any rule of the Church of England; on the contrary, the teaching of the first Prayer Book of King Edward 6th on that matter was rejected in the subsequent books of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and Mr. Bennett in referring to the teaching of King Edward 6th's first Prayer Book, to the effect that auricular confession was to be left to each man's own conscience, as a rule which may be safely followed, misrepresents the effect of the Act of Uniformity on the construction of the Rubric of the authorised Prayer Book. Again, the open penances of the commination service differ altogether from penance spoken of in connexion with auricular confession, and give no foundation for asserting that the idea of penance (p. 42) is held in the Church of England as a thing desirable, such Penance having been coupled by Mr. Bennett in p. 41 at the onset of his argument with Auricular Confession, and which Penance, again, a well-known term of ecclesiastical discipline, is declared by the Church of England to have grown out of the corrupt following of the Apostles. With regard to Mr. Bennett's frequent practice of the sign of the Cross, which he appears to justify by a Rubric at the end of the first Prayer Book of King Edward 6th, which he says has not been contradicted in subsequent editions of the Prayer Book, Mr. Bennett again seeks to invalidate the operation of the Act of Uniformity on the construction of the Rubric. The Rubric of the Prayer Book was intended as a remedial rule, to correct the mischief of diversity of form, and the Rubric of the authorized Prayer Book constitutes a rule of uniform practice, from which no deviation is permitted. With regard to the rules of Edward 6th's first Prayer Book, which have been discarded from the subsequent editions, they have been abrogated, and the subject matter of them may not be imported into the practice of the ministers of the Church of England. The operation of the Act of Uniformity rendered it superfluous to contradict such repudiated rules. Again, the Canons of 1603 speak only of the sign of the cross, as retained by the Church of England in the Sacrament of Baptism, and the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies in interpreting the 30th Canon. When Mr. Bennett says that he recommends to others the use of the sign of the cross on all great occasions, and in all holy places, it is difficult to understand how the use of it by them on his recommendation would not be superstitious.

With regard to the Queen's Supremacy, Mr. Bennett's language savours of sedition, rather than of unsound doctrine. It is difficult to understand what he means by the Church's Supremacy, as being one and the same with the Church's Infallibility. The Queen's Supremacy is confined to the National Church, which Mr. Bennett admits (p. 33) not to possess infallibility, so that the Church's supremacy which he contrasts with the Royal supremacy, and which he says goes along with the Church's Infallibility, cannot refer to the National Church, and so may not really clash with the Royal supremacy. The expression, the " Church's Supremacy," in which there is an apparant confusion of thought, may only intend "the authority of the Church in controversies of faith."

With regard to the Eucharist, Mr. Bennett's language in the sermons, p. 166, seems to be of a declamatory character, directed against some hypothetical view, which he attributes to many men of the present day, and although calculated to mislead his readers, is susceptible of an extenuating interpretation. But it is otherwise with the passage in p. 56, where he speaks of the Church of Rome offering the sacrifice daily, because THEY KNOW that the atonement for man's sins is THERE alone to be found. This doctrine, that atonement for man's sins is to be found alone in the daily offering of the sacrifice, as a sacrifice, which he laments in the context that the Church of England has well nigh altogether lost sight of, is opposed to the 31st Article of Religion, and Mr. Bennett's language with the context does not seem capable of an interpretation consistent with soundness of doctrine.

The same observation will apply to his language in p. 269, when he speaks of " the two greater Sacraments of Baptism and the holy Eucharist," in which he implicitly contradicts the 25th Article of Religion and the teaching of the Church of England in her Catechism. I am of opinion, therefore, that, subject to the exceptions above mentioned, Mr. Bennett's statements are sufficiently at variance with the teaching of the Church of England as to constitute unsoundness of doctrine, in other words, that his opinions, as gathered from his statements, are not orthodox.

2nd. I consider that the parishioners, having a primary interest in the soundness of Mr. Bennett's teaching, are competent to object to his orthodoxy retrospectively upon his published opinions. As he has been instituted and inducted into the Vicarage of Frome, the mode of proceeding will have to be regulated in accordance with the Act for enforcing Church Discipline, (3 and 4 Vic., chap. 86.)

3rd. I do not consider that any proceedings can be taken against the Bishop of the Diocese for having instituted Mr. Bennett, as no caveat was entered against the institution.

4th. I do not consider it would be necessary to obtain Mr. Bennett's avowal of the opinions contained in his letter and his sermons before instituting proceedings, as it may be presumed, that he would admit the authorship of the works which bear his name.

5th. I should advise the proceedings to be instituted by some one or more of the inhabitants within that portion of the parish not assigned for Ecclesiastical purposes to the District Churches.

