The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-07-30 00:00:00

"SHEPPARD v. THE REV. W. J. E.
BENNEIT."

Judgment was given on Saturday, by the Ri.zht Hon.
Sir R J. Phillimore, the Dean of Archer, in the prose-
cution for heresy, of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett.
_ .

Hie Lordship-p.roceeded tufty that—

- The defendant Is the vicar of .Frome Selwood, and the
prosecution was at the instance of the Church Association.
After stating that it was a criminal snit, promoted by letters
of request from the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, and that
It commenced in October last, and had been delayed by an
appeal on one of the points to the Judicial Committee, he
considered the nature of the charge against Mr. Bennett,
arid went on to consider the historical notice of the format-
lades of the Church, and also of the docirine of the Holy
Eucharist, anal dilated on the presence of our Lord in the
Holy Sacrament, anal at much length he ;Sir It Phillimore)
proceeded with the subject in a lucid and learned mariner.
In the course of the argument the use of the phrase objec-
tive presence was demurred to by the counsel of the
promoter. It was said that the phrase had been recently in.
troduced into treatises of Erglish theology ; also the terns
subjective had been rased Subjective belonged, he believed,
to tire mind or soul of man—the thinking conscious subject,
and objective denoted what was without or external to the
mind or soul of man, the object known, perceived, or be-
lieved to exist. It siguilied what was real in opposition to
what was ideal, what existed in nature in contrast to what
existed in thought. On the question of the 'Visible nresence
of our Lord an the Holy Eucharist," ha had no hesitation in
pronouncing that the expression, visible presence of our
Lord upon the altars of our churches," is in Its plain mean-
ing at variance with all the formularies of our Church
upon the subject, at variance with the language of the
Holy Ccininunion, of the Twenty-eighth detrain, arid
of the Catechism. The Dean, after goieg through the
several (natters contained in the charge, and citing various
authorities on the subject, and reading passages from
various authors, went on to consider the "Doctrine of the
Sacrifice." Ile considered that the language of Mr. Bennett
upon the sacritice was consistent with the doctrine of a
sacrament commernmoratiou, and does not necessarily
imply a sacrifice of propitiation, and, in his oplidoe, did
not conflict with the articles of religion. (In the adora-
tion of the holy elements his lordship dwelt at some length.
In concluding his very elaborate judgment, which was
listened to with marked attention by all present, the Dean
said that while he had • very arduous duty to discharge,
he hail not hail that measure of assistance which a court
of justice usually received. Mr. Bennett, who had canted
all this litigation upon the subject of all others which
ought not to be litigated, had not appeared before the
court of his metropolitan to pistil), or defend himself.
The case had been argued on one side only. The pro-
secution, it was said, was directed against Mr. Bennett
alone ; but he (Sir E. Philltmore; could trot shut his eyes
to the fact that he was not trying Mr. Bennett alone, but also
divines eminent for piety, learning, and elotprence, whose
nidnlnng Mr. Bennett had borrowed and in some respects
caricatured. The conclusion he arriveat at was, that Mr.
Bennett, by his language respecting the visible presence of
our Lord, and the adoration of the conseerated ele-
meets, has contravened the law of the Church. If Mr.
Bennett had not renounced this language and sub.
stituted other for it, he must have considered wha
ther he ought not to pass a sentence of suspension
upon him, accompanied by a monition to abstain for
the future from such language. The question was whether
the retractation, however ungraciously made, was sufficient
under the general law, arid he the Dean) thought
on the whole it was sufficient, as the unlawful ex-
pression had been abandoned. On the subject of
•' presence ' his lordship said, "With respect to the
Bee,bl and corrected edition of his (Mr Bennett's)
pamphlet, and the other work for which bets articled, I say
that the objective, actual, and real presence, or the spiritual
real presence, a presence external to the act of the conimuni-
cant, appears to me to he the doctrine which the formularies
of our Church, duly cow idered and con=trued to be harmon-
ious. intended to mainttin. But Ido not lay down this as a
position of law, nor do I pronounce on any other teaching
with respect to the mode of presence. I mean to do no such
thing by this judgment. I mean by it to pronounce only that
to describe the mode of presence as objective, real, actual,
and spiritual, is certainly not contrary to law. M ith respect
to the; other charges, namely, those relating t sacrifice and
worship, I pronounce that Mr. Bennett has not exceeded the
liberty which the law allows upon these subjects."

Hi; Lordship made no order as to costs. The judg-
ment took three hours to deliver The promoter will,
it is understood, take the case to the Judicial Com.
mittee.