1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1fb1b1f454636f79af7dd1db633d69a9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kDzaLnTC3FQi9P41GkM2CUO7dvplzOXas7ZctyE-7F-4lM6k9H5TWfPLEi8m3uCvNKcL6j31U-Qj9fXBpgQM5ZeXVOYLO1iIKaBZDiQVifqGVyyK8vnEWLhMzgjQRHDV43Q%7Eo85qEdjLqPLkD-JcB82P1mHU4y7FPYIl23-5IzeWmWKjRErNTzivAc4x4Or%7E6-1uoLAslWfrHCjXMgzWl8Xr8qbqKUxGfmvXkz%7E7DgMKc0RJgdzri6XEqr-KXobZigyWz-m2BHQqLg5AXt4k0Lr4jeSh9ede7cSxMbQWLZkVynRz9u0L8-9R2ZIzAHHHhMF5dBGoW5F%7Er29%7E-T7zPA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b3552901809400a685bbbab35bd3c022
PDF Text
Text
THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE,
LATE A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS,
.
AND AUTHOR OF “ THE BIBLE ; IS IT THE WORD OF GOD ?" ETC.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
.
��THE BENNETT JUDGMENT.
HE condition to which the Established Church is
gradually tending, necessarily awakens deep
anxieties in those who are interested in upholding it.
The safeguards provided to maintain its integrity, as
successively proved, are found absolutely wanting in
cohesion and strength. The great desideratum for
mankind is to bring the soul into conscious contact
with its maker, to realise the sense of his presence and
action on the mind and spirit, for the governing our
selves in the paths of rectitude and holiness. The
Church recognises a change to be wrought in man from
nature to grace, which is ecclesiastically termed regene
ration. The question of how this was to be effected
was in a manner tried in the Gorham case, and the
issue was that it is quite uncertain whether the regene
ration can be produced by applying water, in baptism,
to an infant, or has to be wrought out otherwise by influ
encing the conscience at some later period. Then,
being brought to God, it had to be judged what guid
ance he might have provided to give man an insight
into his mind and will, whereby man might direct his
ways in conformity to the divine purposes. The Bible
was offered as the all-sufficient medium. But upon in
vestigation, in the instance of the Essayists and Re
viewers, the judgment was, that it should be left to
each to decide for himself how much of the book came
from God and was indubitably true, and how much
came from man and was questionable. Furthermore
T
�4
The Bennett Judgment.
Christ being apprehended to be the medium between
God and man, it had to be ascertained in what manner
the communion between Christ and man is to be kept up.
A special service is appointed for that end, the true import
of which had to be declared. In some sense Christ
was held to be fed upon by the believer when partak
ing of the bread and wine in the Eucharistic rite. The
point raised was, whether he is only presented to him
on the occasion spiritually, or, as Mr Bennett holds, is
actually incorporated in the elements taken into his sys
tem by the recipient. The judicial result arrived at, not
so much in words as in fact, is, that however much Mr
Bennett’s doctrine is to be discountenanced, in point of
actuality, he, or any likeminded to him, is at liberty to
promulgate it in terms such as lie has employed in ex
plaining himself.
At every turn, then, of the inquiry what the views
of the Church of England really may be on any mate
rial subject, so far as depends upon judicial guidance,
the end to which we are brought is confusion. And
the reason of this is self-evident. In corning out of
Home, she carried with her so much that belonged to
Rome, that those whose sympathies are in this direction
have little difficulty in fastening the doctrines of Rome
upon her.
The Evangelical body, with folded hands and half
closed eyes, endeavour complacently to flatter them
selves that there is no such unsoundness at the core of
their beloved institution. The Record, an organ of
this party, has teemed with editorial notices and cleri
cal correspondence on the matter of the Bennett Judg
ment, but in no one instance has the essential link be
tween Rome and the Church, in the constitution of the
Eucharistic service, been touched upon. Mr Bennett’s
views are loudly denounced and repudiated, but with
out an attempt to dislocate them from those foundations
with which the Church herselfhas obviously provided him.
