image; they may cleave, but they will not incorporate." Thus says Lord Bacon.a

с

Notwithstanding what ensued after Ainsworth had bestowed the appellation of a "worthy soldier of Christ" upon RICHARD CLYFTON, he must not be therefore dispossessed by us of his just claim to a niche among his memorable compeers in this our denominational cenotaph. The man under whom as a minister Robinson could in his riper years sit as a learner, and enter also into fellowship with the church under that minister's care, must have had qualifications beyond the ordinary standard. He joined the other exiles, as we have shown, in 1608,d and attached himself to the church of which Johnson was pastor. He was, perhaps, on Ainsworth's secession, December 16th, 1610, invested with the office of Teacher among them. The particulars of his personal history are unfortunately very scanty, but his mind, we learn, underwent much fluctuation on the subject of the Separation; though, if we may put reliance in the judgment of an enemy, he wrote "most to the purpose," in defence of the practice. He published at Amsterdam, in 1610, "A Plea for Infants and elder People, concerning their Baptism; or, A Process of the Passages between Mr. John Smyth and Richard Clyfton." 4to. Smyth rejoined in the same year, in "A Reply to Mr. R. Clyfton's Christian Plea.' The "Advertisement" noticed in our pages, and which excited Ainsworth's displeasure, was printed in 1612. Proceeding thus far in our course, we have had little else to perform, than the relating of contentions; but we have never paused as we moved along to issue bewailment at our hapless lot, with professions that we could have done better than our predecessors did in their circumstances. We introduce now, an account of other productions of Ainsworth's pen, in the words of one who could estimate the just merits, and participate in the enjoyment of the general subject-matters of their contents. Dr. Stuart remarks, that "It must have been, in the midst of these controversies, a circumstance which shows with how right a spirit he conducted them, that he was engaged in what I may be allowed to call his great work, namely, his Annotations upon the Five Books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Song of Songs.' Every one knows that a performance of this kind requires time, labour, patience, and a mind disengaged from passion and anxiety. If Ainsworth kept thus possession of himself, in circumstances which lead most men to lay aside the rule of their own spirits, we must pronounce him one, who to faith and knowledge added also virtue, that is, firinness of mind." Of these Biblical labours we shall avail ourselves in due course.

In a like happy state of mind, he must have composed the most entirely didactic of his original works that has yet passed under our view; and our own minds would fain go along with him in the sweet and holy theme "Of the Communion of Saints." The date of publication is not known, but our reasons for not having taken the subject into consideration earlier, and for not postponing it to a later portion of our labours, will be inferred from the particulars which the reader is about to learn.

John Paget, an opponent of Ainsworth, writes in "An Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists," 1618, that "There was a promise, or a show made some years since (in Catalogo Francofurti, anno 1608. Tractatus de Communione: Ambsterodami apud Cornelium Nicolai, 8vo.) that your book of the Communion of Saints' should have come forth in Latin at Frankfurt Mart; but it was a false show, and a mocker of the world: it is not yet come forth." Whether or not, from the context, Paget means to represent, after all, that the book had been really published, but not in Latin, is no way clear. He says in one part, "Your doctrine is concluded therein so closely and obscurely, that none who knew you not before, could have found out your meaning thereby;" and then, for nearly a whole page, he prescribes to Ainsworth thus, " you are then plainly to admonish your brethren;a.. you are to write the vision' of your Separation;.. at leastwise, you ought to admonish these many members of the Dutch and French churches here in the same city with you... If you had zeal, and conscience of this doctrine that you profess, you could soon find means to publish a few arguments in Dutch, and Latin also, to call away the faithful people in this city where you live, from their unlawful ministers... Considering also that you can find time to publish sundry other things." It should seem hence that this book of Ainsworth's had not appeared before the year 1618, yet it must have been printed several years sooner, because Dr. Stuart, editor of the Edinburgh reprint, dated 1789, 12mo. pp. 260, says he had seen a copy bearing the imprint alone of "Reprinted in the year 1615." We have, however, seen the book catalogued with the imprint of London to it, in addition to that year, and the size, 18mo. The size agrees with a copy we possess, "Translaté d'Anglois en François par Jean de Lescluse. Imprimé a Amsterdam par Giles Thorp." pp. 538, no date. This edition is dedicated to Philippe de Mornay, a distinguished nobleman of France, and a Hugonot; whence, as he resigned the Governorship of Saumur, mentioned in the dedication, in 1617, its publication may be presumed to have been earlier. We have not succeeded in finding any account of this friendly translator, but doubt not that his labour was not lost upon many a soul desirous of building itself and others up into a spiritual house, dedicated to the Lord.

