Now it is certain that Benedict XIV. held no such opinion, for in sec. 6 he expressly states, after St. Pius V., that the omission of the first grade _alone_, in the petition for dispensation, _invalidates_ the dispensation. Again, Benedict XIV. in that Breve is speaking _de duplici_ gradu consanguinitatis, not _de secundo gradu_, and states that a dispensation would be null, in the petition for which only one vinculum was expressed, whereas there existed two—duplex vinculum. I believe St. Liguori was led into the mistake either by confounding the word _duplex_ with _secundum_, or by the remarks made by Benedict _de tertio_ gradu propinquiore, etc., of which there was question. Gury’s opinion also is wrong; for it is certain, from the decree of St. Pius V., as cited and confirmed by Benedict XIV., that the suppression of the mention of the first grade in the petition for dispensation in _gradu inaequali consang. off._, will equally annul the dispensation, whether the first grade concur with the second, third, or fourth. In order then that St. Liguori’s opinion be correct, it is necessary to erase the words “aut secundi” from the sentence. Expecting you will give insertion to the foregoing observations, which are made through a desire to serve the _Record_, and give a hint to fellow-labourers in the vineyard, I remain, Gentlemen, respectfully yours, W. Rice, C.C., Coachford. DOCUMENTS. I. Letter Of The Cardinal Prefect Of Propaganda To Dr. Troy, 1782. Illustrissimo e Reverendissimo Monsignore Come Fratello.