Formation of the Independent church at Beccles—Probable covenant—Earliest
members—John Clarke—Baptists—Robert Ottee; made pastor—Deacons
chosen—First administration of the Lord’s supper and baptism—Prudential
arrangements—Day of thanksgiving—Singing introduced—Prophesyings—Savoy
conference—Interruption of the record—Act of Uniformity—Mr. Ottee
continues his ministry; his death; posthumous work; opinions and
character—Meeting-house—Communion plate.
THE formation of an Independent church at Beccles naturally followed from
the course of events sketched in the preceding chapters. The sufferings
of the martyrs, the puritans, and the Brownists, had preserved the leaven
of christian freedom; and the political circumstances of the times
combined with the fostering aid of the Norwich and Yarmouth churches, to
encourage its manifestation, and to promote its diffusion. Upon those
models several christian societies were formed, in various towns of
Norfolk and Suffolk, during the years 1652 and 1653. {112a} Beccles took
the lead. The church book opens with the following record:—
“The 6th day of ye fifth month, com’only called July, 1652.” {112b}
“The names of such persons whoe have covenanted togither to walke ye
of Christ according to Gospell Order, wth an account of such matters
as haue occurred in ye Church att Beccles.
“In ye day & yeare above written, these following p’sons joyned in
covenant {112c} togither under ye visible Regiment {113} of Christ,
according to ye Gospell, vz. Joh. Clarke, James King, jun Robt.
Ottey, Edm. Nevill, Joh. Morse, Willm. Cutlove, Edm. Artis, Robt.
Horne, Joh. Botswaine.”
Although this mutual engagement was all that was essential to the
formation of a church of Christ, yet on an occasion so deeply
interesting, and fraught with consequences so momentous, it was natural
that the brethren elsewhere should be requested to add their approval,
their counsel, and their prayers. In the Congregational church book at
Norwich, a letter is stated to have been “received from the Christians at
Beckles, by which they signified their intention to gather into church
fellowship,” and desired that church would “send messengers to be there
upon the 23. of July, 1652.” Daniel Bradford, James Gooding, and Samuel
Clarke, were selected for this service.
The first of these three individuals had been “employed in the army,”
when the Yarmouth church was formed, and was afterwards a deacon at
Norwich. The other two appear to have been among Mr. Bridge’s companions
in exile, and to have returned with him. {114a} Doubtless they were men
whose zeal was chastened by experience and discretion, and whose piety
had stood the tests of time and persecution.
It was usual with the early Independents, at the formation of their
churches, to sign an agreement, or covenant, expressive of their objects
in thus associating, and pledging themselves to the faithful performance
of the duties devolving upon them as church members. {114b} On the
formation of their first church at Norwich, their _covenant_ was read
aloud by one, and then subscribed by all the brethren.
That document, since it is highly probable that, at least in substance,
it was adopted on the gathering of the church at Beccles, shall now be
laid before the reader. It displays a noble solemnity and simplicity,
connected with a candour and sense of fallibility, which have been justly
described as “extremely graceful and evangelical.” {115}
“It is manifest by God’s word, that God alwaies was pleased to walke
in a way of couenant with his people knitt together in a visible
church estate, He promising to be their God, and they promising to be
his people, separated from the world and the pollutions thereof as
may appeare therein.
“Wee therefore, whose names are subscribed, being desirous (in the
feare of God) to worship and serve Him according to his reuealed
will, and beleeving it to be our duty to walke in a way of church
couenant, doe freely and solemnly couenant with the Lord and one
another, in the presence of his saints and angells—
“1. That we will forever acknowledge and avouch the Lord to be our
God in Christ Jesus, giuing up ourselves to Him, to be his people.
“2. That we will alwaies endeuour, through the grace of God
assisting us, to walke in all his waies and ordinances, _according to
his written word_, _which is the onely sufficient rule of __good life
for euery man_. Neither will we suffer ourselues to be polluted by
any sinfull waies, either publike or priuate, but endeauour to
abstaine from the uery appearance of euill, giuing no offence to the
Jew or gentile, or the churches of Christ.
