Mendham, who writes always as a bitter controversialist, is of opinion that the expurgatory Indexes, and the expurgatory work done quietly without the use of Indexes, were utilised so as to modify in the later editions the text of the writings of the Fathers and of the earlier authorities of the Church, in the respects in which this text did not appear to give consistent support to the accepted doctrine of the later Church, or in which words were used by the authors which could be interpreted and which had been interpreted in support of heresies. It is not practicable, without a careful textual comparison of the “orthodox” and approved editions of the Fathers with the editions of earlier date and with those which the Church censors found occasion to condemn, to say how far there may be any foundation for this severe arraignment. Mendham goes on to suggest that it had been the hope of the Church gradually to replace the former and original editions of books of this class with the editions approved by the Church. “In this way, the mouth of antiquity should be thoroughly shut up and prevented from uttering any syllable or sound against the doctrines of the later Church.... By the addition of words where opportunity and pretence might serve, and by drawing the marginal notes and glosses of their friars into the texts of the Fathers (as has already been handsomely begun with certain texts) the mouth of antiquity should also be opened for them (the present leaders of the Church). There remained then only the rectifying of St. Paul and of the other scriptural writers whose authority being already set beneath that of the Church, it were not such great matter to submit it also to her gentle and moderate censures; especially for so good an intent as the weeding out of heresies and the preserving of the faith Catholic in her purity and glory.”[8] Panzer makes reference[9] to an Index printed in Louvain as early as 1510. The title is recorded as follows: _Die Cathlogen of inventargen van den Quaden verboden bouken: na advis der Universiteyt van Louen. Met een edict of Mandement der Keyserlicken Majesteyt. Te Louen geprint bej Sewaes van Sassen. MCCCCCX. 4^o._ No copy of an Index of this date was known (1897) in the British Museum, and it is not referred to by Reusch. Knapp, in his scheme for a History of the Index, is in accord with Reusch in making that of Paris of 1544 the earliest. It seems probable that Panzer has been misled as to the date of the Flemish Index.