The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-16 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

trary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th Articles men-
tioned in the statute, and that the construction of the said
Articles by the archdeacon—viz., that the body and blood
of Christ becomes so joined to and present in the conse-
crated elements by the act of consecration that the unworthy
receivers receive in the elements the body and blood of
Christ—is not the true and admissible construction of the
said Articles.

The true and legal exposition of the said articles
was—

That the body and blood of Christ are taken and received
by the worthy receivers only, who, in taking and receiving
the same by faith, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and
drink his blood, whilst the wicked and unworthy, by eating
the bread and drinking the wine without faith, do not in
any wise eat, take, or receive the body and blood of Christ,
being void of faith, whereby only the body and blood of
Christ can be either taken or received.

Similar charges in the 14th and 18th Articles filed
his Grace also considered proved as contrary to the
legal exposition of the 28th and 29th Articles of our
Faith. Dr. Lushington then conclu4ed

His Grace desires me further to state that he will allow
time to the ven. archdeacon to revoke his errors, until
Wednesday, the Ist of October next. If no such revocation
as required by the statute shall be made and delivered into
the registry of Bath and Wells by that time, he will, in
obedience to the said statute, pronounce sentence in this
court, which will be adjourned to Tuesday, the 21st of
October, at half-past one o'clock.
Dr. PHILLIMORE : May I inquire whether, under the
circumstances of the case, it is competent for my client to
enter an appeal ?
Dr. Lys HINGTON : It is not competent for the archdeacon
to enter any interlocutory appeal.
Dr. Prirwmortz : if I understand rightly, there has been
no sentence given in this case?
Dr. LUSHINGTON : There has been no sentence given,
or any decree made.
Dr. PHILLIMORE : Then it is not competent to enter an
appeal?
Dr. LUSHTNOTON : No. The course pursued is this :
Judgment has been given intimating that the archdeacon
is in error, and, if no revocation is made by the Ist of Oc-
tober, sentence will be given on the 21st.
The court was then formally adjourned until
Tuesday, the 21st October.

THE OFFICE OF CURSITOR BARON is abolished by
an act of the late session, and any duty of the office
may be performed by the Couri; of Exchequer, or any
Baron of the Coif, or any officer of the court, as the
court or the Lord Chief Baron shall from time to
time direct.
THE ACTION OF MATHER V. LORD MAIDSTONE was
tried on Saturday, at Guildford, before the Chief
Baron and a special jury. This action was to recover
the sum of 1,0001. upon a bill of exchange drawn by
the Hon. Francis Lawley, and accepted by Lord
Maidstone. A good many pleas were put upon the
record as an answer to the action, but the material
defence relied upon was that the defendant had given
the acceptance in question in lieu of a bill for the
same amount which he had accepted for the accommo-
dation of the Hon. Mr. Villiers, but that, instead of
receiving the genuine bill on renewal, a bill bearing
a forg .d acceptance was handed to him. At the
conclusion of the evidence on both sides, the jury
immediately returned a verdict for the defendant,
expres-ing their opinion that there bad been a
fraudulent conspiracy against the noble lord by some
persons or other, but they were unprepared to say
by whom.

THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL as to
whether borough justices have power to grant the
annual alehouse licenses, has been published this
week. The case is that of Middlesbrough :