The preface is followed by a reprint of the Trent Rules bearing upon expurgation, and by the second division of the Instruction of Clement VIII. The issue of the first volume of Brasichelli’s work brought out a series of remonstrances and criticisms which caused the rulers of the Church to decide that the publication of expurgatory Indexes was an unwise policy. Such Indexes were also, in the judgment of the advisers of the Curia, not necessary as the instruction in the General Index last issued had given to the agents appointed for the purpose, full power of making quietly and with freedom from criticism such corrections and expurgation as seemed to be required in books the main text of which was deserving of preservation. With an expurgatory Index, this difficult work had to be done openly and with an acceptance of responsibility. The Index presents, in alphabetical arrangement, fifty-one works. The list includes four which were not in the Index of 1596, but which had been condemned in two edicts of the _Magister_ of 1603 and 1605, and three books of the Benedictine Montanus (the editor of the Polyglot Bible issued in Antwerp by Plantin) which had never been condemned in Rome. Certain of the books selected, such as the writings of Molinaeus, Venetus, and Nevizanus, had already been expurgated. Other authors receiving attention are Cornarius and Fuchsius. Editions of Xenophon are purged by the cancellation of the names of heretical editors, such as Gesner, Pirckheimer, and Camerarius. These particular expurgations are borrowed from the Antwerp Index of Quiroga and the same is the case with the corrections in the text of Polydorus Vergilius and of Didaeus Stella. The list includes further: Rhenanus, Vatablus, Paracelsus, Serranus (for his edition of Plato), and Scaliger (for his Theophrastus). This Index of Brasichelli cannot be considered as a personal undertaking, as the compiler states explicitly that his work has been carried out by him in his official capacity. It appears, however, that he had secured no specific instruction or authorisation, either from the pope or from the Congregation, as, if such authority had been given, the record of it would undoubtedly have been printed in the volume. On the other hand, if the undertaking of Brasichelli had been disapproved by the pope, he would hardly have secured his appointment as bishop and there would probably have been some formal cancellation of the Index. In place however of being formally withdrawn, the Index appears to have been quietly suppressed, probably on the ground that it could bring no credit to the Church. The second volume was never completed. The most important piece of censorship contained in the Index, the expurgation of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, aroused no little critical opposition on the part of the scholars. It was apparently undertaken without adequate knowledge or scholarship.