bull, simply enough, states it as a possible supposition respecting the faithful, that in consequence of the indulgences granted by the Apostolic see, procliviores ad illicita in posterum committenda reddantur, aut facilitas veniæ eis peccandi tribuat incentivum. Hac igitur consideratione habita, &c.

After "not" insert

For, "Julius II.

Sixtus IV. in a bull

At line 2,

as far as I know."

At line 4,

The two next are," substitutewhich I have in a separate form, in three quarto folia, dated 1476, 3 Id. Aprilis, pontificatus nostri Anno Quinto; that of Julius II. in 1511, Kal. Mart. pont. nost. anno 8;

Three of these bulls I fortunately possess in separate forms, the two last four folia 4to. evidently printed at the time. None of them, &c.

Page 42 at end of the Note t, add

There is, as it appears, a copy of this Index in the Bodleian library, Oxford. My friend, Mr. Gibbings, did me the favour to examine it for me; and the result is, that it contains the title, as in the text, down to the word contentis. Then follows, In Bologna per Antonio Giacarello & Pelegrino Bonardo compagni, four signatures, 12mo. or small 8vo. size. At the end of the volume is-Ego Pater Eustachius Lucatellus Inquisitor Bon. feci potestatem Typographo imprimendi Indice suprascriptum, qui in omnibus, & per omnia conformis est ei, qui mihi transmissus est ex Roma, & a sanctissimo et universali officio Romanæ inquisitionis. Io. Episcopus Bononien.

Page 46, line 14.

For "Bononia" read "Bologna."

66

Page 48, line 3 from bottom.

For an edition" read "the original Roman edition, as well as one," &c.

Page 49, after Note*, add

In the Hist. Eccles. of NAT. ALEXANDER, tom. xvii. pp. 604, 605, the learned and laborious J. D. MANSI, in a note, has exerted himself to sustain the shattered hypothesis of Card. Quirini. Forgetting, probably, the presumed recantation of Pius II. he magnifies the improbability, that a pope should publicly condemn a solemn and published act of his own, when cardinal, in company with others—not at the moment well considering, how this argument would

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.