The records of a church of Christ meeting in Broadmead, Bristol, 1640-1687

Front matter

BEQUEATHED BY HIM TO

THE LIBRARY OF

PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Contents

I. An Historical Introduction, Part II. — pagb

1. Elizabeth ix.

2. The Puritans xxii.

Part Ii.— Section I. Elizabeth

The reign of Elizabeth was an era of conflict. Light struggled with darkness, and by the hands of its professed friends was shut up in the dark lanthorn of a state-establishment. The world became enthroned in the church, and political considerations were of more importance than the laws of the King of kings. " Every moral principle was set at nought, and every crooked path of state-expediency was trodden." ' The law of the Lord, that perfect law, might be obeyed only so far as it was transcribed into the statute-book of the realm.

Immediately upon her accession (Nov. 17th, 1558), the queen gave an earnest of the course she intended to pursue. Cecil's advice for reformation was accepted. Protestants were introduced into the council, and catholics excluded from it. On Sunday, the 20th, she listened to the gospel from the lips of Dr. Bill ; but imprisoned Christopherson, "the

1 Huber's English Universities, i. 294.

X HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

brawling bishop of Chichester," who, on the following Sunday, with great vehemence and freedom, refuted the reformer's doctrine as the " invention of new men and heretics !" 2 She at once assumed the controverted authority of the state in religious matters, by issuing a proclamation forbidding all preaching and exposition of holy scripture, till the decision of parliament should be known. The people might, however, read — only read — the epistles, the gospels, and the commandments, in English ; and were besides allowed to pray in the language of the Lord's prayer, the litany, and the creed. For a while, masses, and all the abominations of popery, were sanctioned, the rubric of the missals and breviaries followed, and the zeal of the reformers repressed. But their private meetings were connived at, while the parish churches were closed against them.3

With great gladness the exiles returned from their places of sojourn abroad, full of hope and expectation. " The most merciful God," says one of them, " has visited our affliction, and wrought out the redemption of his people."4 Halcyon days were come ; the winter was past, the rain teas over and gone. Martyr-blood had fertilized the soil, and now flowers bright with the beauty of holiness would appear. A new star had arisen to lead the Lord's people, and to shed beams of grace upon the church of the living God.5 Visions of happiness too early destroyed by the stern realities of the strife awaiting the wearied pilgrims ! Within two months of the queen's accession, Jewel wrote the ominous words, " I

2 Macintosh, Hist, of Eng. Eliz. ch. 5 " God, whose property is to show xvi. Zurich Letters, i. 4, 6. Parker his mercies, then greatest when they are Society. nearest to be utterly despaired of,

3 Documentary Annals, i. 176. Col- caused in the depth of discomfort and lier, vi. "200. Zurich Lett. ii. 29. darkness a most glorious star to arise,

4 Sir Ant. Cook to Bullinger. Zu- and on her head settled the crown." — rich Lett. ii. 1. Hooker, book iv. sect. 14. Han bury *s

edit. vol. i. p. 327.

ELIZABETH. XI

only wish that our party may not act with too much worldly prudence and policy in the cause of God." 6

"Worldly prudence and policy," did, however, from this time, control the ecclesiastical movements of the hierarchy and the state; religion was made to worship at their shrine- The queen became wonderfully afraid of innovations. u She is, however, prudently, and firmly, and piously, following up her purpose, though somewhat more slowly than we could wish." 7 The purer-minded reformers were shocked to see the crucifix still erect in the queen's chapel, and much more, when, habited in the golden vestments of the papacy, with candles lighted before the image, three of the new bishops ministered at the table of the Lord, as priest, deacon, and subdeacon, " without any sermon." " What hope," exclaims the pious Sampson, "is there of any good, when our party are disposed to look for religion in these dumb remnants of idolatry, and not from the preaching of the lively word of God." 8 Many longed impatiently for further and more active progress in the establishment of the gospel. They chided the wariness, the deliberation, the prudence of the royal counsels, " as if," says Jewel, " God himself could scarce retain his authority without our ordinances and precautions; so that it is idly and scurrilously said, that as heretofore Christ was cast out by his enemies, so he is now kept out by his friends." 9 The people were disgusted with the insolence and cruelty of the papists ; many called them butchers to their face. They thirsted for the gospel exceedingly ; the consuming fire of the martyr-pile had well nigh burnt up every green herb, and by its scorching power rendered arid many a spot once fertilized by