I hazarded a letter on this subject to the Record, in
the hope that possibly it might find admission, and
�The Bennett Judgment.
5
bring before its readers the difficulties with which the
administration of the Eucharist, as appointed in the
Church of England, is assuredly environed.. This I
now give as describing the features of the service which
X desire to bring under consideration.
To the Editor of the Record.
“ Sir,—The Bennett judgment has naturally attracted
much attention from yourself and your clerical correspond
ents. Mr Bennett had committed himself in his discourses,
to the full measure of the Popish doctrine of the divine
presence in the sacramental elements, from the moment of
their consecration. The object of his prosecution was to
disconnect the Church of England from such doctrine. The
issue, however, leaves Mr Bennett at liberty to continue
enunciating it. You and your correspondents are dissatis
fied with such a result, and consider it perilous to the
interests of the Church. Mr Ryle’s letter, in your issue
of the 28th instant, is particularly candid on this head. I
do not however see,in the efforts made through your columns
to free the Church of England of the imputed obnoxious
doctrine, that the question of what the Church’s design in
the sacramental service really may be, is fairly approached.
Permit me, therefore, to put a few propositions in your
paper, in order to elicit such explanation of this abstruse
matter as it may be considered susceptible of.
“ Some presence in the elements, beyond what belongs to
them naturally, is apparently expressed. The Catechism
declares that the partaking thereof, at ‘ the supper of the
Lord,’ is ‘ generally necessary to salvation,’ which amounts
to saying, that, in some way or other, the act ministers to
the ‘ salvation ’ of the recipient; and the explanation pro
vided is, that it affords a ‘ means whereby’ ‘an inward and
spiritual grace ’ is ‘ given,’ ‘ the body and blood of Christ ’
being, it is said, ‘ verily and indeed taken and received by
the faithful ’ through this channel. Mr Horace Noel, in
your said issue of the 28th, insists that as the body and
blood are received ‘ by a bare act of faith,’ which is ‘ an
act, not of the body, but the soul,’ there can be no question
of any such divine presence as Mr Bennett alleges in the
bodily nourishing materials. But in disallowing the possible
effect of faith as altering the conditions of matter, is Mr
Noel true to the scriptural account of the power of faith ?
�6
The Bennett Judgment.
We hear that 1 the prayer of faith shall save the sick,’ that
Elias, by earnest prayer, stayed the rain, ‘ so that it rained
not on the earth by the space of three years and six months,’
and that if there be ‘ faith as a grain of mustard seed,’ one
may ‘ remove ’ a ‘ mountain ’ ‘ hence to yonder place.’ In all
these instances faith acts upon matter, affecting the physical
circumstances of the sick man, arresting the rain clouds, and
transposing the mountain. And why may it not take effect
upon the bread and wine, as when bread was multiplied out
of nothing, and water changed to wine ?
“ The services of the Church of England seem to lead up to
such an idea. The ‘ Priest ’ has ‘ to lay his hand upon all
the bread,’ and, ‘ upon every vessel, (be it chalice or flagon,)
in which there is any wine to be consecrated ;’ ‘if the con
secrated Bread or Wine be all spent before all have com
municated, the Priest is to consecrate more; ’ ‘ when all
have communicated,’ he has to ‘reverently place upon the
Lord’s table what remaineth of the consecrated elements,
covering the same with a fair linen cloth ; ’ and, ‘ if any of
the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the curate shall
have it in his own use ; but if any remain of that which was
consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but
the Priest and such other of the communicants as he shall
then call unto him, shall, immediately after the blessing,
reverently eat and drink the same.’ There is evidently here
some work seen to have been wrought upon the elements,
making them to differ from what is unconsecrated. The
question is in what the difference consists, if not in the
association of the body and blood of Christ therewith.
