Assumptions or conclusions: the treatment of early General Baptist doctrinal conflict by selected surveys of Baptist history.

Hawkins, Merrill M., Jr.

Baptist historians who have explored General Baptist doctrinal conflict in the late 1600s and early 1700s generally present the time as one of doctrinal decline, conflict, and ultimately extinction of Baptists who were either Unitarian or tolerant of unitarianism. (1)

Historians also attribute the survival of the evangelical General Baptists who formed the "New Connection" in the late eighteenth century to their Wesleyan-inspired revivalism and their traditional, non-rationalist Trinitarian commitments.

There is no doubt that many General Baptists did adopt Unitarian theology as a natural consequence of their strict biblicist reading of the scriptures. Many others, while retaining Trinitarian views, did not wish to make Trinitarian belief a test of fellowship. The same train of biblicist thought that led early Baptists to reject infant baptism for believer's baptism led these General Baptists to reject post-biblical Trinitarian theological categories. These Unitarian Baptists believed precise doctrinal formulas were nonbiblical ideas developed in the first four ecumenical councils, claiming instead a more biblical confession and creed such as "Jesus is Lord." Everything else was considered adiaphora. Their Trinitarian Baptist supporters were non-creedalists who did not believe doctrinal tests on the Trinity were biblical. Many General Baptist Trinitarians supported a basis of union broad enough to include Unitarian Baptists. Many other General Baptists insisted on firm statements of Christology and Trinitarian thought and refused any cooperative effort or unions with those who did not share this belief. There is no doubt that this time period was one of division and conflict for the General Baptists, but the historical treatments of the division have often relied on unproven assumptions rather than measured conclusions.

This article examines the modern Baptist historiography of both the Christological controversy among General Baptists in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and the creation and influence of Dan Taylor's "New Connection" of General Baptist churches in the late eighteenth century. The analysis suggests that those General Baptists who possessed Unitarian views and those who possessed Trinitarian views but did not insist on Trinitarian agreement as a test of fellowship have almost always been identified as the parties responsible for the division and decline of the General Baptist movement. Conversely, the same histories suggest, it was a commitment to Trinitarian confessional unity that was responsible for subsequent General Baptist resurgence under the leadership of Taylor.

Matthew Caffyn and the First Divisions in General Baptist Life

Discussions of General Baptist conflict begin with what historians often describe as a doctrinal decline connected with the work of Matthew Caffyn (1628-1714). An active General Baptist minister, Caffyn ultimately rejected Trinitarianism in favor of a strict monotheistic unitarianism. Many General Baptists adopted his views, and many others who held different views welcomed Caffyn's freedom to hold this view. Some General Baptists, however, firmly opposed Caffyn's views and vigorously fought their presence. Historians recounting this story generally take an anti-Caffyn perspective in their narratives, using value-laden language to describe Caffyn in heretical terms, as well as concluding that he caused the conflict that ultimately resulted in the numerical decline of the General Baptists. However, the general surveys examined below fail to demonstrate a causal connection between the possession of Caffyn's views or tolerance for Caffyn's views and the ensuing conflict in the General Baptist movement.

William T. Whitley's 1923 survey, A History of British Baptists, proclaims that Caffyn's "life [was] abnormally prolonged," and that the legacy of his long life was permanent division among General Baptists. (2) For Whitley, Caffyn was to be blamed for the division that did occur among General Baptists over his views. In drawing this conclusion, he assumes that the Trinitarian doctrinal position was correct and that Caffyn was doctrinally incorrect. While Caffyn may in fact have been wrong to think as he did, such an assessment is beyond the scope of the historian's task. Moreover, Whitley offers no evidence as to how Caffyn's views caused conflict. One could also assume, alternatively, that Caffyn's opponents caused conflict. Whitley's choice of words for the narrative suggests his own identification with the creedal Trinitarians. It is true that the General Assembly of General Baptists did split, with anti-Caffyn forces withdrawing, but in 1704 the two groups reunited. Again, Whitley's treatment betrays his preference for the creedal Trinitarian party's response to this reunion.

