These _separatists_ were called _Brownists_, which was long afterward the common name for all that separated _totally_ from the church of _England_, even when they disowned the rigid principles of _Brown_ and his congregation. We must carefully distinguish the _Brownists_ from the _Puritans_. Most of the latter 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_. They thought it _unlawful_ to separate; submitted to suspensions and deprivations; when driven out of one diocese, took sanctuary in another, being afraid of incurring the guilt of _schism_; and were the chief writers against the _Brownists_. [1593] A fresh effort was made to crush the _non-conformists_. A most obnoxious act was passed, for punishing all who refused to come to church, and every one who persuaded others to oppose the queen’s authority in ecclesiastic causes, or was present at any conventicle or meeting. The punishment was imprisonment without bail, till the convicted agreed to conform, and make a declaration of his conformity. In case the offender did not sign the declaration within three months, he was _to abjure the realm, and go into perpetual banishment_. If he departed not within the time limited, or returned afterward without the queen’s licence, he was _to suffer death without benefit of clergy_. By this act, the case of non-conformists was worse than that of felons at common law. The statute was levelled against the laity, no less than the clergy. The moderate Puritans evaded it, by going to church when prayers were nearly ended, and by receiving the sacrament when administered with some latitude. The weight of it fell upon the _Brownists_, whose sentiments had gained ground, so that they were increased to near twenty thousand, besides wives and children, according to the opinion of _Sir Walter Raleigh_, given in the house of commons, when the bill was read the second time and debated.[1] Several were _put to death_ about this period; which excited an odium against the bishops and high commissioners, who were universally known to have been at the bottom of the proceedings against them. It was resolved therefore to send the remainder of the imprisoned into banishment, instead of continuing to execute them. Others preferred a voluntary exile, rather than be exposed to the merciless persecutions that awaited them in their native country. Is it strange that these persons, thus forced or frightened out of it, for claiming and exercising the common right of human nature, that of judging for themselves in matters of religion, should at length think that their allegiance terminated with their departure; or that those who commiserated them, inclined to the same sentiment?