of the old Puritan and Separatist, was as nearly as possible that now occupied by the Evangelical clergyman and the Congregational dissenter. To give the reader some idea of the way in which these Puritan ministers thought and felt towards the Separatists, we will quote a few sentences from the sermons* of the first-named subscriber to the above supplication.

This Samuel Otes, his son tells us in his dedication of the sermons to Sir John Hobart, Bart., of Blickling, "was sometime Chaplaine to my late Honourable good Lord your Father, (who now resteth with God, his body being laid up in peace, and his memory with good men precious,) and one of the first Chaplaines that ever he entertained." He died before the year 1633.

"Judge now of what spirit our Brownists be; as Christ said of his disciples that would have fire come downe from heaven to destroy Samaria, 'Yee know not of what spirit yee are,' so they know not of what spirits they be of; for all their eloquence standeth in biting speeches; that our Church is Babylon, Sodome; that our ministers have the mark of the beast; that our people are swine and dogges; that our communion cup is the cup of the Divell; that the table of Christ is the table of the Divell: our pulpits bee tubs, our Geneva Psalmes, Gehenna Psalmes. But I will say to them: I am wont to laugh at these kind of men, not to hate them. They thinke much to be touched in doctrine, but I will answer them as Erasmus: Let them lay away their swords, and wee will throw away our shields; let them remove their poyson, and wee will cease to use any antidote; let them refraine from evil speaking, and wee will not taunt again. In this wee cannot consent unto them in their schismes. Aye but say they, wee are willed 'to come out from Babylon,' yea and to separate ourselves and to touch no unclean thing.' I confesse, Schismatikes interpret this discession locally, but the Fathers understand it mentally and morally. The prophets and apostles proclaimed: touch. no unclean thing.' But how? Contactu cordis, non corporis. Doth hee that commit sinne displease thee?-thou touchest no uncleane thing. Hast thou charitably rebuked him?-thou art come out from him. Yet they cry out, wee have no Ministers, no Sacraments, no Church at all. What is their reason? Our lives are not answerable to the doctrine of the Gospell. Be it so, yet this is no reason why they should make discession from us. How corrupt was Jerusalem .. yet for all that Christ our Saviour frequented their Temple, and would not forbeare their religious exercises. The Church of Corinth was defiled with many sinnes and

• "An explanation of the Generall Epistle of St. Jude. Delivered in one and forty Sermons by that Learned, Reverend and faithfull Servant of Christ, Master Samvel Otes, Parson of Sowthreps, in Norfolk Preached in the Parish Church of North Walsham, in the same countye in a Publicke Lecture. London, 1633."

the Puritans were exposed. We have seen that they c objected to the Papistical portions of the English service and earnestly desired the establishment of such a ministry discipline as existed in the Church of Calvin. If they have obtained the abrogation of the offensive rites and monies of the Established Church, and shorn its hierarc some of its absolute power; and if they could have intro into it the elements of Presbyterial government, they have been satisfied, and would then have compelled all oth submit to the authority of the Church thus reformed acc to their ideas.

The ministers of this party adhered strongly to the na Church in the hope of ultimately securing such modificati they desired, and conformed, though reluctantly, even whe hope was at its lowest ebb.

But there were some men in those days who felt the i tions to be intolerable; and further they thought that Ch. ministers should resist them, and preach the word of G spite of them, and that the laity should hear the word and r the sacraments apart from them: in other words they t they ought to separate themselves from both the impo and the imposers. These were the early Independents or gregationalists.

The mere Puritans had no love for the Separatists, as w from another "Supplication of the ministers of Norfolk t Lords of the Council," in which they speak of it as to thei credit, that they "have not maintained any division or sep from the Church . . . and have resisted with all their both Papists and other heretics, and the late schis.

of the faction of Browne."

To this document twenty names are appended-Samuel Richard Woods, Nicholas Ayland, Alexander Stephenson Greene, Thomas Mellis, John Harrison, Thomas Aldre Morgan, Peter Mawde, John Cooke, John Buirdsell, Ed Byshop, Robert Linacre, Leonard Ranow, Thomas Richard Loupe, Edwin Sharpe, John Barnard, Thomas E It will not fail to strike the reader that the relative p Register II., 328.

the Puritans were exposed. We have seen that they chiefly objected to the Papistical portions of the English service book, and earnestly desired the establishment of such a ministry and discipline as existed in the Church of Calvin. If they could have obtained the abrogation of the offensive rites and ceremonies of the Established Church, and shorn its hierarchy of some of its absolute power; and if they could have introduced into it the elements of Presbyterial government, they would have been satisfied, and would then have compelled all others to submit to the authority of the Church thus reformed according to their ideas.

