Toulmin states, that "the two denominations of Presbyterians and Independents became distinct communities, and acted separately with respect to their own denominations." But this statement, as affecting our general view of the Nonconformist churches at that time, must be somewhat modified. "The dispute about Dr. Crisp's works disturbed the harmony of the meetings in London, but it does not appear to have had any effect on the county associations."

We are driven to look at the controversies of an age, if we would discover its opinions; yet, by this means, we often miss the exact attainment of our object; for, in the heat and dust of polemic strife, men exaggerate their own views and distort those of their opponents. The agitation of questions as to the precise relation of Christ to his people, involving several aspects of the Calvinistic theory, arose at the period now under review, in consequence of the re-printing of "Crisp's Works." Crisp was an ultra-Calvinist, of an earlier period, whose works had been burnt by order of the Westminster Assembly. Baxter, whose "iconoclastic zeal" had through life assailed with

pre-eminent indignation the idols of Antinomianism, though now enfeebled by disease and age, once more vigorously seized his iron mace to dash in pieces the old image afresh set up. Dr. Williams, a Presbyterian of Baxter's school, followed him in the attack, and succeeded that noble champion in a long and earnest warfare against what he deemed Antinomian errors. But certain things in his works displeased Dr. Chauncey and others, who happened to be Independents. These now proceeded to assail the opponents of Crisp. Men, substantially agreed, thus unhappily fell into antagonism; and from a mere accident, views relating to doctrine came, in the estimation of some, to distinguish persons who had hitherto differed only in discipline. The Independents were thought to have a leaning to high Calvinism, and the Presbyterians to belong to the Arminian school. But this was incorrect. Williams was not Arminian, nor was Chauncey Antinomian; neither was the first a type of all Presbyterians, any more than the latter was of all Independents. The controversy was a singularly unfortunate one, and placed the parties in a false position. Stillingfleet, Bishop of

с

Worcester, was appealed to by the combatants as a sort of umpire. One part of his reply is worthy of notice, as placing this, and some other theological discussions, in their true light. "There is," said he, "a remarkable story in the history of the Synod of Dort, which may not be improper in this place. There were, in one of the universities of that country, two professors, both very warm and extremely zealous for that which they accounted the most orthodox doctrine; but it happened that one of these accused the other before the synod of no fewer than fifty errors, tending to Socinianism and Pelagianism; and wonderful heat there was on both sides. At last a committee was appointed to examine this dreadful charge; and, upon examination, they found no ground for the charge of Socinianism, or any other heresy; but only that he had asserted too much the use of ambiguous and scholastic terms, and endeavoured to bring the way of the schoolmen into his writings. Therefore the synod dismissed him, with this prudent advice-Rather to keep to the language of Scripture than the schools." This was quite in the temper of Stillingfleet's earlier and

better days, when he wrote his "Irenicum," and pleaded for peace; but hardly agreed with the spirit of later years, when, in his "Mischief of Separation," he made a virulent attack on his Nonconformist* brethren. However, his notion of this controversy, as between Williams and others, seems to have been as fair as the application of the Dort story was felicitous. And we may add, there is abundant reason to believe that, at the end of the seventeenth century, both Presbyterians and Independents held in substance the evangelical views of the Puritans. The Arian controversy did not commence till some years afterwards.

The preaching of the Nonconformist ministers at that period was orthodox. The doctrines of the New Testament were embodied in their discourses. Still, they differed from their fathers. In form they differed. The divisions in their discourses were less numerous and perplexing. The bones were not so visible. The limbs were fuller and more roundly moulded. This was a decided improvement. But in spirit, too, some of them

* Williams's writings, as a caveat against the extravagances of Crisp, were, at that time, no doubt very valuable.

also began to differ. The sermons had in them less of fire, and coldly fell upon the people's consciences. This was a sad defect.

Nevertheless, there were men who preached with as much of unction as orthodoxy, and any one in those days visiting the "ancient and fair city of Chester," might find a superior specimen of both combined in the ministry of good Matthew Henry. In the venerable old meeting-house, still remaining, that eminent expositor and divine ministered to a rather large congregation, of whom ultimately no less than 350 were in church-fellowship, including among them some of the city magnates. Strangers to the late habits of these degenerate times, they were to be seen assembled in their large deep oaken pews, as early as nine o'clock on a Sunday morning, when the service began by singing the 100th Psalm, in the version of Sternhold and Hopkins, the singers dwelling on the notes rather longer than we moderns are wont to do. We fancy, as we look on the preacher's portrait, that we see him in the pulpit surmounted by a sounding-board, standing erect with portly form, full face, and dignified mien, set off a little by Genevan cloak and