Chapter V

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}