“3. That we will humbly and willingly submit ourselues to the
gouernment of Christ in this church, in the administration of the
word, the seales, and discipline.
“4. That we will, in all loue, improve our com’union as brethren, by
watching ouer one another, and (as need shalbe) counsell, admonish,
reproue, comfort, releeve, assist, and beare with one another,
seruing one another in loue.
“5. Lastly, we doe not couenant or promise these things in our owne,
but in Christ’s strength; neither doe we confine ourselues to the
words of this couenant, _but shall at all tymes account it our duty
to embrace any further light or trueth which shalbe reuealed to us
out of God’s word_.” {116}
Such was the spirit, if not the letter, of the mutual engagement into
which they entered, who introduced into the town of Beccles the
Independent form of church government.
Within twelve months from the formation of the church, twenty-one other
persons had joined. The first of these was Mr. Joseph Cutlove, who
appears to have been, at the same time, portreeve of the Corporation of
Beccles, and to have had some influential friends among the members of
the long parliament. {117} Amongst the names is also that of “Humphry
Brewster,” one of the truly honourable family to whom belonged the hall
and manors of Wrentham, and who, for many years, greatly encouraged and
supported the dissenting interest there. {118a} And “Francis Hayloucke,”
subsequently a deacon of the church.
During the above period there was no recognised pastor. But in the year
1653, occurs this memorandum:—
“29 d. 5 m. com’only called July.
A pastor was chosen.”
Who this was is rather uncertain; perhaps MR. JOHN CLARK.
He seems to have been a minister in the established church, for in the
parochial register, under the years 1647 and 1648, are recorded the
baptisms of two sons of “John Clark, minister, and of Ann his wife.”
{118b} It is also observable that his name is the first enrolled on the
list of members of the Independent church. And among the individuals
subsequently admitted, was “Anna” his wife; which serves to identify him
with the person mentioned in the parish register.
He does not appear to have engaged fully in the performance of pastoral
duties. Perhaps he had a lingering preference for the establishment,
although the peculiar circumstances of the times, after the death of
Charles the first, induced him to unite with other serious persons in
church fellowship. Dr. Walker states that he got possession of the
living of Beccles in 1655. {119} This he might be enabled to accomplish
when Cromwell, in order that the Presbyterians might not fill all the
livings with persons of their persuasion, appointed, by an ordinance in
council, commissioners, partly selected from the Independent
denomination, to examine all persons seeking admission to benefices.
{120}
* * * * *
It was to be expected that the possession of religious liberty, in a
degree before unequalled, would occasion the propagation of many opinions
previously unknown or concealed through fear. The Baptists, especially,
now became a distinct and important denomination. They were the objects
of bitter scorn and invective from the Presbyterian party, who had gained
the ascendancy, and were treated with less kindness by the Independents
than might reasonably have been expected. In 1656, two persons who had
been members of the Independent church at Beccles, received adult
baptism, and in so doing were considered to have given “offence” to the
church, and desired to appear and “give an account of their practices.”
There are some subsequent instances of a similar kind. It was natural
that, entertaining peculiar opinions as to the mode and objects of
christian baptism, they should unite with societies professing the same
sentiments. Greatly is it to be lamented that uncharitableness should
ever have intruded where intolerance would have been deprecated; that
fellow-christians should have allowed these minor differences of
sentiment to create even an apparent separation of heart, or
—“Let the basin and the flood
Divide the purchase of that blood,
Where _all_ must plunge or die.”
The next pastor, and the transactions connected with his ministry will
require a more extended notice.
ROBERT OTTEE was a native of Great Yarmouth, where his father carried on
the business of a boddice-maker. {121} The son appears to have received
such an education as, in some measure, fitted him for the more elevated
and responsible situation he was destined to occupy. He was kept at the
Latin school till he was old enough to be employed in his father’s trade,
at which he worked several years. It does not appear that at this early
period of his life, he had any view to the ministry; but his inclination
towards mental pursuits was so decided, that nothing but a deep sense of
filial duty would have reconciled him to the manual occupation in which
he found himself engaged. He had already imbibed a conviction of the
supreme importance of religion, and while he laboured with his hands, his
Bible generally lay open before him.