Yet

It is impossible to read the author's preface without perceiving that he was a master in Israel. His appropriation of Scripture to every turn of his design is strikingly fit. And we are content that he should bear his reproach under the scornful appellation of "Rabbi," fixed upon him by one who had elevated himself into "Moses' seat."f more, we challenge his reproacher's admirers to produce any such work of equal spirituality and textual appropriation, from among the ranks of the contemner's side either in his own day or since. "One thing," he says, in the preface, he would advertise the reader of, "that sometimes I allege the Scriptures otherwise than our common translators have them, when the force of the original words doth afford another, or more

a Levit. xix. 17.

d See back, p. 260.

b Hab. ii. 2.
C Chap. iv, p. 86, 87.
e See back, p. 163.

'Matt. xxiii. 2.-Bp. Hall, in his "Common Apology,” p. 31.

for the worship of God, and edifying of themselves by doctrine and exhortation, &c.; 1 Cor. xiv. 23, 33–35; 1 Tim. ii. 11, 14; with Gen. iii. 16. Fourthly; because, if the multitude of men, women, and children of years, be here understood, . . then . . the Master should be brought and complained of to his servants; the Father, to his children the Husband, to his wife; yea, Rulers and Governors, to such as have no authority or government committed unto them by the Lord... [Compare Matt. xviii. 17, with 2 Chron. xix. 10; 1 Thess. v. 12.] Moreover, according to that understanding, in all cases of question and difference, the judgment should go out, and matters be ended by the more voices of the People,-as being the voice of the 'church,'--though without and against the Elders and other Brethren, being fewer in number... Fifthly; because the Exposition of the precepts and rules mentioned in the New Testament; which accordeth not with the doctrine and rules given in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but is strange, and such as departeth therefrom; that is an erroneous Exposition, not to be admitted. And, therefore, the Exposition of Matt. xviii. 15-17, which maketh it a rule, which the Jews could not keep in Israel when Christ spake it, and teacheth that the words of telling the church,' or congregation,' are not to be understood of the Assembly of Elders, but of all the people and whole church of saints-as some do urge it-must be held erroneous: unless it could be showed to accord with the doctrine and rules given in the Scripture of the Old Testament, and not to be strange or departing therefrom.

6

"Albeit, therefore, the Positions touching the Church's rights and power, spoken of in the Apology,' pp. 43, 44, 46, 60, &c., be true, according to that which is written, both of the Israelites,' that theirs was the law-giving' and 'service,' &c., Rom. ix. 4, and of us now, under the Gospel, that all things' are ours, 1 Cor. iii. 21—23; as also may appear by divers reasons and the grounds of them, mentioned in the same Apology;' yet will it not, thereupon, follow, that Christ's speech, of telling the church,' or congregation,' may not be understood of the Presbytery and Assembly of Elders: as by these reasons here before set down may be observed. And, seeing it is undeniable that it did not, any way, hinder the right and power of the Church heretofore; when, in Israel, by this word church,' or congregation," was understood the Assembly of Elders,' in speeches concerning question and controversy, about sin, obtaining of right, &c. why should we now, think it any hinderance thereunto so to understand it still; according to the Scriptures hereafore noted, and other the like?" We pass over, of necessity, several pages, where Johnson speaks somewhat more concerning those reasons severally;" and proceed with his remark, "That if Christ now had given a new rule of government that Israel had not, the disciples to whom it was spoken, could not have understood it by these words, which were according to the Jews' received phrase and practice and the Pharisees, and other adversaries of Christ, would have been glad if they could have had such an exception against Christ, That he had taught contrary to Moses! ..

66

"I might also," he says, " note here, touching ourselves, that otherwise, as our estate is, we could hear no matters of controversy between the Brethren but on the Lord's day; and, that we have done amiss in that very practice-which is still, by some, so much approved-when we heard matters on the Week day, as we have been wont: at which time, there was seldom half the Church together. For, by the reason aforesaid, there may be a further proceeding beyond it; when the whole church is met together, as on the Lord's day. But who can show such an Ordinance of God, That the Church should meet together on the Lord's day, to hear the Brethren's controversies that they have one with another? Find we such a course of dealing and proceeding under Israel on the Sabbath day? .. And, did not the Elders of old sit in the gates, and afterward [under the Romans] in the synagogues, on the week days, to hear their Brethren's controversies ?"..