6 Jewel to Martyr, Zurich Lett. i. 8 Sampson to Martyr. Zurich Lett. 8, 10. i. 63.

7 Jewel to Martyr, Mar. 20, 1539. y Jewel to Martyr, Apr. 14, 1559. Zurich Lett. i. 11. Zurich Lett i. 17.

h 2

Xll HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

evangelic truth ; but the waters of life were not yet to irrigate the parched ground. The sanction of law was necessary to let loose the pent-up floods of the everlasting springs.1

But will the law, or the lawgivers, grant liberty to the free utterance of God's truth? Are the sighings of the people to be heard? Will the breeze now rustling in the forest tops bring the refreshing rain, the fertilizing shower of heavenly doctrine, flooding the land with life and peace? Let us see. Ten days after the queen's coronation, the Lords and Commons, her first parliament, assembled. She appeared amongst them. By the mouth of the lord keeper, Sir Nicholas Bacon, she intimated her desire to unite her people in one uniform order of religion. The history of all ages, he said, instructed them to submit to exemplary punishment all undue worship and superstition, especially atheism and immorality. Good king Hezekiah, and noble queen Esther, were eminent examples of zeal to discharge error, and to reform what was amiss. These her majesty would emulate, and strive thus to recommend herself to the approbation of almighty God.2

By the first act of the session, all jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical was restored to the crown. With the title of Supreme Governor, the queen was invested with supreme power over the church. The whole compass of church discipline was transferred to her. At her bidding, the court of high commission, in part clerical and in part lay, might proceed to reform every abuse, to judge error, to pronounce the doom of heresy, and to punish all schisms, contempts, and offences, as they might think fit. Heresy was defined to be any departure from the canonical scriptures, or from the faith established by the first four

ELIZABETH. Xlll

general councils ; also, any dogma, which, at any future time, should be adjudged heresy by the parliament of the realm, with the assent of the clergy in convocation. This profane assumption of dominion over conscience was further enlarged by a provision, that none should dare to adjudge the order or determination of any religious matter, made by authority of parliament, to be an error, heresy, schism, or schismatical opinion,3

On this broad foundation of infallibility, the Houses laid their second act, to provide for the uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments. They adopted the second service book of Edward the Sixth, with some changes to make it more palatable to the catholics. "This holy little book," was now restored to the church of England. " We embraced that book," continues the zealous bishop of Ely, " with open arms, and not without thanks to God, who had preserved to us such a treasure, and restored it to us in safety." 4 Like the first statute, this, with its prescribed liturgy, was guarded by penalties. After the ensuing feast of John the Baptist, all the inhabitants of the realm were diligently and faithfully, on Sundays and feast days, to appear at their parish church, there to join in common prayer : twelve pence was the fine for absence. But if any should be so wicked as to defame " this holy little book," or use in public any other prayers to the God of heaven, or refuse to use any rite, ceremony, matins, evensong, or administration of the sacraments, ordained therein : then shall such person be imprisoned for half a year, and deprived of all his emoluments.

The passing of these acts was strenuously resisted by the catholics in the upper house ; but in vain. Xor were the

3 Statutes at Large, 1 Eliz. c. i. vol. bishop that stirred up " the troubles at vi. p. 107. Frankfort " about the prayer-book. —

4 Cox to Gualter. Feb. 12, 1571. Phoenix, ii. 72. Zurich Lett. i. 235. It was this very

XIV HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

milder and more pious of the reformers pleased with many of the rites and forms imposed by the act of uniformity, and in the book of Common Prayer. Both parties objected on the ground of their religious opinions; but no one saw how unholy and unscriptural were these legislative measures, nor how much they set at nought the rights of conscience. And when at midsummer (1559), the liturgy was introduced, and the oath of supremacy administered, only eighty rectors, with one hundred and seven dignitaries of the church, in all one hundred and eighty-seven, from among more than nine thousand clergymen, were found to refuse compliance. A memorable exhibition of the power of self-interest, and of the little truthfulness and religion then existing among the religious guides of the people.5