Prompted by his serious impressions he attended the meetings of some
Christians in his native town, held for united, earnest prayer, and other
religious exercises. On one occasion an individual whose assistance was
mainly depended upon, was prevented from being present. Mr. Ottee was
induced to pray and expound a passage of Scripture; and he acquitted
himself so well, as to call forth the admiration of the most intelligent
persons present. Some of them applied to Mr. Bridge, desiring that he
would encourage so promising a young man to devote himself to the
christian ministry.
But Mr. Ottee evinced the same prudence which distinguished him through
life, and a diffidence as to his qualifications, which is the frequent
attendant on intellectual or religious attainments of a superior order.
There were some who had previously received encouragement from Mr.
Bridge, but who, not having been favoured with similar advantages of
education, had not altogether fulfilled the sanguine expectations of
their friends. He determined, therefore, not to yield to Mr. Bridge’s
suggestions, till he had consulted Mr. Brinsley, the exemplary and
persecuted parish minister of Yarmouth. {123a} That grave, but urbane
man, had repeated conversations with him on the subject, and was so fully
satisfied as to his knowledge of the Scriptures, his gifts, his
seriousness of spirit, and holiness of conversation, as to join cordially
in recommending him to apply himself to the great duties of a minister of
the gospel. {123b}
His sense of the immense responsibility connected with the ministry would
not allow him to think of blending with it the pursuits of trade. He had
imbibed a settled conviction that, to use his own expression, _the work
of the gospel was __sufficient for one man_. “There is nothing,” says
he, in one of his sermons, “more plain in Scripture than this, that those
whom God hath set [apart] to the work of the ministry are exempted from
other worldly trades and callings. It hath been an abuse, in this
nation, to think that men may trade, and buy, and sell, and run into all
worldly business, and yet undertake the preaching of the gospel: yea,
some there are, called the regular clergy, yet give themselves too much
to farming, buying, and selling, and secular employments; this doth come
short of their calling; for mind what the apostle saith to Timothy, in 1
Tim. iv. 13, ‘Till I come, give thyself to reading, to exhortation, to
doctrine.’” {124a}
Mr. Ottee appears to have been residing in Beccles when the Independent
church was formed. In the year 1656, he accepted the pastoral charge of
the people with whom he had long “held sweet counsel.” {124b} The
circumstance is thus briefly recorded in the church book.
“12th No. 56.
Mr. Otty made paster by ye church.”
This has been supposed to refer to his ordination, and the memorandum
occurring 29th July, 1653, to his election. But a delay of more than
three years between the choice and settlement of a pastor scarcely admits
of a satisfactory explanation. The expression, “_made pastor_ by the
church,” moreover, raises a strong presumption that the occurrence
included, if it did not refer solely to, the _election_ of a pastor.
That expression would scarcely have been used with reference to the mere
ordination of an individual, previously elected to the pastoral office.
{125}
With Mr. Ottee’s pastorate commenced the appointment of such other
officers as are sanctioned by the holy Scriptures, and the regular
administration of christian ordinances to his flock. With reference to
these subjects, the church book contains some memoranda, which will be
perused with interest by those connected with the church or congregation.
“December 29th, 1656. Deacons chosen.
Wm. Cutlove & Edmond Artis, were sett ap’te to attend ye office of
Deacons: & from ye Lord’s day next ther is to be a weekely collec’ion
putt into ther hands for ye supply of ye Lord’s table, & the table of
ye (godly) poore of ye church.
“December 29th, 1656
It was then agreed that ye Lord’s Supper be administred upon ye 18th
day of January next, & yt ye Thursday before be kept by ye church by
fastinge & prayer, in order to a p’paration unto yt ordinance: wch
was accordingely observed. The p’paration day kept at or brother
Artises, Jan. 15th, and ye supper celebrated at Mr. Clearke’s house,
upon the Lord’s day, Jan. 18th, 1656, wch was ye first tyme of
administration of yt ordinance amongst us.
“Baptisme first administred amongst us.
