notes of both in the participants. The hearing of the Word of God is not so enclosed by any hedge or ditch, Divine or human, made about it; but lies in common for all, for the good of all.”

Let it be understood, however, that, in maintaining this view, he did not seek to open a door to the church of England, through which inconstant Independents might pass to her communion. His sole object was to provide solid grounds from Scripture, for sometimes hearing from the lips of the clergy an expression of that church's faith and doctrine. While some baptists and others clamorously forbade it as a sin to have anything whatever to do with the church of England and her clergy, Robinson sought to show that, in order to condemn, we must sometimes hear, and that such hearing was not unscriptural. While he refused to commune with that church, he would not deprive himself of the privilege of communion with her pious members; neither would he debar himself the liberty of being a hearer whenever, in his judgment, he deemed it expedient so to do. The following passage contains a summary of his views on this subject :

"To conclude: for myself, thus I believe with my heart before God, and profess with my tongue before the world; that I have one and the same faith, hope, spirit, baptism, and Lord, which I had in the church. of England, and none other: that I esteem so many in that church as are truly partakers of that faith, for my Christian brethren, and myself a fellow member with them, of that mystical Body of Christ scattered far and wide throughout the world: that I have always, in spirit and affection, all Christian fellowship and communion with them; and am most ready, in all outward actions and exercises of religion, lawful and

VOL. III.

lawfully done, to express the same. And withal, that I am persuaded the hearing of the Word of God there preached, in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned, is both lawful, and, upon just occasion, necessary for me and all true Christians withdrawing from that hierarchical order of church government and ministry, and the appurtenances thereof; and uniting in the order and ordinances instituted of Christ, the only King and Lord of His church, and by all his disciples to be observed. And, lastly, that I cannot communicate with, or submit unto, the said church order and ordinances there established, either in state or act, without being condemned of my own heart; and, therein provoking God, who is greater than my heart, to condemn me much more. And, for my failings—which may easily be too many one way or other of ignorance herein, and so for all my other sins, I most humbly crave pardon, first and most at the hands of God, and so of all men whom therein I offend, or have offended, any manner of way; even as they desire and look that God should pardon their offences."

Another controversy, of less importance, but which pended for a long time and divided chief friends, related to the question of "eldership." This was the term by which the controversy was known; but much more than the question of eldership was involved in it, namely, whether the church, or the officers of the church, should have the virtual power in ecclesiastical matters. In fact, the very principle of Congregational Independency itself was involved in the question.

Before this period, and probably ever since the revival of Independency in England, this point had, at

various intervals, been mooted. The Scriptures of the New Testament, as we have observed in a former volume, left the adjustment between private and official relations, within the local church, to be determined, in a great measure, by the spirit of those who composed it. It was not in accordance with the plan of infinite wisdom so clearly to draw the line of distinction, as to allow of no scope for the exercise of mutual concession and good understanding. If everything had been specified with levitical minuteness, many disputes would have been avoided; but at the same time, a most important test, in relation to a church's prosperity, would have been wanting. There might have been much regularity in a church's operations, but that regularity would become mechanical, and compatible with almost any amount of spiritual declension. Infinite wisdom is displayed as much in what the New Testament has left undetermined, as in what it has clearly and explicitly defined.

Soon after, if not before, the settlement of the exiles in Holland, differences of opinion arose in the church of which Johnson was pastor, respecting the amount of authority scripturally due to church officers. At first, this difference was of a harmless kind; the harmony of the church rendering it a merely speculative matter. At a later period, however, a root of bitterness" sprang up amongst them, having some relation to the alleged misconduct of Mr. Studley, one of the deacons. Whether the charges against him were true or false, can scarcely be ascertained. So far as the evidence reaches, we incline to the latter opinion; more especially as he met his accusers in a fair and open manner. What most concerns us is, the relation between his case and the question of the eldership. It appears,

then, that a party of about fifteen, opposed to Mr. Studley, were determined to depose him from his office. This, however, was not so easy a matter; Johnson, Ainsworth, Clyfton, and probably a majority of the church besides, regarding him as a calumniated man. This personal dispute, in its progress, raised the general question respecting the right of the church to dismiss its officers; and this, the yet more general question respecting the inter-limitations of official and church. power. When the question came fully out, Robinson was at Leyden. He and Ainsworth took one side in the controversy; Johnson and Clyfton the other. Various publications, bearing upon the disputed points, were issued during the successive stages of the controversy. On the whole, Ainsworth and Robinson had the best of the argument.* There can be little doubt that Johnson was very sincere in the part which he took ; and both he and Clyfton maintained their position with considerable ability. Clyfton, however, was too much influenced by motives of friendship in relation to Studley; and Johnson was not only inconsistent in admitting that a church might dismiss "some of its officers, yet not all," but he also fell into the error throughout of supposing that the church polity of the New Testament was to be interpreted by a reference to the synagogue polity of the Old. The question, at last, came out in this shape:-Has the church at large, by the voice of its associated members, a right to determine upon all matters affecting its interests; as, for example, in admitting or excluding members, electing and dismissing officers, and determining cases of discipline; or, have the officers, in their capacity as an eldership or presbytery, the right to do all these

* Jacob agreed with Ainsworth and Robinson, Hanbury, i. 235.

things, save and except in the matter of their election? It is evident that the very foundations of Congregational Independency, internally considered, were involved in this question, and that Johnson's views, fully carried out, would leave the independency of the church a merely nominal thing.

In consequence of Ainsworth's enlightened opposition to Johnson's views, a party formed around him, and no alternative remained but that of a separation. This was effected on the 15th and 16th of September, 1610. Of course, the circumstance occasioned much scandal, especially amongst those who were ready to make the most of the divisions that arose amongst the separatists.

It was with great reluctance, however, that such a step was taken, especially on Ainsworth's part, as appears by his anxiety to have the matter of difference adjusted. Johnson also would have been glad of some arrangement, if his party had not been violent in their remonstrances. Indeed, an attempt of this nature was made through the medium of Robinson and his church. The Ainsworthians applied to the Leyden people to interfere by friendly mediation, and the Johnsonians followed with a request that they would suspend their judgment, for certain specified reasons. Although Robinson agreed in the main with Ainsworth, he recommended that for the sake of peace a middle way should be adopted; namely, that the matter of offence should "first be brought, for order, preparation, and prevention of unnecessary trouble, unto the elders as the church-governors; and afterwards, if things were not there ended, to the church of elders and brethren, there to be judged,-the admonition being carried according to the alteration