biblical erudition and powerful reasoning. Many other subjects besides that of baptism are included in the treatise; and all of them are discussed in such a manner as to convince the reader, that the teacher of the church at Amsterdam was 66 a master in Israel."

Mixed up with the baptismal controversy was another, which from its importance demands a separate notice. The general question raised by this controversy respected inter-communion, in its three-fold aspect: first, between private Christians; secondly, between congregations of Christians, or local churches; and thirdly, between the sectional divisions of the church universal. Robinson was the first person to publish any very enlightened opinions on this subject, as he was in all probability the first person in modern times that sought to carry them out in practice.*

It was one of the faults of that, and to a great degree of succeeding ages, that differences of opinion between professing Christians on minor points, whether of doctrine or discipline, were deemed a sufficient reason for rejecting all terms of communion with one another. Each several body of Christians kept aloof from all the rest, disclaiming all connection with them, both in their corporate capacity, and in relation to their individual members. The member of one religious community might from motives of courtesy admit the member of another to be a Christian; but there was little tole

* It has been affirmed by some that Dr. W. Ames was a means of changing Robinson's views on this subject. This may be more than questioned. Ames was opposed by the latter in his reply to Helwisse; and yet in this work, as will be seen, Robinson's views were fully devoloped. Indeed, Ames was at this time "estranged from, and opposed to, Mr. Robinson; and yet afterwards there was loving compliance and near agreement between them." Young's Chronicles, p. 423; Hanbury, i. 256, 257.

ration of differences, and still less of cordiality in the casual intercourse (communion it could scarcely be termed) that subsisted between them. The chief error of the early Barrowists lay here; justifying the application of the term "rigid" to the principles which in this respect they held: and for a long period the baptists contended for the scripturalness of this disuniting and purely repellant sentiment. Robert Browne, as we have seen, acted on the principle of the lawfulness of attending upon the ministrations of a church of which he was not a member: but this he considered to be no communion; and those who were called Brownists after him departed from the precedent of their nominal leader. At an early period in his ministry at Leyden, Robinson was in the habit of hearing various ministers in the neighbourhood; and in the course of a short time he went even farther than this. Looking round upon the divided state of the Christian world, and convinced that in every section of the church there was something estimable, he was anxious to ascertain how far it was possible, amidst all the disunion that existed, to lay a safe and scriptural basis of union and communion between all true believers. He discriminated between things that differed. His large heart was willing to receive all for whom Christ had died; but his enlightened judgment taught him that this could be brought about only under certain restrictions, which must be ascertained by careful examination of New Testament

* Tracts on Liberty of Conscience; passim. The earliest baptists were strict communionists.

† Browne's system was " rigid" enough in some things; for example, in forbidding an interchange of ministerial offices, even in churches of the same faith and order.

principles. He therefore devoted much anxious thought to this subject. All the while, he was the centre of antagonistic forces seeking to move him from his truly catholic position. The puritan-con-` formists on the one side, caught at any expressions. which might be construed in favour of the church of England, and endeavoured to argue him into conformity; the baptists, on the other hand, anathematizing all who did not hold their views on the subject of baptism, and unchurching all churches that had not their baptism for a basis, opened up a full battery, against him for shewing any favour to the church of England, whether by acknowledging the validity of her baptism, or by otherwise speaking respectfully of such of her members as were truly pious. Robinson's position was one of considerable difficulty. He had foes on all sides to contend against. But he knew his ground, and maintained it with great ability and temper. He expounded his views with great precision in the treatise "Of Religious Communion," already referred to, meeting his various opponents, the favourers of conformity on the one side, and the baptists on the other. Some of the opinions expressed in this publication may be deemed exceptionable; but those which relate to our present subject are such as are now generally admitted to be just. Distinguishing between private and public communion, he regards the former as obligatory between all Christians, no matter how widely differing from one another on subordinate points. To make good his position, he discriminated between what he terms "personal" and

*For example, William Bradshaw in "The Unreasonableness of the Separation;" Paget in his "Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists," &c.

"church actions." Convinced that a man was a Christian, he would acknowledge him as such, whatever his church relations. Conformist or nonconformist, puritan or baptist, presbyterian, episcopalian, or Roman catholic; no matter in this respect. He felt himself at liberty in his private capacity to hold communion with every one whom he could recognize as a brother in Christ. But in all this, he was no latitudinarian. In reference to "church actions," he felt himself bound to act on another principle. Here he paid due regard to scriptural order and polity. He would not therefore join in acts of church communion with any that did not follow what he conceived to be scripture precedent. "As we are then," he observes, "to join ourselves with them wherein God hath joined us, so are we, wherein he severeth us, to sequester and sever ourselves."

Not, however, that he condemned all false systems alike. He discriminated with great caution between those that were essentially vicious, and those that were unscriptural in the less important matters. He would not place all on a level, as if popery and prelacy, and such church constitutions as admitted of compulsion, were no worse than the rest. In this he evinced a sound judgment and a large heart.

At a later period, in his "Apology," he boldly expresses the same views. "Touching the Reformed Churches," he says, 66 we account them the true churches of Jesus Christ, and both profess and practise communion with them in the holy things of God; their sermons such of ours frequent as understand the Dutch tongue; the sacraments we do administer unto their known members, if by occasion any of them be present with us; their distractions and

other evils we do seriously bewail, and do desire from the Lord their holy and firm peace. But haply it will be objected, that we are not like-minded with them in all things, nor do approve of sundry practices in use amongst them, if not by public institution, yet by almost universal consent and uniform custom. I grant it; neither doubt I but there are many godly and prudent men in the same churches, who also dislike in effect the things which we do; and, amongst other things, this malapert and unbridled boldness of unskilful men, who make it a very May-game to pass most rash censure upon the faith, and so, by consequence, upon the eternal salvation of their brethren, and to impeach their credit, whom they neither do, nor perhaps willingly would, know; lest that which they wish to condemn unknown, they should be constrained to allow, if they once knew it, and withal to disallow that into which they themselves have been led formerly, by common error of the times."*

Some years afterwards, Robinson composed a treatise, published after his death, entitled, "Of the Lawfulness. of Hearing of the Ministers of the Church of England;" in which he carries out the principles just adverted to. In this work he argues, against many objections, that it is lawful to hear the preachers of the church of England, taking his stand upon the following main position :-"Hearing simply, is not appointed of God to be a mark and note either of union in the same faith or order amongst all that hear; or, of difference of Christians from no Christians; or of members from no members of the church; as the sacraments are

* A just and necessary Apology of certain Christians, no less contumeliously than commonly called Brownists or Barrowists; etc. (1625) Introduction.