The source of these errors in legislation, may be discovered in the views of the reformers on the nature of the church. In their conference with the catholics, while the measures were under the consideration of parliament, the protestants laid down the following proposition for debate. " Every particular church hath authority to institute, change, and abrogate ceremonies and rites in the church, so that it be to edify ;" and they thus define the term, " every particular church :" — " We understand every particular kingdom, province, or region, which by order make one Christian society, or body, according to the distinction of countries, and orders of the same."6 The church of Christ is thus made co-extensive with the provinces, nations, and kingdoms of the world. From its fold none are excluded, however profane. Because girt about by the same natural boundaries, the godly and the ungodly

6 Cardwell's Hist, of Conferences on Christian, if the people which are of it

Book of Common Prayer, p. 35. Sta- do publicly embrace the true religion,

tutes at Large, 1 Elizabeth, c. 2. this very thing doth make it the church,

* Cardwell's Hist, of Conferences, &c. as hath been shewed.'" Hooker's Works,

p. 72. " For if the commonwealth be iii. 324, Hanbury's edit.

ELIZABETH. X\

are united into one ecclesiastical community, and the natural laws which govern every social state, must, of necessity, become the rule and standard of the supernatural. The church ceases to be the fellowship of the saints ; the saying of our Lord, My kingdom is not of this world, is reversed. Necessarily different laws than those he has instituted, must be made to govern such a mixed assemblage, since his divine legislation has respect to a community, constituted by repentance totvards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The terms of communion must be altered, and birth of blood, of the ivill of the flesh, and the icill of man, may suffice to make a son of God.?

With great consistency the protestant divines proceed to say, that the ceremonies and rites of the church, " may by God's word, by general councils, and by particular provinces, regions, and societies of Christians, according to the state of the times, be instituted and ordained, changed and removed, upon such just grounds, causes, and considerations, as the state of the times, places, people, and other circumstances shall require ; so that it be done to edify God's people." 8 In other words, a political state, a general council, and God's word, are of equal and co-ordinate authority in the church of God, that is, in a province or national society of Christians ; and in questions of ecclesiastical polity, the superiority of dominion is with the magistrate, or political chief of the nation, who is also the " supreme governor" of the church. Thus, "things of their own nature indifferent," may be lawfully imposed on the consciences of men, and the godly be compelled to submit to an authority in the church, unrecognised in the oracles of truth. The rule laid down with so much apparent explicitness, that such things only may be enjoined as are edifying to God's people, it is self-evident, is worthless. The queen, the

f Seethe Order of Infant Baptism, in 8 Cardwell, Hist, of Conf. p. 72.

the Book of Common Praver.

XVI HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

depositary of the nation's power, the exponent of the nation's will, which be it remembered is the church, is edified when on bended knee she offers prayer at a gilded shrine, with her eye glancing upon a cross, the emblem of man's redemption. But her bishops are scandalized at the sight. This " scenic apparatus of divine worship" offends them. "As if," says Jewel, " the Christian religion could not exist without something tawdry."9 But who then shall decide? The word of God? The bishops, its professed expounders? Whose edification shall be the rule of judgment ? It is the queen, and the parliament of the nation, and not the statute-book of Christ, which shall decide. And further, it shall be sedition, treason to the magistrate, to venture to disobey, or even to call in question their decisions. " For the queen, a most discreet and excellent woman, most manfully and courageously declared, that she would not allow any of her subjects to dissent from this religion with impunity."1

It is obvious that on such principles the church would be sacrificed to the world ; that a reformation thus established would be adverse to the claims of Jesus, as King in Zion ; and that a foundation would be laid for perpetual strife and division ; for, minds, in which the supremacy of God's word is acknowledged, must, sooner or later, rise in rebellion against the supremacy of the throne, the imposing power, and endeavour to break through the " braided trammels," woven to keep them in bondage to the elements of the world. Such was the case : and to that strife we have now to direct our attention.

9 To Martyr in 1599. Zurich Lett.i.23. Holophernes, the sworn enemy of

1 Jewel to Martyr, May 20, 1560. Christianity ; our Hester hath hanged

Zurich Lett. i. 79. Saith Archbishop up that Haman which sought to bring

Sandys a few years later, as the beams us and our children into miserable ser-

of royal favour fell upon him, "Our vitude." — Sermons, &c, by Sandys,

Deborah hath mightily repressed the Archbishop of York, p. 81. Tarker

rebel Jabin ; our Judith hath beheaded Society.