At our monthly meetinge, being 28th of January, 1656, {127a} kept at
or pastour’s house, the sacrament of baptisme was first administred
amongst us by or pastour, Mr. Ottye.” {127b}
The deacons were evidently, according to the examples recorded in the New
Testament, “men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,”
chosen by the brethren, and set apart to serve the table of the Lord, and
that of the poor members; to take charge, in a word, of the secular
affairs of the church, while the pastor gave himself “continually to
prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” {128a} They found no
description of the deacon’s office, as a gradation in the christian
ministry, or as preliminary to it; or as continuing “for the space of a
whole year;” or as including the administration of baptism and the duty
of preaching, subject to the approbation of a bishop. They discarded
these human inventions, and found their highest satisfaction in an
adherence to the precedents of the New Testament.
The mode of administering the Lord’s supper was that which had been, long
before, adopted by the Brownists {128b}—that which the apostolic account,
{128c} and the nature and design of the institution, alike indicated as
the most appropriate. They who had openly professed their love and
allegiance to Jesus Christ, commemorated his death in obedience to his
command, enjoyed communion with Him and with one another in the sacred
feast and, with grateful joy, found themselves delivered from the
imposition of a posture, which had been the natural accompaniment and
indication of a belief in transubstantiation, which was unsuited to the
ordinance, and had no warrant in the word of God.
Baptism was administered to the children of believers, as a sign of the
gracious covenant God had made with the parents, and as an occasion for
parental dedication and the solemn promise of christian instruction. But
the use of sponsors was discarded, as alike unscriptural and unnatural;
the sign of the cross was omitted, as a departure from the simplicity of
the gospel, implying a proportionate approach to superstition; and the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration was rejected, as calculated to produce
and nourish a fatal delusion.
It is essential to the efficient existence of every society, whether
secular or religious, that some regulations should be adopted with regard
to the admission of its members. But the distinction cannot be too
carefully noticed, between arrangements of this nature assented to by
persons voluntarily associated for religious purposes, and terms of
church fellowship enforced by authority, under civil penalties, directly
or indirectly attaching to nonconformity. The former are consistent with
unlimited toleration; the latter involve the very essence of intolerance.
Mr. Ottee appears to have exercised a very commendable prudence in the
admission of members into his church. Some of the brethren were usually
appointed to confer with the candidates, “in order to the church’s
satisfaction.” And repeated instances are recorded in which the society
suspended its decision, until they could “give further satisfaction,” and
should again apply for admission.
At a church meeting, held 25th February, 1656, the following resolution
was recorded, apparently referring to Mr. Ottee’s recent settlement.
“It was likewise agreed upon, that this day fortnett, being the
eleventh day of March, begininge at eleven of the clocke, be spent by
the church in thanksgivinge unto God, for his gracious returneinge
unto us in a way of mercye, for or settlement after those many
shakeinges we have bene under, in refference to or present church
state, & yt the Lord hath bene pleased both to give us to have the
priviledges of his people administred unto us, & to oure children; &
alsoe that we then seeke unto him by ernest supplication, for further
grace, wisdome, & assistance, to walke in his house, as those who are
priviledged wth such mercye—this meetinge to be at or brother Edmond
Artis his house.”
Hearts thus attuned to praise, sought its expression in “psalms and
hymns, and spiritual songs.” Singing would have exposed the puritans to
considerable peril, while they were obliged to meet in secret that they
might evade the fang of persecution. But now “had the churches rest;”
and they joyfully availed themselves of a privilege, at once permitted
and prompted by their improved circumstances. At the next meeting the
subject was brought under consideration.
“Att the monthly meeting of the church, upon the 25th day of the
first month, called March, [1657].
“It was agreed by the church, that they doe put in practice the
ordinance of singinge, in the publiq upon the forenoone and
afternoone on the Lord’s daies, and that it be betweene praier and
sermon; and also it was agreed that the New England translation of
the Psallmes be made use of by the church, at their times of breaking
of bread: and it was agreed that the next Lord’s day seventh-night be
the day to enter upon the work of singinge in publiq.”
