Footnotes

“The office of the head is, to prescribe laws to his church which should bind men’s consciences to the obedience of the same: and of such lawgivers there is but one. James iv. 18.”—Archbishop Usher.

“Christians are forbidden to look up to any man as having dominion over their faith, as entitled to implicit credence and submission, or, as the head of their sect whose decisions were stamped with authority over their consciences; they were to oppose all claims and pretensions of this kind by whomsoever they were advanced or on whatever grounds.”—Rev. T. Scott, late Rector of Aston Sanford, Comment. Matt, xxiii. 8–10.

It is equally difficult to reconcile a hearty belief in the twentieth article of the Church of England with these sentiments, and to distinguish them in substance from the following: “Authoritative and legislative interference apart from him, we dare not recognise: our loyalty to Christ as the church’s only head, compels us to disclaim it, and to protest against all human dictation. It cannot be shown that he has any where delegated his sovereignty; that he has appointed any order of men to act for him in a vice-regal capacity, and invested them with irresponsible and discretionary powers, or indeed with any powers at all, to frame articles of belief and formularies of worship and discipline, to fix the meaning of his word, or to devise and prescribe the religion of a congregation, or community, or province, or nation.”—Scales’ Principles of Dissent, p. 72.

The editor of Col. Hutchinson’s Memoirs, (a clergyman of the Established Church,) says, they “proceeded upon that principle which, how general soever it ought to be, is, however, unfortunately very uncommon, of allowing to all that liberty of conscience they demanded for themselves.”—Introd. p. 17.

Mr. Brodie, the learned author of the History of the British Empire from the accession of Charles I. to the Restoration, remarks that “The grand principle by which the Independents surpassed all other sects was, universal toleration to all denominations of christians whose religion was not conceived to be hostile to the peace of the state, a principle to which they were faithful in the height of power as well as under persecution.”—Vol. iii. p. 517.

“By the Independent divines, who were his instructors, (says the noble biographer of Locke,) our philosopher was taught those principles of religious liberty which they were the first to disclose to the world.”—Lord King’s Life of Locke, 4to ed. p. 178.

On the motion for inquiring into the cause of the death of the missionary Smith, Lord Brougham is reported to have said, “Mr. Smith was a pious and faithful minister of the Independents, that body, much to be respected indeed for their numbers, but far more to be held in lasting veneration for their unshaken fortitude, with which, in all times, they have maintained their attachment to civil and religious liberty, and holding fast by their own principles, have carried to its utmost pitch the great doctrine of absolute toleration.”

The grant to the inhabitants at a later period, of the tract of marshes reclaimed from the sea, was perhaps an inadequate compensation for the loss of the fishery. It was stated by a writer at the commencement of the seventeenth century that more wealth was raised out of herrings and other fish in his majesty’s seas by the neighbouring nations in one year, than the king of Spain had from the Indies in four.—Phœnix, i. 222.

The living of Beccles, at the period of Mr. Fleming’s deprivation, was vested in Lady Anne Gresham, the widow of Sir Thomas Gresham, Knt., founder of the Royal Exchange. Previously to her marriage she was the widow of William Rede, merchant, of London and Beccles.—Lib. Inst. ubi supra. Account of the Corporation, pp. 11, 15.

In the volume of Blomefield above referred to, (pp. 272, et seq. and 552,) will be found some account of Bishop Hopton, and of his Chancellor Dunning, (or Downing,) mentioned in the preceding chapter.

MSS.