ELIZABETH. XV11

Stringent as were the above laws, and of imperative obligation on the subjects of the queen, a considerable latitude of practice was enjoyed during the first five years of her reign. Catholics saw no such great change in external ordinances, as to feel their absence from the parish churches a matter of religious necessity. The preachers of the gospel were comparatively few ; hardly one in a hundred of the clergy was able or willing to preach. Many parishes were without a clergyman, and some dioceses without a bishop. Much freedom was thus enjoyed by those who had at heart the dissemination of divine truth ; and by commendatory letters from the queen or one of the bishops, some few eminent men were permitted to preach throughout the country.2 Great diversities likewise existed among the officiating clergy ; some more than others adhering to the rubric, some altogether passing it by. So, according to secretary Cecil, some said the service and prayers in the chancel, others in the body of the church ; some officiated in a seat, others in a pulpit ; some in a surplice, others without ; some baptized in a font, others in a bason ; some signed with a cross, by others it was omitted ; some of the clergy wore square caps, some round ones, and some hats.3 Some, like bishop Jewel, thought the habits theatrical, employed because of the ignorance of the priests, who being found no better than logs of wood, without talent, learning, or morality, were commended to the people " by that comical dress."4 Others, with the pious Sampson, called them " the relics of the Amorites," a popish invention, to be abominated by all godly people.5

Such disorders were intolerable. They broke the uniformity

2 Lever to Bullinger, July 10. 1660. 4 Jewel to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559. Zur. Lett. i. 85. Zur. Lett. i. 52.

3 Collier, vi. 394. 5 Sampson to Martyr, Jan. 6, 15G0.

XV111 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

so earnestly desired. This variety in practice, this disagreement in religion — as if religion consisted in these ceremonial observances and vestures, — and this disregard of the establishment, disturbed the public harmony, and disserved the government. So the queen thought, and thus she wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury, chiding him and his fellow-bishops for their remissness, and commanding them to exercise their authority with more vigilance and vigour. She was resolved, she said, to bring her subjects to conformity ; peevishness and clamour she would not suffer to be indulged ; nor should any man's obstinacy shelter him from punishment.6 The bishops were roused to exertion. They soon (1564) issued certain disciplinary laws, to which the clergy were to be compelled to subscribe. The shapes and fashions of ecclesiastical dress were their chief subject. Side-gowns with sleeves, straight at the hand, without any cuffs or falling capes, tippets of white sareenet, silk hoods, caps, copes, comely surplices with sleeves, were among the weightier matters that engaged the earnest attention and solemn consultations of the reverend bench, for the " avauncement of God's glory, and to the establishmente of Christe's pure religion." That none might avoid the imposition, all licenses to preach were withdrawn from the ensuing March, and not renewed until the clergy should append their signatures to all things therein prescribed.7

A strong and early disinclination to wear the habits had been shown by Dr. Thomas Sampson, dean of Christchurch, and Dr. Lawrence Humphreys, Regius Professor of Divinity, and President of Magdalen College, Oxford. The unseemliness of these superstitious dresses was from the first a matter of complaint with the pious Sampson. From Strasburg, on his way home, he expressed to Peter Martyr his dislike. " I think it," says he, " scarcely endurable, even if we arc to act

6 Collier, vi. 395. 7 Doc. Annals i. -Jii7 . Collier, vi. 400.

ELIZABETH. XIX

in all things according to the law of expediency."8 The other exiles sympathized in his objections, and fruitlessly endeavoured to set the obnoxious garments aside9 The popish attachments of the queen to crucifixes and images, to silk hoods and surplices, even led Jewel to contemplate the necessity of abandoning his bishopric.1 Nevertheless, after the publication of the queen's injunctions (1559), by which " some ornaments, such as the mass-priests formerly" used, were prescribed, great numbers of the clergy, who had put them off, resumed them. They wore them, they said, for the sake of obedience. " They are but few of us," writes Lever to his friend Bullinger, " who hold such garments in the same abhorrence as the soldier, mentioned by Tertullian, did the crown."2 Thus the ears and eyes of the multitude were fascinated, and they could scarcely believe but that the popish doctrine was retained, or would be shortly restored.3

