If Fletcher was pre-eminently the best writer in this controversy on the Arminian side, it is no less obvious that the palm must be awarded to Toplady on the Calvinist side.  Before we say anything about Toplady’s writings, let it be remembered that his pen does not do justice to his character.  Toplady was personally a pious, worthy man, a diligent pastor, beloved by and successful among his parishioners, and by no means quarrelsome—­except upon paper.  He lived a blameless life, principally in a small country village, and died at the early age of thirty-eight.  It is only fair to notice these facts, because his controversial writings might convey a very different impression of the character of the man.

Toplady is described by his biographer as ’the legitimate successor of Hervey.’[791] There are certain points of resemblance between the two men.  Both were worthy parish priests, and the spheres of duty of both lay in remote country villages; both died at a comparatively early age; both were Calvinists; and both in the course of controversy came into collision with John Wesley.  But here the resemblance ends.  To describe Toplady as the legitimate successor of Hervey is to do injustice to both.  For, on the one hand, Toplady (though his writings were never so popular) was a far abler and far more deeply read man than Hervey.  There was also a vein of true poetry in him, which his predecessor did not possess.  Hervey could never have written ‘Rock of Ages.’  On the other hand, the gentle Hervey was quite incapable of writing the violent abuse, the bitter personal scurrilities, which disgraced Toplady’s pen.  A sad lack of Christian charity is conspicuous in all writers (except Fletcher) in this ill-conducted controversy, but Toplady outherods Herod.

One word must be added.  Although, considered as permanent contributions to theological literature, the writings on either side are worthless, yet the dispute was not without value in its immediate effects.  It taught the later Evangelical school to guard more carefully their Calvinistic views against the perversions of Antinomianism.  This we shall see when we pass on, as we may now do, to review that system which may be termed ‘Evangelicalism’ in distinction to the earlier Methodism.

(3) THE EVANGELICALS.

    Largior hic campos aether et lumine vestit
    Purpureo....

It is with a real sense of relief that we pass out of the close air and distracting hubbub of an unprofitable controversy into a fresher and calmer atmosphere.

The Evangelical section of the English Church cannot, without considerable qualification, be regarded as the outcome of the earlier movement we have been hitherto considering.  It is true that what we must perforce call by the awkward names of ‘Evangelicalism’ and ‘Methodism’ had many points in common—­that they were constantly identified by the common enemies of both—­that they were both parts of what