“ It is at what is called an ‘ altar,’ or ‘ the Lord’s table,’
that the bread and wine are to be taken, and not elsewhere;
they must be dispensed by the ‘ priest ’ or ‘ minister ’ alone;
and his hand must first have carefully been passed over
them ; and when received, it must be in the posture of ‘ all
meekly kneeling.’ There is a disclaimer at the close of the
service introduced by you in your issue under notice,
in which it is disavowed that this kneeling involves an
adoration of the elements. But why the appointed altar,
the intervention of the priest, and the meek kneeling are all
enjoined, together with the ‘reverent’ replacing of the re
sidue, and the ‘reverent’ consumption thereof, on the spot,
by the communicants only, after the service is over, has in
some way to be explained, if there is no special significance
of a change wrought divinely at the time in these elements.
�The Bennett Judgment.
7
‘ ‘ I have noticed the efficacy attaching to the reception of
the bread and wine in the Catechism. The same appears in
the Communion Service itself. It is therein declared that
the communicants ‘ then spiritually eat the flesh of Christ
and drink his blood;’ that ‘then' they ‘dwell in Christ,
and Christ in them ; ’ and, contrary to Mr Noel’s theory, it
is expressly asked that their ‘sinful bodies may-be made
clean by his body,’ and their ‘souls washed through his
most precious blood.’ It is evident that the ’•then’ attaches
to the act some participation at the time of Christ, secured
to the recipient, such as does not belong to the Christian
ordinarily, and at all times ; and that his ‘ body,’ through
the material ingredient introduced into it, as well as his
soul, undergoes some actual beneficial operation. How are
the elements thus effectual if not by an incorporation of
Christ therein ; and if the Eucharistic act is simply one of
commemoration, why is the process, more than once, de
scribed as involving a ‘holy mystery’?—-I am, Sir, yours
obediently,
T. L. Strange.
Great Malvern, June 1872.”
The Editor has not lent himself to the sifting of the
question by himself or readers, which it has been
my object to promote. A feeling for truth in the
abstract can scarcely consist with the sense of truth
apprehended only in some cherished system. My
investigation must therefore be conducted independ
ently from my own point of view.
The account of the last supper in the synoptic
gospels certainly does not place the eating of the bread
and the drinking of the wine in any higher light than
that of a commemorative act. Neither was the distri
bution associated with any ceremonial. The injunction
to the disciples to use these elements in memory of
their master’s death was given in the course of conver
sation relating to various disconnected matters which
both preceded and followed it. The bread which stood
for the body given for them, and the wine which stood
for the blood shed for them, could have so stood in the
way of representation merely, and not of actuality, at
a time when, as yet, the body had not been given, and
�8
The Bennett "Judgment.
the blood had not been shed. The bread appears to
have been given to the disciples collectively, and not
to each separately and formally, as obtaining at the
dispensation of the Eucharist. That the wine was
given thus informally is evident from Luke’s phrase—
“Take this and divide it among yourselves.” There
was no exhibition of a priest dealing severally with
each participant, as if there was virtue in the reception
of the elements direct from his hand. The reprobate
Judas was present on the occasion, and there is no
note that he was excepted at this distribution. If,
after the action was over, he could dip his hand in
the dish with Jesus, as is plainly said to have been
the case, his part in the then passing sociabilities had,
it is clear, not been disturbed. There was then no
mysterious dispensation enacted from which the trans
gressors were to be carefully excluded. It is evident
that the type of the ceremonial in use in the Church of
England is not to be found in the representations of
the synoptics. It is equally evident that the model
followed is that supplied by Home. In adopting this
model, has the church avoided the significancy attach
ing to the forms as employed by Pome ? Has she
adjusted them to a mere commemorative observance ?
If so, she has been guilty of empty mummeries for
which no other object can be conceived than a delu
sive one.
Eome is not without warrant for the meaning she
has attached to the observance. The teaching of John
affords her ample support in the declaration that
Christ had to be fed upon for the sustenance of the
life of his people. “I am the bread of life,” he makes
him declare. ‘‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the son of
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him.” And Paul completes
the instruction. According to him, it was an essential
�The Bennett Judgment.