Shortly after the "reconciliation" of the Assembly and the Association (the Trinitarian group that withdrew years earlier), the question of a doctrinal test on the Trinity again arose. The issues were the same. The pro-creedal party, who were uniformly Trinitarian, argued for a doctrinal statement on the Trinity as a test of fellowship. The anti-creedalists, however, were not uniformly Unitarian. These anti-creedalists included both Unitarians, who believed doctrinal definitions of the Trinitarians were non-biblical, and tolerant Trinitarians, who believed that Trinitarian dogma was not a test of fellowship. The anti-creedalist group was in the majority. Whitley's assessment of the majority, though, was not that they were contending for historic Baptist principles. Instead, this group "refused to face the new question raised, and took their stand on the past." (3) The creedal Trinitarians, Whitley assumes, were right to press the issue and were not divisive. Rather, they were faithful. For Whitley it was the Unitarians who were heretical and their Trinitarian supporters lax. The historical assumptions evident here are value statements instead of historical conclusions elucidating the roots of the conflict.

Robert Torbet's treatment of Caffyn in A History of the Baptists (1950) resembles Whitley's. (4) Torbet, too, finds Caffyn to be a divisive figure who caused the conflict that General Baptists faced in the 1680s. The General Baptists contending for a Trinitarian statement of faith were not the ones in error, according to Torbet. Torbet implies that these Trinitarian Baptists were forced to act because of the spread of Caffyn's views, and assumes that Caffyn was divisive for introducing unitarianism. Torbet seems not to consider that Caffyn may have been committed to the New Testament alone as the basis for doctrinal standards. Nor does this survey consider that Caffyn's various opponents may have been the divisive force in trying to exclude Caffyn. There is no evidence, however, that Caffyn sought to exclude those Baptists with whom he disagreed.

Torbet's narrative presents numerous conflicts over Caffyn's views, each time presenting the conclusion in a way that favors Caffyn's opponents. Four General Baptist leaders (Richard Allen, Benjamin Reach, Mark Key, and Shad Thames) so opposed Caffyn's views that they became Particular Baptists in the late 1680s. For Torbet, Caffyn was at fault for their departure; they were not at fault for being dogmatic. (5)

According to Torbet, as Caffyn's views quickly spread beyond local congregations to regional associations and the national General Assembly, General Baptists felt compelled to decide between "unity or orthodoxy." Unity prevailed, which for Torbet means that the General Baptists rejected orthodoxy. General Baptists, reaching this decision through a democratic vote, based their decision on an understanding that the test for fellowship set forth in the New Testament consists of the six principles of Hebrews 6:1-2 (repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment). Torbet views the General Baptist decision to reject a Trinitarian test through the perspective of those calling for a more defined basis of fellowship. The majority had rejected the New Testament, according to Torbet. The General Assembly "bypassed the issue" and failed to secure a compromise. As a result, a group of General Baptists withdrew to form the firmly Trinitarian General Association in 1696. Torbet's choice of terms, though, in describing these events, indicates an interpretation of the General Assembly as being in error and the General Association as doctrinally correct. The General Association breakaway group did so because they "refused to countenance with heretics." (6)

It is true that the General Association held this view, but it appears that Torbet also holds this view. There are other possible reasons why the majority refused to create a doctrinal test besides the conclusion that they bypassed the issue of taking a stand on the Trinity. Perhaps they insisted on the use of the New Testament and the rejection of human definitions concerning the nature of God. It is also possible that the minority formed a new General Baptist organization. They understood themselves to be contending for the faith. Perhaps, though, they were schismatics who broke away because they refused to be satisfied with the New Testament alone as a basis for unity. Torbet's story of this period relies heavily on how the withdrawing Trinitarians understood the conflict instead of a more balanced historical approach.

