HELD AT THE SAVOY PALACE, LONDON, SEPTEMBER, 1658. THE apparent isolation of Congregational Churches has long been a fruitful topic of reproach amongst the enemies of their system, who have condescended to employ no very elegant similes to describe their want of adhesion, which is exhibited as one of its characteristic defects. Whilst we gladly concede that a great jealousy does exist in our denomination of all authoritative interference, yet we must also maintain that the Congregational Churches may be brought, without violation either of principle or precedent, into a state of contact most advantageous to the whole body "Distinct as the billows, yet one as the sea." Dr. Owen has well said, that "no church is so independent, as that it can always, and in all cases, observe the duties it owes unto the Lord Christ, and the Church Catholic, by all those powers which it is able to act in itself distinctly, without conjunction with others; and the church that confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies, cuts itself off from the external communion of the Church Catholic; nor will it be safe for any man to commit the conduct of his soul to such a Church. Wherefore this acting in Synods is an institution of Jesus NEW SERIES, No.21. Christ, not in an express command, but, in the nature of the thing itself, fortified with apostolical example.”* It was these views, entertained by the other fathers of the Congregational Churches, as well as himself, which led to the important Assembly, the history of which is the subject of the present paper. Various causes may be assigned why the materials for such a narrative are now so few, and that the character of the meeting itself is so little known. The Assembly was convened on the eve of one of those portentous periods in the history of our country, which absorbs public attention, and blots, as it were, from the memory the recollection of less momentous topics. The treacherous and vindictive proceedings of the restored Stuarts, who, to adopt the sagacious remark of a fallen chieftain, concerning another royal house, “had learned nothing, and forgat nothing, in their exile," rendered it very inexpedient for men to employ their time in collecting documents, and in writing the history of proceedings which, to the perverted vision of the dominant party, looked vastly like treason; or if such illustrations of these doings were preserved for a a few short years, yet it may be presumed, that the destructive fire which reduced London to ruins, consumed them, with the libraries of their authors. Dr. Thomas Goodwin, for instance, was member of this assembly, and his solicitude to preserve the records of such solemn proceedings is well known, by the fact that he kept the journal of the proceedings of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, which extended through many volumes; amongsthispapers therefore, it is probable, many documents existed, but, alas, his valuable library was half consumed, which, though it occasioned the writing of a discourse eminently consolatoy to the churches, yet it doubtless deprived their historians of much valuable information. Many of the pastors and elders of the Congregational Churches, who were present at this Synod, survived the brunt of the restoration, and from them Baxter and Całamy, the dissenting historians of the times, might have obtained abundant information. Mr. Baxter's petulant opposition to it, will explain why he did not take the trouble, and Dr. Calamy was, unless he is strangely traduced, too strongly devoted to Presbyterianism fairly to exhibit a Congregational Synod to the notice of posterity. Pity it is that no one of that assembly, who survived the perilous times of the Stuarts, un * "But it seems those principles are dividing ones, and therefore, by all means to be opposed; and, perhaps, we must not be told that most of the ejected ministers were of those principles, lest a vigorous dertook to write a connected account of a meeting, which from the numbers, influence, learning, and piety of its members seemed destined to exercise by its example and decisions, if not an authoritative, yet a persuasive controul, which might, even until now, have been found corrective of the evils we are still content to deplore. The occasion of this Assembly has been variously represented. One historical folio, written by a learned and impartial hand," remarks, "the world did not yet know what the religion of the Independents was; for it had not been drawn into any public confession, nor had the leaders met in any one General Assembly. To make up this defect, Cromwell resolved on a Convention, or Assembly of Independent ministers, whom he called to meet at the Savoy, there to treat with the Presbyterians, and come, if possible, to some accommodation with them." The fact appears to have been the very opposite of this " impartial" statement; for Neale says, "some of their divines and principal brethren in London met together, and proposed that there might be a correspondence amongst their churches, in city and country, for counsel and mutual edification, and for as much as all sects and parties of Christians had published a confession of faith, they apprehended the world might reasonably expect it from them; for these reasons they petitioned the Protector for liberty to assemble for this purpose. This was opposed by some of the Court, as tending to establish a separation between them and the Presbyterians."* "Eachard represents Cromwell as granting permission," says Mr. Orme, "with great reluctance. This was, perhaps, the case, though not for the reason which that historian puts into his mouth, that the re imitation should render the opposition contemptible and ineffectual. I suppose the Doctor is no stranger to that person who said, 'I have rooted independency out of Kent, and I am resolved. I will root it ont of Essex. But, alas! all will be in vain; so long as the root of it is in the Bible it will grow again, though the Lord should suffer that gentleman to glut himself with indignation against it, and revenge upon it." Vide Maurice's Monuments of Mercy, Preface, page vii. ** Neale, Vol. 4. p. 173. 