9
constituent that “ the Lord’s body ” should be 11 dis
cerned” on the occasion, failing which the “unworthy”
recipient became “ guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord;” here calling up, as does Rome, the association
of a continually-recurring sacrifice in the rite ; and,
as a consequence, the guilty one became liable at once
to sickness, and even death. Putting these matters
together, we have the awe-striking dispensation in all
the purport and power attributed to it by Rome, whose
meaning ritual is unmeaningly followed by the Angli
can community.
The warranty of Rome becomes significantly strength
ened when wrn trace back the idea upon which she
works to its true parent germ. The Christian faith,
professing to be exercised on “ things not seen,” is
truly, in all its essentials, materialistic. There is the
necessity that “God” should have been made “manifest
in the flesh;” that the genius of evil should have an out
ward form, which atone time is to be bound in chains and
at another cast into the flames of hell; and that physical
blood should be provided to wash out spiritual sin. Then
the eating and drinking the flesh and the blood of
Jesus readily present themselves as absolute realities.
The feature here associated with the sacrifice of
Jesus has ever belonged to the practice of sacrifices.
In those of the Jews a portion was burnt on the altar
and went up as “ a sweet savour unto the Lord,” and
the residue was consumed by the priests, who repre
sented the people. God and man partook of the same
material feast. “The Hindu gods,” says Professor
Monier Williams, “are represented as living on the
sacrifices offered to them by human beings, and at
every sacrificial ceremonial assemble in troops eager
for their shares. In fact, sacrifice with the Hindus is
not merely expiatory or placatory; it is necessary for
the actual support of the gods” (Indian Epic Poetry,
52, note). At the Bacchanalian rites, in old times,
Mr Baring-Gould informs us, they killed a man and
partook of his flesh. This was put an end to by the
�io
The Bennett Judgment.
Senate in b.c. 186. In sacrifice, he adds, the victim
is held to be united with God. Hence sacramental
eating almost invariably accompanies the act (Origin
and Development of Religious Belief, I. 407, 411).
Positive virtue is considered to be inherent in what is
thus received into the system, as when in India tiger’s
flesh is eaten to obtain the courage of the tiger, and in
New Zealand the body of an adversary, in the belief
that all his martial valour may be thus secured to him
who eats him. John’s idea of participation in Christ
by eating his flesh and drinking his blood carries out
this superstition most completely.
The tree of life, in the garden of Eden, capable of
imparting life, represents the same sentiment that
spiritual advantages can be materialistically conveyed.
The belief is traceable to the Egyptians, who pourtray
the goddess Neith in the branches of this tree, pouring
out the water of life into the mouths of departed souls
(Sharpe’s Egypt. Myth. 66 ; Barlow on Symbols, 59).
The real source of the idea is the Soma of the Hindus,
becoming the Haoma of the Persians. This was the
juice of a plant producing, when drank, an exhilarating
effect. The gods drank this beverage. It was “ the
water of life, giving health and immortality, and pre
paring the way to heaven.” The Persians say that the
“ Haoma is the first of trees, planted by Ahura Mazda
in the fountain of life. He who drinks of its juice
never dies!” It “imparts life at the resurrection”
(Muir’s Sanskrit Texts II., 471, citing Dr Windischmann). The plant haoma is “ the symbol of the Deity
in the Zoroastrian creed.” “ It is spoken of in the
Zend-Avesta as the Word of Life, the Tree of Life, and
the source of the living water of life.” “ When con
secrated, it is regarded as the mythical body of God;
and when partaken of as a sacrament, is received as the
veritable food of eternal life. . . . The Hom (liaomd),
when consecrated to God, was regarded as God himself,
and was supposed to give life, being the person of God
eaten by man ” (Barlow on Symbols, 115-117.) The
�The Bennett ’ udgment.