6th. I should not recommend an address to the Queen in Council at the present time, as a legal remedy may be forthcoming. I conceive that the Legislature in enacting the Church Discipline Act did not intend to render proceedings against clerks for unsoundness of doctrine more difficult than heretofore, and that although the Bishop of the diocese, within which a scandalous clerk holds preferment, has not the power of issuing a Commission of Enquiry, unless the offence has been committed within his diocese, and seems not to have the power of originating proceedings

in his own Court except on the report of Commissioners appointed by the Bishop of the diocese within which the offence is alleged to have been committed, yet, it is specially provided by the 13th Article that he may send the case in the first instance, by Letters of Request, to the Court of Appeal of the Province, to be determined according to the law and practice of that Court. As the Legislature has also enacted, that no criminal proceeding against a clerk shall be instituted in any Eccleslastical Court otherwise than according to the 3 and 4 Vic. chap. 86, I apprehend that the Court of Queen's Bench would issue, if necessary, a mandamus to the Bishop of the diocese, within which Frome is situated, to issue such Letters of Request, as in this case they would not be a matter of grace, being made by law necessary for the purpose of instituting proceedings.

Doctors Commons;

Jan. 31, 1852.

TRAVERS TWISS.

[Translation of the Italian Original.]

TO THE REV. HILL WICKHAM.

Bath, December, 1852.

Reverend Sir, I have received your kind letter, and lose no time in complying with your request.

Your question can be easily answered by one who knows the Popish system as I do.

You are well acquainted with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which the Eastern and Western Churches introduced amongst the articles of true faith in the corrupt ages, when the reading of the Bible was neglected. The Romish Church has, since that time, carried this doctrine to an extreme, as it holds, and causes its followers to believe, that a priest possesses an inherent power, by pronouncing four words, to consecrate the host, even though he do not believe in it himself, or though he hold the doctrine in contempt, and that the bread is then entirely changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and there remains nothing of bread but the accidents, that is to say, the colour, taste, smell, and form, but in reality, all we see, touch, and masticate, is the real body of Jesus Christ. If the host be given by accident to dogs or mice, Jesus Christ cannot withdraw Himself from it, but must allow Himself to be eaten, even by the most unclean animals. This is the legitimate consequence deduced by Papal theologians themselves from their doctrine of transubstantiation.

This being an acknowledged and indubitable doctrine, and Jesus Christ believed to be the Only Begotten Son of God, of the same substance as the Father, the same Jehovah : adoration must, therefore, be paid to Him, and whoever does not adore Him commits mortal sin.

This is why the priests are commanded, under their precept, to elevate the host in the mass above their heads, that it may be seen by all who are present, in order that they may adore it, and so with respect to the wine.

Whoever does not bend, at least one knee, when he sees the host carried through the streets, on its way to sick persons, is considered an infidel; should this be neglected in Rome, a man would run the risk of being instantly carried off to the Holy Inquisition, or of being massacred by the fanatical populace by the priest's instigation.

Soldiers on duty are commanded to present arms and bend one knee as a mark of adoration when the host passes, or when they assist in the solemnities of high mass.

In this manner the people pay outward adoration to the host under the priest's direction. We will now show you what the clergy do. The deacon, according to all the rubrical masters and moralists, represents the people, and performs their functions; he is obliged to offer the host with the priest, and to kneel down with him, making a low inclination of the body to adore the host when it is elevated.

The people who take part in this comedy, without understanding a word that is said, are obliged to join mechanically in all the priest doeɛ; the mass is, therefore, not a time of devotion for them, but a mechanical act, wherein our Lord Jesus Christ is, as they say, called down on earth and caused to descend amongst them.

The people are obliged to join in the celebration of the mass every Lord's Day to fulfil the Church's precept on the sanctification of the Sabbath, and to witness all the evolutions of the priests; blind people can only hear the sound of the words and of the little bell, when the host is elevated for adoration, in fact, the people cannot pray with the priest, because they do not understand the language they use; nothing is often heard but a hum of words, so great is the hurry and so incessant the noise caused by people going in and out of the church, by many masses. being said contemporaneously, or by an abbot or priest leading the people in the repetition of the rosary aloud, which only ceases on the elevation of the host and the cup, when the whole multitude join in singing, “I adore thee incessantly, O living Bread of Heaven! Oh, great Sacrament!" (take notice that the consecrated host is called the most holy Sacrament, which means Jesus embodied into a sacrament—sacramentato), and immediately after, they recommence the repetition of the rosary, the litany, or other prayers. Besides this, moral treatises, authorized by the Romish Church, teach, that to neglect the adoration of the host each time it passes is a mortal sin; therefore, who can deny that papists adore the host?

This is then, as I said in the commencement of my letter, a fundamental doctrine of the papists; there is no question on the subject among the theologians as there is respecting the Adoration of Images, as to whether a secondary worship, Dolià Iperdolià, shall be offered, but all agree that Latria, the worship paid only to the Deity, is to be offered to the host, I conclude that this host, being nothing but simple bread, the worship rendered it must be idolatry. It has given me great pain to have been obliged to retrace a subject, the very thought of which grieves me to the heart, on account of the awful sins which I have formerly committed, and caused others to commit. I implore the pardon of God respecting this matter and intreat your prayers.

Believe me, Reverend Sir, that I have great pleasure in subscribing myself, Your friend,

GIOVANNI CERIONI.

Ex-Vicar and Secretary of the Vicar and Bishop

Apostolic delegated to Egypt and Arabia.