The metrical version of the Psalms, alluded to in the above extract, was
published in 1640. The pilgrim fathers, “though they blessed God for the
religious endeavours of those who translated the Psalms into the metre
usually annexed at the end of the Bible,” yet observed in that
translation so many variations, not only from the text, but from the very
sense of the Psalmist, that “it was an offence unto them.” Each of their
chief divines took a portion to translate, and the whole was afterwards
revised by Mr. Henry Dunster, President of Harvard College. They claimed
the merit of a close adherence to the Hebrew, but were conscious that
their versification was, by no means, free from imperfections. “We have
respected,” said they, “rather a plain translation, than to smooth our
verses with the sweetness of any paraphrase. We have attended conscience
rather than elegance, fidelity rather than ingenuity; that so we may sing
in Zion the Lord’s songs of praise, according unto his own will, until he
bid us enter into our Master’s joy, to sing eternal hallelujahs.” {133}
Whatever might be the comparative claims of a version of the Psalms
composed two hundred years ago, it would grate upon ears accustomed to
the more majestic flow of modern poetry. It has been the privilege—the
almost exclusive privilege of nonconformity, to have derived the benefit
of progressing refinement, and to have retained poetry as the permanent
handmaid of devotion, while in the national churches the uncouth doggerel
of the sixteenth century is still cherished as a thing which it were
sacrilege to touch.
* * * * *
The Independents never introduced into their assemblies that unbounded
liberty of teaching, which had been the mark and the bane of the Brownist
churches. {134} But they desired, under the prudent, constant, and
salutary superintendence of a ministry invested, if not with more
extensive powers, with a more commanding moral influence, to retain the
advantages of an open discussion of topics connected with their religious
system and spiritual prosperity. The following extracts from the church
book, show that something of this kind was attempted at Beccles. The
reader will regret, that no account of the questions discussed, or of the
manner in which they were treated, has been preserved.
“It was likewise” (at the meeting, held 25th March, 1657) further
“agreed, that upon the next monthly meeting, the church doe take in
considerac’on ye bretherens’ prophesying, {135} or speaking to a
question.”
“At a meetinge of the church upon the 3rd day of the month, com’only
called June, 1657, it was agreed upon and condesended unto, that two
of these bretheren hereunder written be appoynted in ther order to
speake unto the questions wch shall be hereafter p’pounded, to be
answered in our publiq church meeteinges; and our pastour or Mr.
Clearke, one of them, be desired constantly to conclude the meetinge:
Edmond Artis & John Morse. Francis Haylocke & Richard
Heasell.
Edmond Nevill & Robert Horne. Wm. Cutlove & Richard Shildrake.”
Then follows:
“The order of bretheren to find ther questions wch they are desired
to acquaynt eyther our present pastor with, or or brother Mr.
Clearke, to this end yt upon the conclusion of eyther days of these
exercises, the question next to be spoken unto may be p’pounded unto
the bretheren, who are desired to stay a little space, every
meetinge, after the rest of the company who attend these meeteinges
beside the church have withdrawen themselves, to the end yt they may
know wt & whose question is next in order to be considered; and that
one of them be desired to give out the question.
“Brother Thomas Onge,” &c. &c. [eleven other names.]
“It was likewise further agreed upon yt after the next meeteinge of
this nature be p’formed upon the second day of the weeke, publiq
notyse be given at yt meeting that from thenceforth it is intended yt
the exercise of this nature shall be kept in the usual place, upon
the 3rd day of the week, to begin at the houres of two of the clocke
in the afternoone in sum’er tyme, & at one in the winter.”
Sept. 20th, 1658, occurs the following:
“At a meetinge then of the church, beinge occasioned by a letter sent
from diverse churches touchinge a generall meetinge of the severall
Congregationall churches at London, by ther pastors or others,
bretheren, at the Savoye, upon the 29th of September next, it was
agreed by the church that our pastour, Mr. Ottie, should goe to that
meeteinge on the behalf of this church, and yt ye charge of the
jorneye should be mutually borne by the bretheren of the socyetye.”