Coming, at length, to distinguish between "a public judgment and a private," Johnson writes, "The public judgment cometh out from the Lord, or from his Ministers; . . and when there is such a ministerial judgment, we must alway remember, that the sovereign authority thereof resteth in God and his Word. . . The private judgment is to every particular person, touching their discerning, assenting, or dissenting, to or from the things spoken and done, according as every one is persuaded. And if this their judgment agree with the public, it is already signified by the officers; and so is one and the same with the public. If some disagree, it is the dissent of such particular persons' judgment from the public-of what sex or condition soever they be that so are diversely-minded,—and is to be regarded as there shall be cause; for which, see the Scriptures before alleged, and 1 Cor. x. 15, and xi. 13, and xiv. 37, 38, with ii. 15, Rom. xiv. 5."

Objections pressing themselves upon his mind, Johnson proceeds to say, under another section, "Here also it would be known,' How a Church, consisting of two or three Brethren,' as we understood it, 'could observe that rule: for, when one of them hath dealt with another in the first place, and taken the third for a witness, in the second place, where, then, is the Church; and, who are they to whom the offender is to be brought, in the third place; according to that Scripture ? Nay, when they are very many, being all yet private people; which of them have authority over the whole, and over the particular persons among them? Or, if they be all Women; have they the like power among themselves also? Or, have private persons more authority in the public censures, than particular Churches have, one toward another? Either, may particular Churches excommunicate one another; or, but mutually exhort, admonish, and-after all means used-separate one from another, if at any time there be just and needful occasion so to do?' If here it be asked, How then they may keep themselves from being leavened and corrupted by the other? It may be answered, That this may be done by Separation from such, though that Excommunication of them be not used: for thus, Separation from such implieth the power we have over ourselves; whereas excommunication implieth power and authority over others!.. But these things, and any other the like, concerning People without Offi

cers, and their estate and walking; as when they first came out of Apostacy, or in other such cases; they have been left to further consideration among us.

"Some while since, when Thomas White objected, 'That we had altered many things which we held in our constitution;' this answer, among other things, was given, That we acknowledge and profess, before all men, that divers things heretofore observed among us at the first, we have since altered, and do from time to time alter and amend, as God giveth us by his Word to discern better therein: yet, that this is the alteration-but of our judgment and practice, not of the Church's Constitution. Yea, that hereunto we are bound, and have power in Christ, even by the Constitution of our Church-which, by the calling of Christ and the Church's Covenant and Communion, requireth, at our hands, to walk together in the Truth of the Gospel, in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord: and, therefore, to forsake and avoid whatsoever is anyway repugnant thereunto. So free from all false ways is the Constitution itself; and we, that are in it, subject to err notwithstanding, many ways. So far are we also from the strange opinion and impiety of them that having, in this latter age of the world, disclaimed the Pope's person, and received some truths of the Gospel, yet retaining many abominations of Antichrist withal, would now stand still, and admit of no further proceeding or alteration among them: as if they had, at the first, seen and received the whole truth and all the ordinances of Christ.' Thus have we written, professed, and practised heretofore. And if any shall show better hereabout, by the Word of God; I hope I shall, by His grace, hearken thereunto.-1610."

a

CHAP. XIII.

JACOB JOINS THE SEPARATISTS.-AINSWORTH.

WE turn here, to enlarge our account of him, relating to whom we have held our readers in suspense till the change in his personal history should have arrived when he appears no longer as the defender of "The Churches and Ministry of England," but like another Paul, the warm and successful advocate of those whom he had formerly despised for producing which event, some credit must be attributed to Francis Johnson's "Answer."

The sentiments and practice of HENRY JACOB, the Puritan, whose writings "speak him learned," had certainly suffered a transition, anterior to the date of his conference at Leyden with the judicious Robinson. His progress is apparent from the titles of successive fruits of his pen, as follow.

a Ans. to T. White, p. 34, 36, with p. 13, 39. b See back p. 102.

e Wood, Ath. Ox. ed. Bliss, vol. ii. col. 308. We have not found the authority for this "conference," but it may be inferred from the imprint to his Divine Beginning, &c." and from John Paget's Defence of Church Government, 1641. p. 105.

e Though what we give here as a Note were not written when its author thought favourably of the Separatists, yet as it serves somewhat to develope his