were earnestly desirous to heal the wounds which were so injurious to the dissenting body, and to close the breach which opened a way for the assaults of their common adversaries; with this design, they, after much deliberation, drew up a list of the doctrinal articles which were the subject of debate, and stated them in a plain and peaceable form: these were agreed to by the controversialists on both sides, and by both parties they were subscribed. From this measure much good was expected by the friends of peace; but their expectations were disappointed, for the fault seemed to be more in the heart than in the' head, and there appeared a determination to differ at any rate.

Angry writings and angry speeches continued to harrass the public mind; and the next year, Dr. Williams published a "defence of the Gospel truth," in answer to Mr. Chauncy's work. Dr. John Edwards, of Cambridge, a writer whose character for orthodoxy was secured by his " Veritas redux," and other theological treatises, expressed his full concurrence by publishing" Crispianism Unmasked, or a discovery of the several erroneous assertions and pernicious doctrines maintained in Dr. Crisp's sermons." Mr. Chauncy, for what controversialist will be outdone, replied to Dr. Williams, and afterwards sent forth several more pieces on the subject in debate.

In the year one thousand six hundred and ninetyfour, the controversy was at its height. Papers were drawn up, and passed between the presbyterians and the independents (for the dispute had now assumed a party form) in order to the renunciation of arminianism by the former, and antinomianism by the latter. Had the good men been properly cooled by

a" fine mild act," or immured in prison for half a year, and fed on bread of affliction, and water of affliction, they would have found out, that there was neither arminianism nor antinomianism to be renounced; but the ignorance of some to be removed, the bigotry of others to be cured, and many bad tempers to be mortified and subdued. Mr. Mather, one of the new lecturers at Pinner's hall, published two sermons which he preached there, "on the righteousness of God by faith," in support of the antinomian side of the question. To this publication an answer was written by Dr. Williams in a discourse, entitled "Man made Righteous." The doctor's statement was supported by Mr. Lorimer, a distinguished minister among the dissenters, who likewise vindicated the conduct of those who had put their names to Dr. Williams's "Gospel Truth."

In the year one thousand six hundred and ninetyfive the dispute still unhappily continuing, the friends of peace discovered a laudable anxiety to bring it to a termination. The presbyterians offered to renounce arminianism, if the independents would renounce antinomianism, but without success. Some of the best disposed on both sides drew up a conciliatory paper to be signed by all, as the means of union; but it kindled new fires instead of extinguishing the old. To view the height to which the rage of controversy will carry even those whom we hope to be good men is truly humiliating; and the persuasion that they are good men, calls forth the severer reprobation of their conduct. An attempt was at this time made to blast Dr. Williams's reputation, by a charge of heinous guilt. But a full examination gave him back his character pure and unsullied, and wiped off all the stain

upon his adversaries. Failing of success in this way, they thought that perhaps the charge of heresy would adhere more closely to him than that of immorality; they therefore accused him of socinianism. With as much justice they might have accused him of being a worshipper of the Delai Lama of Tartary.

But to enumerate all the stages of the controversy would be tedious to the reader. Year after year attempts were made for peace, but without effect. Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Allsop, Mr. Lobb, Mr. Thomas Goodwin, and several others had a share in the dispute. Towards the close of it, "an appeal," by Mr. Lobb, a strenuous antagonist of Dr. Williams was written, and an application was made by him to Dr. Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, who was considered as a master of this controversy. But far from approving Mr. Lobb's side of the question, he wrote to Dr. Williams, who had likewise consulted him, expressing full approbation of the manner in which he had stated the doctrine in dispute, and condemning Dr. Crisp's notions with the greatest severity. The bishop had also begun an answer to Mr. Lobb's appeal, but death arrested him before it was completed. What he wrote was published as a second part of his defence of the satisfaction of Christ. The commutation of persons between Christ and believers (the main hinge of the controversy) is clearly stated; and the opinions of the socinians on the one hand, and of the antinomians on the other, are exposed and confuted. Here too he bears witness to the orthodoxy of Dr. Williams, and while he conceives that some were tainted with Dr. Crisp's errors, he can see no reason for so much heat among the rest,

c Dr. Williams's works, Vol IV, p. 405.

and intimates" that there must be something farther in the matter than appeared to an indifferent and impartial reader, which he would not inquire into."

Application was also made to Dr. Jonathan Edwards, of Oxford, whose "Preservative against Socinianism" proved him to be an adept in every thing relating to that controversy; and who was considered by Mr. Lobb to be friendly to his side of the question. From him too Dr. Williams received an honourable testimony as having stated the doctrine of Scripture, concerning the satisfaction of Christ, in an orthodox manner. As for the opinion of Dr. Crisp, and those of his party, concerning the commutation of persons between Christ and the sinner, he could not but look upon it to be "not only false, absurd, and impossible, but also an impious and blasphemous opinion, as being highly dishonourable to our Saviour, repugnant to the wisdom and justice of God, and leading plainly to subvert the whole design of Christianity.

Here lay the root of Dr. Crisp's error, which shot its fibres into almost every subject. He viewed the union between Christ and the believer to be of such a kind as actually to make a saviour of the sinner, and a sinner of the Saviour. He speaks as if God considered the sinner as doing and suffering what Christ did and suffered; and Christ as having committed their sins, and as being actually guilty of them. The confusion and dreadful mistakes arising hence can scarcely be described. If we add to this, that his mind was perplexed about the divine decrees; and that he confounded them with God's revealed will, and his gracious promises, and

Williams's works, Vol. IV. p. 124.

strangely blended the divine purpose, and the execution of it as one and the same thing, the reader will perceive the cause of his mistakes. The unhallowed influence of these opinions the doctor, like many others who have asserted them, appears not to have felt. But when he scattered them among the multitude, he was like a man throwing fire-brands, arrows, and death; or an ignorant and conceited empiric dispensing mortal poison to his patients, while he imagined that he was giving them a cordial of sovereign efficacy, which could not only preserve life, but even restore it to the dead.

Time at last effected what reason had, for seven years, attempted in vain-a termination of the controversy. Death removed some of the combatants. Some, it is probable, were taught to entertain more sober views, and some grew weary of disputing. The congregational brethren united with the presbyterians in bearing their testimony against antinomian errors: and Dr. Williams, in the year one thousand six hundred and ninety-nine, closed the whole with a treatise, entitled, "Peace with Truth, or an End to Discord." In this work he considered that declaration of principles as a sufficient foundation for cordial union, and any remaining differences as matters for the exercise of Christian forbearance.

Thus ended the controversy called the neonomian, by Dr. Crisp's adherents, and the antinomian, by Dr. Williams and his friends, which occupied seven long years, which might have been more usefully spent; and a waste of talents, which might have been better employed; and millions of thoughts and passions, which might have been more profitably