APA (7th ed.) Citation

Great Britain. Court of Queen's Bench, Stephens, A. J., Shaw, B., & Shaw, B. The substance of the argument of Archibald John Stephens, LL.D., one of Her Majesty's counsel, in applying for a writ of Mandamus commanding the Bishop of London to issue a commission to inquire into the doctrines propounded by the Rev. W.J.E. Bennett, M.A., in a work entitled "An examination of Archdeacon Denison's propositions of faith on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist," and the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1869.

Chicago Style (17th ed.) Citation

Great Britain. Court of Queen's Bench, Archibald John Stephens, Benjamin Shaw, and B. Shaw. The Substance of the Argument of Archibald John Stephens, LL.D., One of Her Majesty's Counsel, in Applying for a Writ of Mandamus Commanding the Bishop of London to Issue a Commission to Inquire into the Doctrines Propounded by the Rev. W.J.E. Bennett, M.A., in a Work Entitled "An Examination of Archdeacon Denison's Propositions of Faith on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist," and the Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. London: Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1869.

MLA (8th ed.) Citation

Great Britain. Court of Queen's Bench, et al. The Substance of the Argument of Archibald John Stephens, LL.D., One of Her Majesty's Counsel, in Applying for a Writ of Mandamus Commanding the Bishop of London to Issue a Commission to Inquire into the Doctrines Propounded by the Rev. W.J.E. Bennett, M.A., in a Work Entitled "An Examination of Archdeacon Denison's Propositions of Faith on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist," and the Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1869.