Alfred C. Underwood's A History of the English Baptists (1947) also identifies Matthew Caffyn as the cause of problems for General Baptists. Relying almost exclusively on primary documents written by the creedal Trinitarians, Underwood describes Caffyn's opponents exclusively in positive terms, while Caffyn's supporters, who were many, are not mentioned in detail. The division over Caffyn's views is attributed to Caffyn, who introduced what his opponents deemed Christological errors. While that may have been the cause, Caffyn's guilt is again assumed rather than demonstrated. Underwood states that Caffyn's opponent, Thomas Monk, "had put his finger on Caffyn's docetic error by publishing A cure for the cankering errors of the new Eutychians [sic]." (7) In discussing the state of General Baptists on the eve of the rise of Daniel Taylor's movement, Underwood portrays the movement as in "decline" and a state of "ruin" because of Caffyn's low Christology. It is Caffyn, according to Underwood, who "[t]wice split the General Assembly." (8)

While it is a fact that Caffyn's views met opposition, Underwood does not make the case that the presence of Caffyn's views caused the decline among General Baptists. Perhaps General Baptist decline should be attributed to those opposing Caffyn. Perhaps the refusal of Caffyn's opponents to grant him standing in the General Assembly hastened the movement's decline. Caffyn had opponents, but he also had many supporters who, though not sharing his theology, did not see his theology as a barrier to fellowship. Concluding which party caused conflict and which party was "faithful" requires more voices from the period than those provided by Underwood.

Raymond Brown's The English Baptists of the 18th Century (1986) devotes more than two pages of continuous narrative to the Christological positions introduced by Caffyn. Brown also describes the story with bias in favor of Caffyn's opponents and in opposition to Caffyn's supporters. Brown notes correctly that the discussion of Trinitarian thought, for all Baptists of the time, was grounded in the radical separatist perspective that the Bible alone should be the basis for all theology and that the tradition of the Church is ultimately non-binding. Post-biblical thought, especially the teaching of the councils, occupies a secondary place because they introduced ideas alien to the New Testament designed to buttress the authority of the religious hierarchy and the new arrangement with the Roman Empire. The same thought processes that guided Baptists to reject infant baptism and the episcopacy for believer's baptism were now guiding them "to ask whether traditional beliefs about the person of Christ and the Trinity owed more to creedal definitions than to the Bible." (9)

Brown, however, clearly believes that those General Baptists who embraced unitarianism were showing that "baptismal convictions were of limited cohesive value if they could not agree on an issue as central as the person of Christ." That they must agree on Christology is a position that Brown assumes and one that governs his reading of the primary sources. According to Brown, while some congregations (notably in Buckinghamshire, London, and Essex) opposed Caffyn's views, other congregations firmly committed themselves to an alternate Christology. He implies that Caffyn's opponents were not simply orthodox, but actually represented the vitality of the General Baptist movement. Caffyn and his anti-creedal supporters, who included non-trinitarians, caused "theological controversy and inevitable fragmentation." Caffyn was a man with "unconventional ideas" and "inflexible tenacity." His Christology, Brown claims, "was strongly maintained by the Sussex churches, [but] introduced a serious division." (10)

Brown's analysis of Caffyn's effect on the General Baptists continues the path of making assumptions about what caused division among the General Baptists. Brown's analysis appears to be theologically driven rather than historically grounded. Why is the case made that Caffyn caused division as an inflexible person? Why are Caffyn's supporters not given a greater voice in the narrative? While Caffyn's opponents found him to be inflexible, did his supporters find him to be contending for a faith based on the Bible rather than non-biblical creeds or conciliar statements? Why is it not the case that Caffyn's opponents caused division by being inflexible and insisting that members of the General Assembly must be Trinitarian? Caffyn certainly did not claim that Trinitarians should be denied a role in the General Assembly. Could it be that this anti-Caffyn perspective was at least as responsible for the division as Caffyn's insistence that his view (which he held to be grounded in the New Testament) deserved a seat at the table of General Baptist life?

