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, represented, it may be

was very sparsely represented, 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.

ally Separatists, like the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth. We separate," they said, "not from the Church of England, but from its corruptions. We came away from the Common Prayer and ceremonies in our native land where we suffered much for Nonconformity. In this place of liberty we cannot and will not use them.” The result was, they became free Churchmen and zealous Independents. Certainly the establishment of such a system as Independency was a great advance upon the idea of reforming the Church of England; yet, as a well-known American writer says, the mere change of surrounding conditions made it seem not a revolution in Church government, but the only natural and possible thing to do.1

1 Historic Towns: Boston, by Henry Cabot Lodge, pp. 25, 26.

"How Puritanism glided into a state of separation, and the Nonconformist in the Church became a Dissenter outside its pale, is curiously illustrated in the records of the Church assembling in Broadmead, Bristol." See Dr. Stoughton's History of Religion in England, vol. i. (new and revised edition) pp. 99, 100.

The Corrupt State of the Church: the

Martin Marprelate Controversy.

Corrupt state of the Church-Illiteracy of the Clergy-Character of the Bishops-Notes on Latimer's Sermon of the Plough-Child's answer to Canon Dixon-Arber on corruption of Clergy-Martin Marprelate Controversy-Interest of this Controversy-Note on works dealing with-The Epistle-Style of-Assumption of-Conditions of Peace-Effect of Epistle-Restrictions on printing-The Epitome The four Bishops attacked - On their defence Hay any worke for Cooper-Press seized-Martin renounced by Puritans -Defended-Conclusion of Epistle-Notes on authorship-Who was Martin Marprelate?