But the latitude hitherto enjoyed, by the connivance of the prelates, was now to cease. The publication of the advertisements, the disciplinary laws above-mentioned, was immediately followed by resolute efforts to enforce them. Deprivation was the penalty of non-compliance. In the month of March (1564), Sampson and Humphreys, with four London ministers, were cited before the queen's commissioners. All the six declined conformity ; they could not be prevailed upon, although submission was sanctioned by several of the foreign reformers, who had gained their esteem and affection in the years of exile. Every indulgence was denied them. Conformity or deprivation was the alternative absolutely placed before them.4 On the 24th of March, the same choice was proposed to the whole

8 Zurich Letters, i. 1. 2 Tertullianus de Corona, c. i.

8 Strype, Annals I. i. 263. 3 July 10, 1560. Zur. Lett. i. 84.

1 Jewel to 'Martyr, Feb. 9, 1560. 4 Soames's Elizabeth. Rel. History,

XX HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

metropolitan clergy. A conforming priest, clothed in the obnoxious vestures, was placed before them. " My masters," said the bishop's chancellor, " the council's pleasure is, that ye strictly keep unity of apparel, like to this man. In the church, ye must wear a surplice ; the rubrics in the book of Common Prayer, the queen5 s majesty's injunctions, and the articles, ye must inviolably observe. Ye that will subscribe, write volo; ye that will not, write nolo. Be brief; no words." Efforts to speak were abruptly stopped : " Peace, peace ; Apparitor, call the churches." Thirty, out of one hundred and forty, preferred immediate sequestration; and with few exceptions, were deprived at the end of the three months allowed them for reflection. The papists among them went abroad. The rest welcomed poverty, rather than pollute their consciences with an unholy compliance.5

It would lead us beyond our purpose to detail the varying aspects and events of this conflict. The matter in question appeared trifling; but it was pregnant with the most important consequences. The whole question of church authority, and of human intervention in divine things, was stirred ; and the refusal to wear a surplice, a square cap, a gown of peculiar fashion, involving as it did the duty of obedience to the ruling power, could be justified only by an appeal to the paramount law, that Christ alone is king in his church. The resulting exclusion of the secular magistrate, either as legislator or administrator, from the sacred fold, was not however perceived ; and when set before the protestant mind by the baptists, was deemed visionary and impracticable; nay, seditious and subversive of all authority whatsoever. Yet, here and there, in the examinations and writings of the nonconformists, may be found glimpses of the fundamental objection to these impositions ; they exalted the supremacy

ELIZABETH. XXI

of the scriptures, and confidently appealed to its decisions, but threw open the flank of an otherwise impregnable position, by one mistaken conclusion. They were fatally inconsistent in recognising any human authority, or royal supremacy, in the church of Christ, while they objected to consequences inevitably flowing from its exercise. The bible and the statute-book cannot possess a co-ordinate jurisdiction; one must reign supreme. The puritans, therefore, erred in admitting a foreign authority into the kingdom of the Most High — that of men.

The chief arguments employed against the habits were two. 1. That all things in the church ought to edify. 2. That the queen had no right to impose anything besides scripture, or contrary to it. The apparel in question had been abused to idolatrous purposes ; it was offensive from its associations, and therefore unedifying to the children of God. Neither could the scriptures of truth, nor the elder fathers, be brought to sanction such a dress, for the ministry of the new dispensation. Christ had purchased a liberty for his people which ought to be maintained, and royal interference must be confined to the enforcement of his instructions.6 This latter admission of the nonconformists breached their munition of rock.

