as well as the express teaching of the New Testament, and as violating the constitution and contravening the very nature of Christ's kingdom. All these three classes were Puritans, but Puritans with a difference, which, as between the first and the last, was most broadly marked. The first may be described as Nonconformists inside the Church, or nonconforming members of the Church of England; the second and third as Nonconformists outside the Church, that is, Nonconformists proper, Nonconformists in the real and historical sense of the word.

The Brownists belonged to the second class, and the distinction between them and the "Conforming Puritans,' i.e. the Puritans belonging to the first class, is very clearly drawn by Neal: "Most of the Puritans were for keeping within the pale of the Church, apprehending it to be a true Church in its doctrines and sacraments, though defective in discipline and corrupt in ceremonies; but being a true Church, they thought it not lawful to separate, though they could hardly continue in it with a good conscience. They submitted to suspensions and deprivations; and when they were driven out of one diocese, took sanctuary in another, being afraid of incurring the guilt of schism by forming themselves into separate communions. Whereas the Brownists maintained that the Church of England, in its present constitution, was no true Church of Christ, but a limb of Antichrist, or, at best, a mere creature of the State; that their ministers were not rightly called or ordained, nor the sacraments duly administered, or, supposing it to be a true Church, yet, as it was owned by their adversaries (the conforming Puritans) to be a very corrupt one, it must be as lawful to

separate from it as for the Church of England to separate from Rome." 1

The distinction is brought out again very clearly by Knight regarding some ministers who, about the year 1607, took what he calls a middle course.2 These were called brethren of the second separation, by way of distinction from those who had preceded them in a more open and decided dissent, and their principles may be best gathered from their own words in a published defence of their conduct, in which they say: "We protest before the Almighty God that we acknowledge the Churches of England, as they be established by public authority, to be true visible Churches of Christ; that we desire the continuance of our ministry in them above all earthly things, as that without which our whole life would be wearisome and bitter to us; that we dislike not a set form of prayer to be used in our churches; nor do we write with an evil mind to deprave the Book of Common Prayer, ordination, or homilies, but to show our reasons why we cannot subscribe to all things contained in them."

With this accords in the main the more general statement of Fuller. He distinguishes between three classes of Nonconformists, the earlier, the middle and the later; the earlier were those in King Edward's days, "who desired only to shake down the leaves of Episcopacy, misliking only some garments about them," the middle were those in the end of Queen Elizabeth's and beginning

1 Neal, vol. i. p. 438.

2 Knight's Pictorial History of England, vol. iii. p. 461.; Neal, vol. i. P. 446. 3 Church History, vol. iv. P. 72.

of James' reign," who struck at the branches thereof," etc., and the later were those "who did lay the axe to the root of the tree, to cut down the function itself as unlawful and anti-Christian."

Separatism, and what it originally implied. It ought to be remembered that under the peculiar circumstances in which dissenters from the established religion were then placed, isolation and separate assembly became really an outward necessity, and did not necessarily imply anything like inward Congregational convictions on their part.1 Thus, in Queen Mary's reign, we read of “a congregation of godly men at London," who met together for religious worship "in the very mouth of danger," and among them was Scambler, afterwards bishop of Peterborough, and Bentham, afterwards bishop of Coventry and Lichfield." Hooper was no Separatist, and no adviser of Separatism. Yet, as early as 1553, Hooper wrote from the Fleet Prison "to certain godly persons, professors and lovers of the truth, instructing them how they should behave themselves at the beginning of the change of religion," as follows: "There is no better way to be used in this troublesome time for your consolation than many times to have assemblies together of such men and women as be of your religion in Christ, and then to talk and renew among yourselves the truth of your religion," etc.3 Archdeacon Philpot uses language to the same effect, but still stronger. Our God is a jealous God, and

1 Dexter's Congregationalism, p. 632.

2 See Zurich Letters, and Strype's Memorials, cf. III, ii. 147.

3 Later Writings of Bishop Hooper, Parker Society (1852), p. 589.

cannot be content that we should be of any other body than of that unspotted Church whereof He is the Head only, and wherein He hath planted us by baptism."1 Yet Philpot was a loyal son of the Church of England. It is thus clearly implied that under certain circumstances separation is not only defensible, but may become the highest duty. It is then perfectly obvious that the term Separatist can only be used strictly to describe those who belonged to the second and third class of Dissenters from the Established Church. The second class is represented, as has been pointed out, by Browne and his followers. It would appear from the six propositions laid down by Cartwright that his position was similar to Browne's, but we have his explicit testimony that he disapproved of separation. “We are not for an unspotted Church on earth, therefore though the Church of England has many faults we would not willingly leave it."

The third class, up to the period of the Commonwealth, was very sparsely represented, represented, it may be said, by a mere handful of people, the Anabaptists of Holland and some of the more extreme sectaries.

An American author, Mr. Douglas Campbell, says in his recently published and elaborate work:2 «To the Puritan and Separatist alike the Church as established was obnoxious on account of its abuses. But the one sought its reformation by Act of Parliament, looking forward to the time when his form of worship and dis

1 Writings of Archdeacon Philpot, Parker Society (1852), pp.

220-223.

2 The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, an Introduction to American History, by Douglas Campbell, A.M., LL.B., Member of the American Historical Association, vol. ii. p. 181.

cipline should be established for the nation. The other thought that a reformation would never come, that the whole system of a State Church was inherently wrong, and that the only duty before the new believers was to leave the Church to its abuses, and set up independent congregations." The words italicised have a meaning which is somewhat doubtful. If Mr. Campbell means that the Separatist thought that the whole then existing system of the Church was inherently wrong, he is quite right; not so, however, if the statement be taken as referring to the system of State Churchism broadly and generally. To that, with the exception of a few Anabaptists, they had no conscientious objection. Mr. Douglas Campbell seems to be aware of this, for he says, in a previous part of his work, "at that time no one, except the members of the poor despised sect of Dutch Anabaptists, thought of such a thing as a separation of Church and State." 1

The foregoing classification is sufficiently complete; but to make it exhaustive, another class of Dissenters would need to be included: those who became such through pressure of circumstances more than through force of original conviction. An apposite illustration of that class is furnished in connection with the founding of the colony of Massachusetts under Winthrop. These were not origin

1 Vol. ii. p. 9.

Mr. Green's statement—“The Separatists who were beginning to withdraw from attendance at public worship, on the ground that the very existence of a national Church was contrary to the word of God, grew quickly from a few scattered zealots to twenty thousand souls" (Green's Short History, p. 459)—is open to the same exception. The number of those who, in that age, objected to the very existence of a national Church as being contrary to the word of God, must have been very small indeed.