Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

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). 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 Noté add

The

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,

C

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 —

[ocr errors]

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.

66

Page 102, line 9,

After them" add this Note

The ninth rule, as concerning vulgar translations of the

Scriptures, deserves to be given entire. Biblia sacra, aut eorum partes, etiam a catholico viro vulgariter quocuque sermone redditæ, sine nova et speciali sedis apostolicæ licentia nusquam permittuntur: vulgares verò paraphrases omnino interdicuntur.

Page 105, at line 6 of the Note,

Add, after" accuracy"—

Watson's informant seems to have been one Benson, of whom, and his cruel treatment, mention is made, pp. 84, 85.

Page 112, at 4th line from the bottom,

After "Rule" read—

-denies that any power is given by this new impression of it to the bishops, &c., to grant (what had been withdrawn) licenses, &c.

At the end of the Note, read and add

De

GREGORY XIII. and probably as early as Pius IV. Secret. et Cong. Ind. 1. i. c. vii. Catalani has given the most important part of the diploma of Gregory. It is dated, Id. Sept. 1572, his first year. The pope there authorised five presbyter-cardinals, of whom Felice Peretti, his successor, Sixtus V. was the fourth, to arrange a future Index, et quæ videbuntur, addere, mutare, supplere, et emendare. Clement's Index has indeed an acknowledgment, which may satisfy this language; but the strange omission of this constitution in the professed collections of Cherubini and Coquelines, though appearing in the Ecloge Bullarum, &c. 8vo. Lugd. 1582; Constitt. SS. PP. Flabiobriga, 1583; Matthæi Summa Constitt. Lugd. 1588; and a notice of it in Castellanus's Compendium Constitt.,-affords cause to suspect, that it was, like many others, purposely suppressed, lest it should appear to recognise, or really call to mind, the suppressed

Index of Sixtus V. I am happy to acknowledge my obliga-
tion to my valued friend, Mr. Gibbings, late of Trinity
College, Dublin, and whom I have already named with
deserved approbation, the claims on which keep increasing,
for the whole information of the latter part of this Note.
Catalani is entitled to the unqualified praise of not having
stifled the pontifical documents. The omissions in the Bul-
laria would form an interesting subject of inquiry. The
Constitution is likewise extant, as I have since found, in the
Collectio Constitt. &c. fol. Romæ, 1579.

Page 114, line 10,

After "others," insert, "is to be expunged."

Line 13, Note at "&c."-

In libris autem Catholicorum veterum nihil mutare fas
sit: nisi ubi, aut fraude hæreticorum aut Typographi incuria
manifestus error irrepserit. Here,' says CRASHAW, in his
valuable and rare volume, Falsificationum Romanar. &c.
Lond. 1606, sign. C,- here be good words and a fair
profession; but mark withal the many evasions and holes
which they leave herein, of purpose to creep out at their
pleasure. For first, it is limited (not to all the ancient
fathers), but to ancient Catholics. And seeing they make it
in their own power to judge, who be Catholic writers, who
not, doth it not follow, that they hold it likewise in their
power to appoint, who shall be purged, who not? Again,
they make a proviso, that when there is an error, either by
corruption of heretics or fault of printers, then they may
alter it at their pleasure. But that is to open them a gap to
all liberty, for when they have done what they list, and
corrupted the fathers at their pleasure, then they have a
present answer ready, We did but restore it, being afore
corrupted by heretics or the printers.'

« ElőzőTovább »