Previously to the death of Oliver Cromwell the Independents had
petitioned for liberty to hold this synod. They had acquired, especially
in Suffolk and Norfolk, considerable importance by their numbers, and by
the accession of many opulent persons. But they had been (to use their
own expressions) like so many ships launched singly, and sailing apart
and alone in the vast ocean of those tumultuous times, exposed to every
wind of doctrine, under no other conduct than the word and Spirit, and
their particular elders and principal brethren, without associations
among themselves, or so much as holding out a common light to others
whereby to know where they were. {137} It is a circumstance which
strikingly distinguishes the Independents from the Brownists, that while
they strenuously contended against the exercise of any spiritual
authority, even by the gravest and wisest assemblies of men, they desired
“that there might be a correspondence between their churches, in city and
country, for counsel and mutual edification,” and that the world might
know to what extent they, “being many,” were “one body.”
The meeting at the Savoy consisted of ministers and messengers from above
a hundred Congregational churches, and was graced by the presence of
Howe, then chaplain to the young Protector, and of other eminent divines.
The synod was opened by a day of fasting and prayer; and a committee of
six divines, including Mr. Bridge of Yarmouth, was appointed to draw up a
confession. On the 12th of October, the assembly agreed upon “a
declaration of the faith and order owned and practised in the
Congregational churches in England.” As its basis they adopted the
confession drawn up in 1643, by the Westminster assembly of divines,
omitting, however, all that related to the _power_ of synods and
councils, and of the civil magistrate in religious matters. They added a
chapter on the proper magnitude of sacred societies, as properly
congregational, though not so isolated as to preclude mutual counsel; the
proper subjects of church-membership, namely, those who in the judgment
of charity are sanctified persons; the commencement of the church
relationship by the free choice of the individuals, and not by accidental
dwelling in a particular civil district; the requisiteness, however, of
the associating of believers who reside in the same city, town, or
neighbourhood; the right of the members at large to be consulted, and the
necessity of the concurrence of a majority of them, in all important
transactions of the society; and the propriety of receiving into their
communion those of different sentiments, so far as consistent with their
own principles. {139a} They concluded with an expression of gratitude to
their governors for the liberty of conscience they enjoyed, and that this
liberty was established by law, so long as they disturbed not the public
peace. {139b}
On the 2nd of March, 1658, a meeting of the church was held at Flixton,
(seven miles from Beccles,) for the purpose of administering the
ordinance of baptism to several children.
Another church meeting was held 3rd March, 1659. The detailed account of
the proceedings of the society then abruptly terminates.
* * * * *
The death of Cromwell, and the resignation of his upright but unaspiring
son, involved the national affairs in new difficulty. The hour of
comparative sunshine which religion had enjoyed had well nigh passed
away. The restoration of the monarchy was indeed spoken of as an event
calculated to unite all the jarring elements of the state;—a glowing
hope, resembling the intense fervour of sunshine which precedes and
foretells the renewal of the storm.
In 1662, was passed the Act of Uniformity, than which no chapter of the
Statute Book has obtained, in the estimation of just and liberal men, a
more ignominious notoriety. It demanded a perfect conformity to the Book
of Common Prayer, and the rites and ceremonies of the established church.
The 5th September (O. S.) 1662, on which day it came into operation, was
properly denominated the _black_ Bartholomew-day. “That Bartholomew-day”
(says Locke) “was fatal to our church and religion, by throwing out a
very great number of worthy, learned, pious, and orthodox divines.” By
this statute nearly two thousand five hundred ministers were silenced.
And it is affirmed that, upon a moderate calculation, it procured the
untimely death of three thousand nonconformists, and the ruin of sixty
thousand families. {141}
This proceeding, however, was witnessed by the dissenting body more in
sorrow than in anger. One of the leading Independents in Suffolk thus
expressed himself. “About this time was the breaking up of the ministry;
which sad dispensation I was very sensible of, and much bewailed in my
own spirit, and in secret mourning for the sin and misery of England that
had undone itself and declared itself unworthy of the gospel: writing
_Ichabod_ upon all my enjoyments, whilst the glory was departed; calling
to mind my own iniquity that helped on this sad judgment.” {142}
The Act of Uniformity had, according to Dr. Calamy, the immediate effect
of silencing both Mr. John Clark and Mr. Ottee. Of the former, no
further account has been handed down. The latter appears to have been
soon enabled, by his own prudence, and through the respect which a holy
and benevolent character often receives even from the worldly and
narrow-minded, to continue the more private exercise of his ministry.
