Footnotes
[vi] In addition to the books referred to in the subsequent pages, may be mentioned Towgood’s Letters to White; Furneaux’s Letters to Blackstone; Robinson’s Plan of Lectures on Nonconformity; Graham on Ecclesiastical Establishments; Marshall’s “Ecclesiastical Establishments considered,” and “Ecclesiastical Establishments further considered;” Scales’s “Principles of Dissent;” Thorn’s “Union of Church and State Antiscriptural;” and, amongst a multitude of able pamphlets, that by the Rev. J. B. Innes, of Norwich, entitled “Ecclesiastical Establishments Indefensible,” and “A Letter on the Principles and History of Dissenters,” by the Rev. John Raven, of Hadleigh.
[vii] Bishop Burnet.
[3] Matt. xxiii. 10.
[4] One of the opinions Wycliffe was charged with holding was this, “It is blasphemy to call any but Christ, head of the church.”
“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.
[5] Isa. viii. 20. “With respect to difference of opinion on religious subjects, the basis of religion is the Bible, and those [are the] most orthodox christians who adhere the most strictly to the doctrines laid down in that sacred volume. To explain it, is the duty of all mankind, and its interpretation is confined to no particular sect. To use coercion in compelling uniformity is not only impolitic, but while man is constituted as man, it will be impracticable.”—Hansard’s Debates, May 21st, 1811. Speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[7a] Acts v. 29.
[7b] John, iv. 23, 24.