Now Clement informs us that "on a copié l'édition de Rome de 1607 à Ratisbonne, vers l'an 1723, sur de beau papier;" and Mr. Mendham says that this was done by "Serpilius, a priest of Ratisbon, in 1723," and that the copy so closely resembled the original "as to admit of its being represented as the same." Accordingly, Clement says that it was furtively sold as the genuine work, until the announcement of an intended reprint by Hessel, at Altorff, in 1742, induced the owner of the remainder of the Ratisbon counterfeit to avow his fraud. Then, Mr. Mendham says, it "appeared with a new title-page, as a second edition." Of _that_ circumstance Clement makes no mention. "The original and counterfeit editions of this peculiar work are sufficiently alike to deceive any person who should not examine them in literal juxtaposition; but upon such examination the deception is easily apparent," says Mr. Mendham, p. 131. The natural inference from this is, that _he has_ so examined them. His mention of the Bodleian "copy of the original edition" may warrant the belief that he has made use of it. The fact that Dr. James, "chief keeper" of the Bodleian, used and cited the Roman edition in his _Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils and Fathers, &c._ in 1612, may further warrant the belief that the copy in that library is an indubitable original, placed where it is before the counterfeit was gotten up. If these inferences are correct, I have, what I much desire, a criterion by which to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine Roman edition. Yet I hardly dare to trust it, because it involves a charge of carelessness against Clement, who is not often justly liable to such reproach. He says, "J'ai eu le bonheur d'acquérir l'édition originale de Rome." He therefore either copied the title of what he thought a genuine edition, or carelessly substituted that of the counterfeit. Now I have a copy of what purports to be the Roman edition, the title of which, agreeing exactly neither with Clement nor with the title given by Mr. Mendham (p. 116.), yet coincides with the latter in one curious particular, which seems to identify it with Mr. Mendham's genuine original, while its rare disagreements from Clement's distinguish it from that. Mr. Mendham's transcript of the title runs: "Indicis Librorum Expurgandorum in Studiosorum gratiam confecti. Tomus Primus. In quo Quinquaginta Auctorum Libri præ cæteris desiderati emendantur, Per Fr. Jo. Mariam Brasichellen Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicæ commoditati æditus. Romæ, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. MDCVII. Superiorum Permissu." In this there are two observable peculiarities: 1. The full-stop after "confecti," breaking the grammatical construction; 2. The omission of such a stop (as a sign of contraction) after the portion of a word, "Brasichellen," from which the final syllable "sem" has been dropped, as appears in the archetype, for want of room.