46
The necessity, at this time in particular, of exposing the disingenuous artifices and astute policy of the Church of Rome, must be the apology of this protracted investigation. I will,
That, in her proscriptive exploits, Rome "aimed a more deadly blow at literature than perhaps she intended" is very doubtful. The blows, indeed, which recoiled upon herself she did not, as to that effect, at all intend. The Index of Paul IV. was not the first of the papacy, even if we exclude the French and Belgic efforts, as may be seen in accessible works, and such as contain more and better information than should be expected in a writer, however able, who was a century behind hand in the light which has been since shed on the subject, I mean Schelhorn, in the eighth volume of his Amæan. Lit. What relaxation took place in the pontifical censures after Pius V. is not made clear, or whether any. The search for restrictions in any degree equal, or similar, to the Papal, in the regulation of the Star Chamber under Elizabeth in 1585, as they are given in Herbert's Ames, iii. 1668, which were accompanied with no penalties worth a thought in comparison with the Papal, and, at the same time, altogether pretermitting those of Henry VIII., and particularly those of Philip and Mary, which were eminently precise, extended, and savage — can hardly he designated by any terms which I should wish to use. The writer has a right to his own views in theology, and I have a right to say, that I think them sometimes more distinguished by what is called philosophy than accuracy. His assertion respecting Bossuet's Exposition, vol. iv. p. 130, that it was "approved in the most formal manner by Innocent XI.," is, indeed, what Bossuet himself asserts; but if Mr. H. means to say, that it was approved at all by that or any pope, it certainly was not the fact; and I invite him, or a certain J. R. in the Gentleman's Magazine, to confute my proof on the entire subject in the Literary Policy, &c. Pp. 218-232.