Notwithstanding the passing of the Conventicle Act and the Five Mile Act,
designed more effectually to crush the dissenting congregations and
separate their pastors from them, he appears to have gone on, through the
remaining years of the Stuart dynasty, preaching the gospel to his people
in Beccles. “And God continued” (says Dr. Calamy) “to bless his labours
among them to the end of his days.” He presided over his church with
remarkable prudence and fidelity. His preaching was as solid and useful
as it was plain, and “met with approbation, both from ministers and
private Christians of all denominations.” The following testimony by Mr.
Bidbanck of Denton, is equally strong. “He was, as is well known, an
interpreter one of a thousand, Job xxxiii. 23; an Apollos, mighty in the
Scriptures, Acts xviii. 24.” {144a} If he preached five or six sermons
without hearing of any good effect, he was greatly dejected and very
fervent in prayer for more abundant success.
Towards the close of his life, he had, as he told Mr. Bidbanck, “many
warnings of putting off his tabernacle.” With a view to his own
consolation under those circumstances, and to the edification of his
flock, he preached, in the mornings of the Lord’s days, a course of
sermons upon the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. These
were amongst his last discourses. They were heard with deep and
affectionate interest, and having been taken down in shorthand from the
lips of the preacher, were published soon after his decease. {144b}
This little book was introduced to the christian world, by a short
preface from the pen of Mr. Martin Finch, the minister of the Independent
church at Norwich, {145} and dedicated to the deceased pastor’s bereaved
flock, by Mr. Bidbanck. In these discourses, Mr. Ottee enlarged upon the
parallel drawn by the apostle between the priesthood of Melchisedec and
that of Jesus Christ, in an expository style, discovering much energy of
thought combined with deep piety and an ardent desire for usefulness.
Mr. Ottee was, emphatically, a _protestant nonconformist_. With him
personal piety was, indeed, the first, the absorbing consideration. But
protestantism held scarcely an inferior place in his esteem. On this
subject his style, even through the mutilating medium of shorthand, rises
to animation. “What prophet, or what apostle,” he exclaims, “said any
thing for the worshipping of images? or what apostle, or what prophet,
said any thing to warrant the praying in an unknown tongue? What
prophet, or apostle, or penman of Scripture, hath said any thing
concerning the sacrifice of the mass, for the living and the dead? Oh,
filthy trash! What prophet, or apostle, or penman of the Scripture, hath
said any thing concerning praying souls out of purgatory, or of having
mass read for them? What prophet, or apostle, or Christ himself, said
any thing of purgatory, or crossing themselves, or their childish crosses
and beads? Of these popish superstitions God hath said nothing in all
his word. And therefore the people of God must never meddle with these
things; and if you be tempted or solicited to any ceremony, ask the
question, Have Moses, or the prophets, or Christ, or his apostles, said
any thing to this matter that you are so zealous for? O, search the
Scripture; and what you find there, you are to practise in faith and in
the fear of God. ‘_To the law and to the testimony_, _if they speak not
__according to this word_, _it is because there is no light in them_.’”
{147a}
Nor did he hesitate to avow his objections to a church which retained any
traces of the superstitions of popery. “As for us that have the reformed
religion, how many amongst us delight to worship God after the law of a
carnal commandment! Are there not too many amongst us which are more for
old, abrogated ceremonies than they are for a gospel worship? Bewail and
lament the apostasy of this generation.” {147b} “If all the Mosaical
rites and ceremonies were weak and imperfect, and God, for that reason,
abolished them, because they could not reach the main end of man’s
happiness; then, here you may see the folly of those men that set up
these rites and ceremonies and human inventions, in part of their
worship. If God’s own institutions were weak and unprofitable, what are
men’s inventions? Are their priestly vestments profitable? their crosses
and cringings, profitable? What profit is there in bowing the knee at
the word ‘Jesus’? . . . But some will say, these are ornaments of the
church of God. To that I answer, so is a painted glass an ornament to
the house, yet it shuts out the light more than a plain glass . . .