Leon McBeth's 1987 publication, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, likewise implicates Caffyn as the source of General Baptist division. (11) McBeth's description reflects the way Caffyn's opponents described him without including Caffyn's own self-understanding. These descriptions become part of McBeth's narrative of Caffyn, rather than a narrative of Caffyn's opponents. Caffyn was, according to McBeth, a man who denied orthodox Christology because he was "unable to explain the Trinity to his own satisfaction, [and] concluded that it must not be true." When Caffyn's fellow pastor and friend, Joseph Wright, brought charges to the General Assembly that Caffyn was heterodox and deserving of expulsion, no mention is made of the possibility that Wright was the divisive figure. The General Assembly's rejection of Wright's proposal, according to McBeth, motivated Caffyn to spread "his views even more openly." (12) The story could be told, however, identifying Wright as the divisive figure. After all, he called for the expulsion of Caffyn and not the other way around. In fact, the General Assembly censured Wright for being divisive.

McBeth continues the assumption of previous Baptist historians that Caffyn's supporters introduced division. His study does not entertain the possibility that Caffyn's supporters were simply contending for the Bible alone as the basis for doctrine. Caffyn's opponents could have been contending for the historic faith, but they also could have been pressing General Baptists to adopt doctrinal tests that required non-biblical language. McBeth does in one brief section use the language of General Assembly leaders in describing why Trinitarian tests should be rejected. Caffyn's supporters believed that the basis of doctrinal discussions on the Trinity should be in "scripture words and terms, and no other." (13) Moreover, no person was to challenge the specific beliefs of another person in the General Assembly if that person could confess to being a Christian committed to the New Testament. McBeth exceeded the limitations of earlier historians by including more diverse sources to explain the division. However, he still concludes that the decision to use "scripture words and terms" only in explaining doctrinal ideas meant that the "General Baptists chose denominational unity at the expense of doctrinal agreement." (14) Yet one could reach alternate conclusions about this development based on the sources cited. Perhaps General Baptists chose as their basis of doctrinal agreement the belief that the New Testament is the sufficient ground for Christian belief and practice. General Baptists in the 1700s would hardly have had a self-understanding that their commitment was to unity rather than doctrinal agreement. In fact, the General Baptists who supported Caffyn did so out of a sense of doctrinal commitment and a desire to purge the Baptist faith from what they perceived to be non-biblical vestiges.

Two general Baptist histories from the twenty-first century exemplify how Caffyn's presence has been treated by the most recent surveys of the Baptists. David W. Bebbington's Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (2010) repeats the assumption that Caffyn's views caused division among the General Baptists. He also claims that Caffyn and other non-Trinitarians derived their beliefs from Enlightenment rationalism. Bebbington describes Caffyn's position in the language of Caffyn's opponents rather than Caffyn's own language. Caffyn held a view that reflected an "Arian rejection of his [Christ's] coequal divinity with the Father." This view, Bebbington continues, created a "breach with Caffyn's co-religionists further north who remained orthodox." (15) However, Arianism was not a self-descriptor for Caffyn, nor did Caffyn cite Enlightenment rationalism as the basis for his beliefs. Those sharing Caffyn's views, likewise, did not see themselves as Arians or rationalists. They saw themselves as non-creedal Baptists for whom the only needed test of fellowship was commitment to the six principles of Hebrews 6:1-2. For Bebbington, though, General Baptist failure to embrace Trinitarian thought as a doctrinal standard was a major source of their decline. This failure meant that General Baptists in the majority had adopted a "sober rational teaching [that] was less likely to stir ordinary people than a more full-blooded challenge based on the doctrines that had mobilized Baptists in the previous century." (16)

However, was it "full-blooded" Trinitarian thought that guided John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, or was it their commitment to follow what they understood to be the New Testament practice of believer's baptism? Was it biblicism and a rejection of tradition that guided these Baptists to form a movement? Was Caffyn a sober rationalist creating division, or was he a firm biblicist contending for the faith of the previous century?