8vo. quest must be complied with, or they would involve the nation in blood again.' Oliver knew well that they were not the persons who had involved the country in its calamities, but his security consisted in the division of religious parties rather than their union, and as he had discouraged Presbyterian associations, consistency required that he should not appear friendly to Independent conventions." * Amongst the Independent ministers most active in the preliminary business, was the Rev. George Griffiths, who, though not known as a writer, was a distinguished minister, " a man of considerable learning and judgment, of an agreeable conversation, and much the gentleman." He was preacher to the Charter House, a collegiate establishment then delightfully secluded from the bustle of the city. On the permission of the Protector being obtained, Mr. Scobell, the clerk of his Excellency's Council, issued the following circular to the congregational ministers in the city and neighbourhood, inviting them to a provisional meeting at the Charter House. "SIR,--The meeting of the elders of tire Congregational Churches, in and about London, is appointed at Mr. Griffiths, on Monday next, at two o'clock in the afternoon, where you are desired to be present. "Your's to love and serve in the Lord, "June 15, 1658" HENRY SCOBELL." It appears that at this meeting it was agreed that Mr. Griffiths should address letters to the pastors and churches, inviting them to appoint delegates, and that their answers were to be addressed to Mr. Scobell, at Whitehall. Happily several replies † thus addressed, are preserved, which * Orme's Life of Owen, p. 231. + These replies, fifteen in number, are preserved in Peck's Desiderata Curiosa, Vol. II. Book 13. folio; and as it may illustrate the early history of our Congregational Churches, we insert the list of the illustrate the "temper in which the overture was received by the pastors." The majority of them promised to communicate the business to their respective churches, one or two announce the appointment of messengers, and some others answer more cautiously. Amongst the latter, the answer of Vavasor Powell, the laborious apostle of Wales, is the most curious. In principle a decided republican, he viewed the advancement of Cromwell to almost kingly dignity with great displeasure, and jealously alive to the rights of Independent Churches, he thus writes to his brother Griffiths : "I hope yr ends are good, and y' actions lawful; if soe you may not doubt of the concurrence of the poor Welsh churches, who doe desire, at least several of them, to follow the Lamb fully, humbly, and closely. (I fear, though I dare not prejudge,) lest there should be some mixed work carried on now, as there was in Constantines's time. You better know both the dislike God shewed by a voice from heaven, hodie, &c. and the effects thereof. However God will bring glory to his church, and good to his chosen out of it." All the pastors and churches were not so jealous as the Independents of the Principality. Mr. John Wright, of Woodborough, addressing Mr. Scobell, says, "We do rejoice that God hath put such a thing into the hearts of his people, to seek his face, and search his mind in such a day as this. We have nominated a messenger to goe, and shall, according as the Lord shall help us, pray for the presence of the Prince of Peace, and great Coun William Sheldrake, Wisbech; Banks Anderston, Boston; Vavasor Powell, Wales; Edward Reyner, Lincoln; Isaac Loeffs, Shenley; Samuel Basnet, Coventry; William Bridge, Yarmouth; Thomas Gilbert, Edgemont; Samuel Crossman, Sudbury; Comfort Starr, Carlisle; Anthony Palmer, and Carn Helme, Bourton on the Water'; Thomas Palmer, Ashton upon Trent; John Wright, Woodborough; John Player, Canterbury; and William Hughes, Marlborough. sellor of his people. The Lord by his spirit meet with and abide amongst you." The register of the church at Cockermouth, contains the following notices of this transaction, in the same spirit of union and piety. "In the beginning of ye month of Sept a letter being sent to ye church at Carlisle, from Mr. Griffith, pastor of a church in London, appointed to write to the churches in the country, by the churches in and about London, for a general meeting of the churches in England, of the congregaonal way at ye Savoy, in London, ye 29th of ye same month, to draw up a confession of their faith, and declaraon of their order, &c. The church did make choice of their pastour, (George Larkham,) to go there as a messenger, who began his journey Sept 20th.” "Sept 24th.--The church mett at Brid kirke, and kept a solemne day of seeking God by fasting and praier; 1. For a blessing upon ye messengers sent from ye severall churches in their consultaons at their meeting at ye Savoy. 2. For seasonable weather for ye fruits of the earth. 3. For ye whole naon under the sad dispensan in the death of the Lord Protectour." The death of the Protector Oliver took place on the 3d of Sept. 1658, and threatened the nonconformist churches with a storm of persecution, as fearful as that which agitated the elements when he expired. As, however, the meeting was summoned, and the danger not immediate, the assembly convened + on the 29th of that * It appears that there existed no accurate list of the Congregational Churches at the time, and therefore the leading congregational ministers and churches, were requested to communicate the matter to the sister churches in their respective neighbourhoods and counties. this effect are given in most of the answers preserved. Thus Mr. Bridge, of Yarmouth, engaged to do so in Norfolk, and Dr. Calamy says, "There were fifteen celebrated churches upon the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk, that received their direction and encouragement from Mr. Bridge, of Yarmouth, and Mr Armitage, of Norwich."‡ Mr. Comfort Starr, of Carlisle, received a letter from Mr. Griffith, and he, doubtless, corresponded with the church at Cockermouth on the subject.. † Neale has mistaken the day when the entire confession was completed, October 12, for the day of their meeting. ‡ Vol. II. p. 647. month, at the Savoy Palace, when the ministers and messengers of about one hundred churches attended. "They first observed," says Mr. Orme, " a day of prayer and fasting, after which they considered, whether they should adopt the Westminster Confession, draw up an entirely original one of their own. They preferred the latter resolution, but agreed to keep as near the method of the other as possible." or To facilitate the business, Mr. G. Griffiths was appointed scribe to the assembly, and a committee of six eminent divines and influential ministers was nominated, consisting of Dr. J. Owen, Dr. T. Goodwin, Joseph Caryl, Wm. Greenhill, Philip Nye, and Wm. Bridge to draw up the confession. This distinguished committee sat daily, and prepared the heads of doctrine and discipline, which they presented every morning to their brethren by the hand of their scribe, who read them to the assembly. "There were," says Neale, “some speeches and debates upon words and phrases, but at length all acquiesced." Whilst the committee were occupied in the composition of the articles, the assembly "heard complaints and gave advice in several cases which were brought before them, relating to disputes and differences in their churches." It is much to be regretted, that no records of these proceedings exist, as they would at once illustrate how far the learned and holy elders and messengers who formed that assembly were prepared to go in deliberating on the affairs of other Christian societies. The venerable James Forbes, pastor of the church at Gloucester, then more than seventy years old, has given the following warm and interesting account of the union, devotion, and love, which charac * Memoirs of Dr. Owen, pp. 21, 22. |