J
11
Haoma-drink was the sacrament of the Zoroastrian reli
gion ; nay, more, it was the medium through which
the Deity manifested itself. It gave health and im
parted life in the resurrection. Men received the white
sap and became immortal (Dollinger’s Jew and Gentile,
I, 401, 411). The intoxicating Soma juice is an early
Aryan divinity. It was the- beverage of the gods, and
made men like them immortal (Muir’s Sansk. Texts, V.
258, 262). Soma is addressed as the god giving future
felicity. “Place me, 0 purified god, in that everlasting
and imperishable world where there is eternal light and
glory. . . . make me immortal in the world where king
Vaivasvata(Yama, the king of death, the son of Vivasvat)
lives, when in the innermost sphere of the sky” (Muir
in Journal of As. Soc. Pew Ser. I. 138). Soma, says
Dr Muir, was the Indian Bacchus (Idem, I. 135). Its
worship may be identified with that of the Greek god
Dionysus (Bacchus), who discovered and introduced to
mankind the juice of the grape for the alleviation of
their sorrows (Muir’s Sansk. Texts, V. 259, 260).
In the remarkable incident of Melchizedek meeting
Abraham and bringing him bread and wine, we have
the sacramental elements associated together. This has
the appearance of legendary matter, derived probably
from a Phoenician source, and it is introduced with no
very apparent purpose. The personage in question
comes from we know not where, and reappears no more.
He is seemingly the Sydyk of Sanchoniatho. The name
signifies “ the just man,” the adjunct Melik meaning
king. Accordingly in Hebrews ,Melchizedek is declared
to be, “ by interpretation,” the “ king of righteousness.”
Noah, it is said, “ was a just man,” whence Baber iden
tifies him with Sydyk (Mysteries of the Cabiri, 55).
Noah’s planting a vineyard, and drinking of the wine
thereof, has possibly a mythological purport. Wine
figures at the outset of the ministerial career of Jesus,
his miracle in producing it being, according to John,
the manner in which he first “ manifested his glory
and it is emblematical of his final glory. “ I will not
�12
The Bennett Judgment.
drink henceforth,” he said at his last supper, “ of this
fruit of the vine, until that day when 1 drink it new
with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The hlood is the
life of the animal. The wine, therefore, would appro
priately represent his hlood, and it is an animating or
life giving substance. The follower of Christ, as we
have seen, has “ no life in him” unless he drink it. We
appear to have in all these figures and practices the
re-embodiment of Soma, and by consequence of Bacchus.
It is singular, moreover, that the monogram of Bacchus,
which is THS or IHS, should have been adopted for
Christ (Higgin’s Celtic Druids, 128).
The other element, the bread, also bears its part in the
older mythologies. Cakes are among the offerings made
to theHindu gods from the earliest Vedic times (Taiboy’s
Wheeler’s Hist, of India from the Earliest Times, I. 11).
Rice cakes are also used at the sraddhas, or funeral
ceremonies, of the Hindus (Monier Williams’ Epic
Poetry, 38, note). The mourners offer it to the dead
and eat thereof themselves. “ Offering cakes and water,”
says the legislator of the Hindus, is “ the sacrament of
the Manes” (Institutes of Manu, iii. 70). The partak
ing of the bread and wine were connected with the
death of Jesus, which was thus to be shown forth till
he comes. In this there is some approximation to the
sraddhas. The Brahman has to present cakes of bread
to the progenitors of mankind (Manu i. 94). After
making his offerings to the household gods, the offerer
may eat what remains untouched (Manu iii. 117).
Just so the Christian priest and the communicants are
to consume the residue of the consecrated eucharistic
elements. The efficacy of the heavenly bread in gener
ating life, or creating immortal souls, is instanced in
the Ramayna, one of the great Indian epic poems.
Raja Dasaratha performed a sacrifice to obtain a son.
On this the pdya-^a, or food of the gods, was divinely
conferred upon his three wives, who, on partaking
thereof, conceived and bore four god-born sons, one of
whom was the illustrious incarnation Rama (Taiboy’s
�The Bennett Judgment.