Bill Leonard's survey Baptist Ways: A History (2003) is the lone departure in this study from the firm theological presuppositions that shape the conclusions of those historical surveys examined above. Like Bebbington, Leonard devotes much less space to a discussion of Caffyn. Leonard's study, however, follows a more neutral description of the events surrounding Caffyn's leadership. While Leonard describes Caffyn's Christology as a denial of the divinity of Jesus, as opposed to an affirmation of the limited Christology of the New Testament, his brief description uses no other loaded terminology. Leonard also uses favorable language to describe both Caffyn's opponents and supporters. Both groups, according to Leonard, acted out of a deep fidelity to the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice. Those attracted to Caffyn's views were pulled in his direction by "biblical arguments" for supporting such views. Caffyn sympathizers insisted that Trinutarian dogmas were not clearly evident in Scripture." Baptists during this period held numerous doctrinal positions, all of which, they claimed, were grounded in the Bible. Leonard's brief description does not claim that Caffyn caused the divisions among the General Baptists. In fact, he makes no claim about the cause of conflict. (17)

Baptist Historiography and the New Connection

A review of the same historiography reveals varying degrees of similar presuppositions related to the ministry of Daniel Taylor (1738-1816) and his role in the resurgence of General Baptist life in the late 1700s. All celebrate the rise of Taylor, who formed a group of Wesleyan-inspired General Baptists known as the "New Connection." Taylor's New Connection, to be certain, was the only General Baptist movement to survive the 1700s. The causes of General Baptist renewal in the New Connection and the demise of the older General Baptist Assembly are less certain, although historians tend to attribute the strength of the former to a combination of revivalist piety and orthodox Trinitarian thought. Again, however, such an assessment seems to be an assumption rather than a historically supported conclusion.

Whitley devotes little attention to Taylor in A History of British Baptists (1923), but what attention is given portrays Taylor in a positive manner, Whitley notes that Taylor organized the New Connection in 1770 and approached like-minded individuals in the General Assembly. When negotiations for a full union eventually fell through, Whitley writes, the New Connection and General Assembly did enter into a limited union known as the "Old Connection" in 1786. (18) Whitley does criticize the New Connection churches on this point, but only because they did not involve themselves more actively in the organization's life and leadership. Had Taylor been a more active member of the body, Whitley argues, then the orthodox leaders "could have forced a clear issue" about theology and possibly revived the old body. (19) Whitley does not make a clear statement about Taylor or clarify why Taylor and the New Connection should have forced the issue, but the implication seems to be that a failure to reach full General Baptist unity and vitality lay at the feet of Dan Taylor and the New Connection churches.

Underwood's A History of the English Baptists (1947) devotes more space to the story of Dan Taylor and the New Connection than does Whitley. While he celebrates Taylor's work, Underwood is hardly hortatory in his tone, even mentioning some of Taylor's weaknesses. Nonetheless, he writes with a preference for New Connection General Baptists that results in less attention on General Baptists of the original General Assembly. Moreover, he mentions that Taylor, in response to increased Unitarian theology and universalism, formally withdrew from the General Baptist Assembly in 1803. Underwood ceases his already-thin description of the original General Assembly at this point, stating that it "may now drop out of our story, having become virtually Unitarian." (20) This historical narrative assumes that Taylor was justified in leaving the old General Assembly and claims that the old General Assembly had ceased to be Baptist by 1803. However, it is more likely in 1803 they were small "u" Unitarians who still self-identified as "Baptist." Moreover, the case could be made that had Taylor remained in the old General Assembly, their Baptist identity could have remained intact.

