64
gola is in both editions precisely the same. The only difference in the body of the last Index is, that it has, as it professes, incorporated the books condemned in the subsequent Decrees; and, at page 87, under the
1816, accuses him of having used the artifice above exhibited of truncating the Pontiff, Pius the Sixth's letter to Martini; "For when," he proceeds, "that wisest of pontiffs commended the version of Martini for this very circumstance, that, strictly observing the rules of the Congregation of the Index, he had abundantly enriched his work with expressions drawn from tradition, you have suppressed that part, and not only excited suspicion respecting yourself, but given occasion of serious errors to others. Quid enim aliud mutilutiones illæ significant, &c."
Those who know any thing of Popery and its arts, know well enough that the permission in the Pope's letter was a perfect mockery. All the restraint upon the perusal of Scripture which was desired was completely secured under phrases and references, which could easily be drawn upon when their assistance was required. Was it for nothing that the rules of the Index, and the Constitution of Benedict XIV., and the explanatory notes, and extracts from the holy Fathers, were introduced to check any abuse of the apparent and fallacious license at the beginning? And is it for nothing, that so late as the year 1838 those restrictions were enforced, as we have just seen, with fresh energy? Any one who wishes may see these statements in a more detailed form, and supported by additional and irresistible, by my acute and learned friend, the Rev. John Evans, then of Whitchurch, now of Hadnet, in his Letters of Observator, and the Rev. Eugene Egan, in 1835, 6, On the Free Circulation of the Scriptures. Whitchurch, 1837. See particularly pp. 82-4. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add, that his opponent left him in undisputed possession of the