13
Wheeler II. 20, 21; Monier Williams, 64). The early
Greeks, from so far back as the times of Cecrops, had.
consecrated loaves and cakes which were sold at the
entrance of the temples and offered to the gods (Bryant’s
Ancient Mythology, I. 371-373). Jeremiah (vii. 18;
xliv. 19), tells of cakes and drink offerings presented to
the queen of heaven. The Homeric gods had their food
as well as their liquor—their ambrosia and their nectar.
So the Israelites in the wilderness were fed with “ the
.corn of heaven,” constituting “ angels’ food” (Ps. lxxviii.
24, 25).
The doctrine of Home, maintained in the eucharistic
service, belongs thus to an ancient and very wide-spread
mythology. It has the authority of India, Persia,
Egypt, Phoenicia, and Greece. It is based upon mate
rialism—the sense that spirit can be built up with that
which nourishes the body. It is founded also upon
belief in the visible manifestation of the Deity. If
clothed upon with flesh, why not also with bread and
wine ? The Evangelicals, such as the Record represents,
clirg to the one form of the manifestation, and revolt
at the other. They ape the ceremonials of the eucharist, while disallowing what the ceremonials can alone
signify. In the conflict between truth and error they
belong to neither side. They bear a testimony against
the error, and yet foster it. With very remarkable pre
science, and much descriptive power, Dr Newman,
thirty-three years ago, has pointed to the forces between
whom the great issue has to be decided, whether reason
is to govern the human race, or superstition ; in which
struggle the Evangelicals, unfortunately, are nowhere.
“ Of Evangelical religion,” he said,—
“ we have no dread at all. ... It does not stand on en
trenched ground, or make any pretence to a position; it does
but occupy the space between contending powers, Catholic
f ruth and' Rationalism. Then, indeed, will be the stern en
counter, when two real and living principles, simple, entire,
and consistent, one in the Church, the other out of it, at
length rush upon each other, contending not for names and
�14
The Bennett Judgment.
words or half views, but for elementary notions and dis
tinctive moral characters. ... In the present day mistiness
is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half-adozen propositions, v’hich escape from destroying one
another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold
the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without
fulcrum or beam, who never enunciates a truth without
guarding himself against being supposed to exclude the con
tradictory,—who holds that Scripture is the only authority,
yet that the Church is to be deferred to, that faith only
justifies, yet that it does not justify without works, that
grace does not depend on sacraments, yet is not given with
out them,that bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those who
have them not are in the same religious condition as those
who have,—this is your safe man, and the hope of the
Church; this is what the Church is said to want, not party
men, but sensible, temperate, sober, well-judging persons to
guide it through the channel of no-meaning, between the
Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No (The Manchester Friend,
33, 34).”
From the day that this was written to the present
time, the progress of the two opposed bodies has been
very manifest. On the one side Romanism has become
rampant, introduced into the Church of England through
the many channels which her hollow’ unguarded system
allows of. On the other, the advocates of free thought
have been advancing rapidly in knowledge, in courage,
and in numbers. Their tread is now firmly on the
ground, never to be disturbed; and in the process of
time, vre may hope and believe, the human race will be
released from the bondage of error in which dark days,
rooted in Paganism, have involved them, to recognise
in simplicity, in fulness, and in truth, the Being who
has made them, as revealed to them daily in all his un
disputed works and ways.
Great Malvern,
July, 1872.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Bennett judgement
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Strange, Thomas Lumisden
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK. Reprinted from the 'Literary Churchman' and 'The Edinburgh Review', Vol. 136, No. 277. William James Early Bennett was an Anglican priest. Bennett is celebrated for having provoked the decision that the doctrine of the Real Presence is a dogma not inconsistent with the creed of the Church of England. This followed the publication of his pamphlet 'A Plea for Toleration' in the Church of England (1867) in the form of a letter to Edward Bouverie Pusey.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5538
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church of England
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Bennett judgement), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church of England-Doctrines
Conway Tracts
Eucharist