74
now^ not known,* It is^ however^ generally
admitted to refer to the copy in the Centum
Gravamina ; as if this were the only edition^
or none had proceeded from Rome and else-
where^ or were not known ! But let us follow
the progress of this singular condemnation.
With apparent misgiving, and possibly with
some fear, that, in its simple form, it might
involve what the papacy knew to be its own
spring^ the next Index pnhUshed by papal
authority in Rome, that of 1696, by Clement
VIII. adds — ab baereticis depravata. In the
edition by Pius VI. in 1786, it is still further
slightly, probably with some intention, altered
— <;um ab hsereticis sit depravata. It is the
same in Pins VII/s, in 1806, and in 1819.
By this specification the condemnation is li-
mited ; but it is a virtual admission, that some
copy, or copies, existed, which were not so
depraved. It would have been charitable to
point ont, how they were depraved. In fiu^t, in
another, and more important sense, the un-
doubted editions of this work were deprai^
enough. And this dilatory, ambiguous, con-
demnation of a poor solitary non*descript is to
- See liteiBiy Poli^ of the Ghudi of lUme^ fte. 2d edi-
tion, pp. 74, 5.