And now the godly mourned. Schism began to rend the church ; the fair prospect was overspread with clouds. In vain they awaited the guidance of the Divine Spirit ; for the queen, who held the helm, directed the bark " according to her pleasure." Under her charge it was drifting fast towards the sands of a shifting, worldly policy ; and ere long some would be compelled to abandon a vessel whose pilot, neither truth nor zeal, piety nor importunity, could persuade to turn the " sails to another quarter." 7

6 Neal, i. 141— 143, note. August 8, 1571. Zurich Letters, ii.

7 See Horn's Letter to Bullinger, 248.

XX11

Section II. The Puritans

Symptoms of further movement soon began to appear; and many other matters to be called in question, beside caps and copes. As scripture did not authorise their use, so were there some other things not found written therein, but to which the rulers of the church most pertinaciously adhered. Were archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, rectors, vicars, curates, commissaries, &c. necessary parts of the sacred edifice, whose builder and maker is God? From whom was derived the royal title of supreme governor of the church of England? Was there not another Head, whose claim was infinitely more legitimate, but disallowed by English parliaments and queen's councils? Who imparted the right of limiting the prayers of the faithful to the book of Common Prayer ? Were there no " absurdities and silly superfluities " in it ? Was it not composed "after the model, and in the manner of the papists?" Whence came the commissary's power of excommunication, and the absolution of the excommunicated in private, "without any trouble, and for a sum of money ?" Were episcopal courts, courts of arches and audience, and courts of faculties, granting licenses for non-residence, pluralities, dispensations, &c. scriptural additions to the courts of the Lord's house? Part-singing in churches, organs, tolling bells at funerals, and on vigils of saints, bowing at the name of Jesus, baptism at private houses and by women, the sign of the cross, the sponsorial responses of the infant, — were these, and other such things, becoming the simplicity, and according to the precepts, of the gospel? And last, but not least, was it not an

THE PURITANS. XX111

unheard-of assumption, that " the queen's majesty, with the advice of the archbishop of Canterbury, may order, change, and remove any thing in the church at her pleasure ? " 8

Yet these truly unscriptural laws and institutions were rigorously enforced, and the queen's known determination destroyed the hope of any relaxation. The hardships and deprivations of many godly uncompliant men, induced many, in the year 1566, to separate from the established worship. Despite the meanness of their condition, and the perils that surrounded them, they " stood to the truth of God's word ;" and sometimes in private houses, sometimes in the fields, and occasionally even in ships, they held their meetings and administered the sacraments. They also ordained them ministers and deacons, and exercised discipline upon such as walked not according to godliness.9 In this separation, they had not the sympathy of all who agreed with them as to the objectionable nature of the established worship. Many still clung to the vain hope of a purer ritual. They thought the evils of separation greater than submission to episcopal and royal commands. The church's standards of doctrine were pure, from her pulpits many proclaimed the way of salvation, and the points of agreement were more than those of difference. Thus did such men as Fox, Sampson, and Humphreys argue, and cleave to a community, which had been sanctified in their affections by the blood of many saints.1

The separatists, however, became more bold. In the following year they ventured to assemble at Plumber's Hall, in London. Being discovered, the sheriffs broke up their meeting, and took the greater part into custody. The day after, they were brought before bishop Grindal, who charged them with their separation as a crime, and that thereby they con-

8 The Church of England as described 9 Grindal to Bullinger, June 1 1, 1568.

by Perceval Wiburn. Zurich Letters, Zur. Lett. i. 201. ii. 358. » Price, i. 198.

XXIV HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

demned the well-reformed church of England, for which martyrs had shed their blood. Why had they separated? Were not the sacraments duly ministered, and the gospel truly preached? Were not the ceremonies indifferent, and under the prince's power to command for the sake of order ? " So long," said John Smith, one of the compan}^, " as we might have the word freely preached, and the sacraments administered without the use of idolatrous gear, we never assembled in private houses. But when all our preachers, who could not subscribe to your apparel and your laws, were displaced, so that we could not hear any of them in the church for the space of seven or eight weeks, excepting father Coverdale, who at length durst not make known to us where he preached ; and then we were troubled in your courts from day to day, for not coming to our parish churches ; we considered among ourselves what we should do." Being thus driven from the Anglican pale, they formed a congregation after the example of one in Queen Mary's days, using in their worship a book formerly approved by Calvin. Their further objections embraced the hierarchy of the church. They asserted that the kingly authority of Jesus Christ was sacrificed to popish canons and the prince's will. By that "prince's will, they too were sacrificed" to the phantom of uniformity : they were cast into prison. It was the beginning of sorrows. Severities multiplied. The prisons of London were soon filled with a numerous band of men, to whom a good conscience was of more value, than the wealth and preferments of the state church.2