The period of Revolution and Toleration in England was filled with rapid change, political uncertainty, and ecclesiastical volatility. Still recovering from the strife of Civil War and a divisive Restoration, the relationship between the Church of England and Nonconformists remained deeply strained. Although Dissenters were granted the right to gather for worship under Toleration, their legitimacy was regularly challenged. Within this context, a variety of significant controversies arose in which James Owen, a Welsh Presbyterian minister, played a prominent role and was a leading voice for moderate Nonconformity. Along with a group of moderate Nonconformist friends like Edmund Calamy, Philip and Matthew Henry, and Francis Tallents, Owen defended a version of Protestant ecumenism. This was a theological conviction that (1) the unity of the Protestant Church was indispensable and (2) this unity was to be found in agreement on essential doctrines, not in sharing ecclesiastical structures. Owen, along with his associates, defended the Dissenters' separation from the Church of England as biblically sanctioned and at the same time emphasized that such separation was not schismatic. Owen's clear, biblically articulate, and historically informed writing made his contribution to the period of Toleration significant and influential.

John Owen (1616-1683) and Richard Baxter (1615-1691) were both pivotal figures in shaping the nonconformist landscape of Restoration England. Yet despite having much in common, they found themselves taking opposite sides in several important debates, and their relationship was marked by acute strain and mutual dislike. By comparing and contrasting the parallel careers of these two men, this book not only distils the essence of their differing theology, it also offers a broader understanding of the formation of English nonconformity. Placing these two figures in the context of earlier events, experience and differences, it argues that Restoration nonconformity was hampered by their strained personal relationship, which had its roots in their contrasting experiences of the English Civil War. This study thus contributes to historiography that explores the continuities across seventeenth-century England, rather than seeing a divide at 1660. It illustrates the way in which personality and experience shaped the development of wider movements.

This work shows that the collapse of the post-reformation confessional state was more the result of religious dissent from within, much of it orthodox, than attacks of an anti-religious Enlightenment. In sharp contrast to the Reformation-era religious conflicts which tended to pit Protestant and Catholic confessions and states against each other, the 18th century religious conflicts described in this work took place within the various confessional establishments and states that founded and maintained them, such as Russian Orthodoxy in the East and the Anglican Establishment in England and Ireland. In the course of its analysis, this work destroys the notion of any kind of privileged relationship between religion and political or social reaction. This work reveals the religious roots of modern ideas of individual rights and limitations on government, as well as the imperative of political order and the need for social hierarchy.