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]