The ministers of this party adhered strongly to the national Church in the hope of ultimately securing such modifications as they desired, and conformed, though reluctantly, even when that hope was at its lowest ebb.

But there were some men in those days who felt the impositions to be intolerable; and further they thought that Christian ministers should resist them, and preach the word of God in spite of them, and that the laity should hear the word and receive the sacraments apart from them: in other words they thought they ought to separate themselves from both the impositions. and the imposers. These were the early Independents or Congregationalists.

The mere Puritans had no love for the Separatists, as we find from another "Supplication of the ministers of Norfolk to the Lords of the Council," in which they speak of it as to their own credit, that they "have not maintained any division or separation from the Church . . . and have resisted with all their power both Papists and other heretics, and the late schismatics

of the faction of Browne."

To this document twenty names are appended-Samuel Otes, Richard Woods, Nicholas Ayland, Alexander Stephenson, John Greene, Thomas Mellis, John Harrison, Thomas Aldred, John Morgan, Peter Mawde, John Cooke, John Buirdsell, Edmund Byshop, Robert Linacre, Leonard Ranow, Thomas Howis, Richard Loupe, Edwin Sharpe, John Barnard, Thomas Elwin.* It will not fail to strike the reader that the relative position *Register II., 328.

of the old Puritan and Separatist, was as nearly as possible that now occupied by the Evangelical clergyman and the Congregational dissenter. To give the reader some idea of the way in which these Puritan ministers thought and felt towards the Separatists, we will quote a few sentences from the sermons* of the first-named subscriber to the above supplication.

This Samuel Otes, his son tells us in his dedication of the sermons to Sir John Hobart, Bart., of Blickling, "was sometime Chaplaine to my late Honourable good Lord your Father, (who now resteth with God, his body being laid up in peace, and his memory with good men precious,) and one of the first Chaplaines that ever he entertained." He died before the year 1633.

"Judge now of what spirit our Brownists be; as Christ said of his disciples that would have fire come downe from heaven to destroy Samaria, 'Yee know not of what spirit yee are,' so they know not of what spirits they be of; for all their eloquence standeth in biting speeches; that our Church is Babylon, Sodome; that our ministers have the mark of the beast; that our people are swine and dogges; that our communion cup is the cup of the Divell; that the table of Christ is the table of the Divell: our pulpits bee tubs, our Geneva Psalmes, Gehenna Psalmes. But I will say to them: I am wont to laugh at these kind of men, not to hate them. They thinke much to be touched in doctrine, but I will answer them as Erasmus: Let them lay away their swords, and wee will throw away our shields; let them remove their poyson, and wee will cease to use any antidote; let them refraine from evill speaking, and wee will not taunt again. In this wee cannot consent unto them in their schismes. Aye but say they, wee are willed 'to come out from Babylon,' yea and to separate ourselves and to touch no unclean thing.' I confesse, Schismatikes interpret this discession locally, but the Fathers understand it mentally and morally. The prophets and apostles proclaimed: 'touch no unclean thing.' But how? Contactu cordis, non corporis. Doth hee that commit sinne displease thee?-thou touchest no uncleane thing. Hast thou charitably rebuked him?-thou art come out from him. Yet they cry out, wee have no Ministers, no Sacraments, no Church at all. What is their reason? Our lives are not answerable to the doctrine of the Gospell. Be it so, yet this is no reason why they should make discession from us. How corrupt was Jerusalem yet for all that Christ our Saviour frequented their Temple, and would not forbcare their religious exercises. The Church of Corinth was defiled with many sinnes and

Delivered in one and forty
Christ, Master Samvel Otes,

"An explanation of the Generall Epistle of St. Jude. Sermons by that Learned, Reverend and faithfull Servant of Parson of Sowthreps, in Norfolk Preached in the Parish Church of North Walsham, in the same countye in a Publicke Lecture. London, 1633."