These painted and carnal ceremonies do shut out the light of the gospel;
for the light of the gospel shines out more pure and clear in the plain
administration of the gospel; and therefore all those things that carnal
men so magnifie, are unprofitable.” {148a}
Mr. Ottee was _congregational_ in his judgment; but he held his opinions
in combination with so much modesty and moderation, as to win the esteem
and affection of those who differed from him. In particular, he enjoyed
the intimate friendship of Dr. John Collinges, the learned, pious, and
eminent minister of St. Stephen’s church, Norwich. {148b}
The discourses already quoted, contain ample evidence of the orthodox
character of Mr. Ottee’s views. They indicate his belief in the doctrine
of original sin; {149a} of the consequent moral inability of man to
effect his own salvation; {149b} of the indispensable importance of the
change called the new birth; {149c} of the Trinity; {149d} of the union
of the divine and human natures in the person of the Son of God; {149e}
of the atonement made by him for sin; {149f} of the obligation resting
upon all men to apply themselves to the exercise of prayer, and to lead a
life of personal holiness; {149g} and the vanity of trusting to the mere
mercy of God, irrespectively of the channel through which he has revealed
his willingness to bestow it. {149h}
There is another topic to which this excellent man adverted in his
published sermons, which must not be passed unnoticed. This was, the
duty of believers to provide for the support of a succession of christian
ministers. In connexion with the statement of the sacred writer, that
Abraham gave Melchisedec a tenth part of the spoil of the four kings, he
remarks,—“I know it hath been long a dispute whether tenths or tithes
ought to be continued any longer, or any more than altars and sacrifices,
in a reformed christian church: I shall not determine that; but this we
may all be assured of, that if tithes or tenths be of the ceremonial law,
and so are abolished, yet the moral equity is to abide to the end of the
world,—that those that minister at God’s altar, should have honourable
and comfortable maintenance.” {150}
And referring to the mortality of the priesthood, he says, “We ought to
pray that there may never want a succession of men to carry on the work
of God. And this ought to be our care also, as far as in us lies, that
there may be a generation brought up for the service of God, when another
goes away. When Abraham died, his son Isaac succeeded him. When Aaron
died, Eleazar succeeded, and took up the work of God that his father had
laid down. So it would be the happiness of families, that children would
take up the work that their fathers have laid down by reason of death.
We live in an age wherein there is a great decay of godly ministers: the
old generation wearing off, and many gone to the dust, and but few come
in, that have the same spirit, the same grace, and shine with the same
light as their fathers did, who are dead and gone. We ought, all of us,
to pray, as our Saviour saith, that, as the harvest is great, the Lord
would send forth labourers into his harvest. A good succession speaks a
great favour of God, to families, churches, and nations. See how careful
Moses was in that. When God had told him that he must die, (in Numb,
xxvii. 16,) ‘Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man
over the congregation.’ And truly, so should all godly parents and godly
ministers say, Let the God of the spirits of all flesh bring in some to
my family that may go out and in before my family; and let the God of the
spirits of all flesh bring in some to his church, to guide them and to
teach them.” {151}
Mr. Ottee closed his useful career about the end of April, 1689, {152a} a
few days before the Toleration Act laid a basis for the gradual
attainment of religious liberty. {152b}
* * * * *
In May, 1687, a part of the site of the present meeting-house had been
purchased by the deacons, Edmund Artis and Francis Haylouck, probably
with a view to the erection of a building for public worship.
It will be observed that this was immediately after the first declaration
for liberty of conscience was issued by James II. {153} The hollowness
of the king’s professions was probably discovered before any further
measures had been taken: for there appears to have been some delay in the
completion of the building.
* * * * *
The deacons just mentioned survived their excellent pastor. Two of the
silver cups still used by the church in the celebration of the Lord’s
supper, had been marked, at an earlier date, with a faint, perhaps with a
trembling hand,—
“FOR YE CH: A. H. E. F R.”
This somewhat enigmatical inscription was afterwards interpreted by
adding in deeply cut letters, upon one of the cups,
“_To the use of the Church_. _Francis Haylock_, _Deacon_, 1690.”
{154a}
and upon the other,
“_To the use of the Church_. _Edmund Artist_, _Deacon_, 1690.”
{154b}