here; and so does Isaac Casaubon. But EMANUEL Sa, freely censured in the Roman Index, is here very lightly corrected and excused. Alia autem omittuntur, quæ neque ad Sancti Officii judicium spectare, neque gravem offensionem habere videntur. The Spanish and Roman Indexes, indeed, often clash; and the former has been reprehended by Roman writers for its presumption *. Under Thom. Cajetan we have an instructive specimen of the alteration which these censors allow themselves to make in authors, by supposing, or rather asserting, a fraus hæreticorum t. Here are two sentences, in a work strictly Roman, and printed at Antwerp, altered to a directly opposite meaning, without any other proof of fraud than their own affirmation . What author is safe, if such

1640; although there were complete editions of the History, consisting of one hundred and thirty-eight chapters, published in 1620, and again in 1630. He mistakes indeed, in reckoning the reprint of 1667 as another Spanish Index: but he might have cited the Index of 1707, to which we may add that of 1747, as having contented itself with the bare transcript of the first censure of the Index now under review, which extends only to the first eighty books of Thuanus. Was this escape the result of negligence; or may we infer, that the inquisition of Spain sees nothing to condemn in the last fifty-eight chapters?

* CATALANI, de Secretario S. Cong. Indicis, l.i. c. ix. § v.—vii.

It will be remembered, that, in the Instructio of CLEMENS VIII. fraus hæreticorum was most fraudulently allowed as a ground of alteration or correction.

The whole article in the original is so superlatively curious and characteristic, that the pleasure of seeing it should not be denied to the reader, who may not have access to the book.

In

liberties are allowed? Several of the articles in this Index are instances of the artful system of attacking Indexes instead of the authors themselves. They wished to escape the accusation and odium of impugning the Fathers of the Church, and yet could not tolerate some of the doctrines, manifestly declared in writings which they profess to venerate. They imagined they had found a receipt for that purpose; and, as the instances in this class of inquisitorial criticism will, perhaps, as clearly as any other, if not more so,

IN THOME CAIETANI Commentariis in D. Thomam errores, qui fraude hæreticorum irrepserunt.

Ex Commentariis Thomæ à Vio Caietani in 22. D. Thoma Antwerpiæ. Apud viduam et hæredes Joann. Stelsü, 1567.

Quæstione 122, art. 4, vers. Adhoc dicitur, quod corporalia opera, pag. 418, col. 2, post illud, deferre crucem et hujusmodi, dele, sed hæc sunt omnino illicita, et non amplectenda, quia sunt pars mali cultus, quæ verba fraude hæreticorum irrepsere; cum vera Auctoris lectio sit, Et hæc sunt omnino licita et amplectenda quia sunt pars divini cultus.

Et paulo inferius, post illud, ad Missam, Vesperas, dele, Et hæc quoque proculdubio sunt omnino illicita et impia, quæ similiter verba fraude hæreticorum depravata sunt, horum verborum loco, Et hæc quoque proculdubio sunt omnino licita et sancta.

Et cave, si quid simile invenias; timeri enim potest eosdem hæreticos alia hujusmodi supposuisse.

With respect to a simple negative, the presence or absence of which will be allowed to make some little difference in the meaning of a passage, the omission is easy and frequent; not so much so the insertion. In the negative syllable in compound words the mistake either way is still less probable. But what are we to think of the conversion of mali into divini, and of impia into sancta? A fraus, indeed, will account for all: the only question is, on which side it lies.

develope the character and animus of the critics and their work, we will confine our criticism chiefly to that department. We commence with the condemned items in the Indexes of three different editions of S. ATHANASIUS's works, p. 35 *. Adorari solius Dei esse-Imagines tollendas esse, testimonia-Angeli, non sunt adorandi. Non petendum quid ab eis-Corpus Christi cibus non corporalis, sed spiritualis-Creatura omnis] dele, nulla adoranda, nulla invocanda - Idolatria est Deum corporalibus, &c.—Justificatio fit per fidem -Sancti non sunt adorandi, non sunt invocandiScriptura sacra sufficit ad veritatis, &c. ; ita clara est, ut quisque, &c.; etiam plebi, et magistratibus cognoscendæ. Additionally, in another of the Indexes of this father, (not to repeat what have just, for substance, been exhibited,) are marked for expunction, Canonici libri soli legendi, et cur?— Canonici libri soli sunt fontes salutares, et pietatis scholæ. Soli sunt fidei anchora, et fulcimenta. Sufficient ad cognitionem Dei. Christus etiam.] dele, justificat nos gratia sua, non ex operibus—Gratia Christi salvat nos per fidem, non per bona operaJustitia Christi imputatur nobis. There is a rich harvest of condemned orthodoxy in the castigated Indexes of the Annotations upon S. AUGUSTINUS

*The references are to the original edition.

and an edition of the father himself, beginning at p. 39. I need only refer to the words Adorare; Gratia; Justitia; and their cognates, for a repetition of what has already been presented. But the following sentences deserve being given at length: Eucharistia] dele, Quæ de carne sua manducanda Christus proposuit, spiritualiter sunt intelligenda-Merita] dele, Contra meritum humanum, pro gratia, abandanter disputatum, with several other articles under that word-Imaginum usus prohibitus, and much more to the same purpose. At p. 79, is a selection from an Index to a Bible, taken chiefly, as our critics write, from the Index of R. Stephen's Bible, which will be noticed in a future portion of this work. ERASMUS is an inveterate offender in the eyes of inquisitorial orthodoxy. See, in the course of his flagellation, which consists of the strokes of about eighty folio pages from the 209th, particularly pp. 264, 282—5; and there observe the critical words, Adorare; Fides; Gratia; Imagines; Justus; &c. The marginal notes and index of EPIPHANIUS Come under review at p. 444, and the short selection discovers due anxiety for the honour and prevalence of creature-worship; image-worship; saintworship. An Index of an edition of D. CHRYSOSTOM supplies a plentiful gleaning, at pp. 556-8. But neither he, nor his friends for him, are for a

moment to suppose, that the saint suffers any of the stripes which are inflicted upon his officious editors, who innocently imagined they were only forwarding the object of their pious original, in directing the reader to the most important passages of his works, by shortly expressing his sense, or using his own words, in an alphabetic arrangement. Little did they think at the time, either that any offence was committed, or that they should come in their author's stead, when they simply informed their readers, that St. Chrysostom had told them, that sins were to be confessed to God, not to man; that faith alone justifies; that grace is excluded if we are saved by works; that images are not to be adored; that nothing is to be asserted without the authority of scripture, which is to be read by all, and to all who are willing to learn is intelligible; and, finally, that after this life nothing can assist or deliver. The last article in the order of the book and the letters concerns a very remarkable work, for its bulk, if for nothing else. It is Theatrum Vita Humanæ THEODORI ZUINGERI, and consists of twenty-nine volumes, the last page numbered being 4365of course carried on from the beginning. A note is prescribed by the inquisitorial censors, after the inscription of the work, to this effect:- Since this work is in a great degree collected from the

L