Raymond Brown's discussion of Taylor's New Connection also presents Taylor's evangelicals as the positive, creative forces among the General Baptists. The narrative relies on pro-Taylor sources and includes favorable interpretative comments about those associated with the New Connection. Those General Baptists with a more Unitarian Christology are portrayed as lacking vitality and sowing division. The Unitarian Baptists are not described in their own words, but rather it is the words of their New Connection opponents that comprise Brown's interpretive assessment. For example, Brown describes the New Connection's hesitancy to affiliate with the General Assembly as a concern centered on "theological laxity." Thus, the "doctrinal indifference" of the General Assembly, meaning the General Assembly's refusal to require Trinitarian belief, caused the split between the two groups. (21)

However, when Brown describes the New Connection's hesitancy to enter a doctrinally-based partnership with Particular Baptists, he also uses favorable terms. In this case the hesitancy to sign a creed with Particulars is attributed to the New Connection's commitment to "a personal experience of Christ rather than a precisely defined creed." (22) Again, the perspective of the New Connection has shaped the historical conclusions of this modern historian. When the New Connection resists Calvinism by refusing a doctrinal test, it is being warmly evangelical. For Brown, when the New Connection refused an alliance with the General Assembly because the General Assembly had no doctrinal test, the New Connection was being faithful and the General Assembly was losing vitality and contributing to the decline of General Baptists.

Brown does note that the criticisms went only in one direction until 1801. Prior to that date, Taylor's supporters frequently criticized the General Assembly for what they saw as a deficient Christology. From the perspective of the General Assembly, the absence of a specific Christology grew out of a commitment to a broad-based fellowship as opposed to doctrinal laxity. One could just as easily propose that the New Connection was fomenting discord and departing from an affirmation of the Bible alone. In 1801 the General Assembly finally challenged the New Connection's criticisms. The criticism of the New Connection "aggravate[d] the existing situation," Brown writes, and "was to prove disastrous." (23)

While it is true that the New Connection pulled away from the General Assembly because of this criticism, Brown faults the General Assembly rather than Taylor and the New Connection. Such a condemnatory judgment, however, is hard for the historian to make. Why was the General Assembly wrong? Why was the New Connection virtuous and faithful? What is the causal connection between the General Assembly's broad basis of unity and General Baptist decline? Brown provides no causal connection; he only speculates that the General Baptist Assembly's broad basis of union caused problems for the movement. Is it possible that Dan Taylor's insistence on a firm doctrinal standard harmed the General Assembly?

McBeth's The Baptist Heritage (1987) includes a thorough discussion of the New Connection. McBeth's language, and the language he chooses to quote, is less strident. Like the previously mentioned historians, McBeth celebrates the New Connection and portrays Taylor as a warm evangelical standing on 200 years of Baptist tradition. He devotes less space to describing the error of the General Assembly. However, he discusses at length (and celebrates) the New Connection and Taylor's belief system. (24) The General Assembly receives very little attention. According to McBeth, "The New Connection brought spiritual renewal to the General Baptists, at least for a time. It sought to recover doctrinal orthodoxy, spiritual vitality, and meaningful worship." (25) For McBeth, the story of General Baptists during the 1700s and early 1800s is the story of the New Connection. The General Assembly of the General Baptists is barely mentioned in the analysis of this period, except to say that Dan Taylor affiliated with the General Assembly for a time, but later withdrew. Taylor's voice of opposition to non-Trinitarian Christology takes center stage. Those supporting the General Assembly and opposing what they perceived to be non-biblical doctrinal tests are left out of McBeth's historical account.

Leonard's survey of the New Connection, like his discussion of Matthew Caffyn, avoids most of the assumptions about the reasons for General Baptist decline. In fact, his two-page discussion, while significantly briefer than McBeth's, focuses primarily on the New Connection's developments outside the General Assembly. The New Connection's dissatisfaction with the General Assembly does not occupy a large part of Leonard's analysis. According to Leonard, Dan Taylor and his followers started the New Connection because of their disagreement with the "antiquated methods, theological debates, and a weakened Christology of the General Baptists." (26) This brief historical statement is the extent of Leonard's explanation of the reasons Taylor formed an alternative General Baptist organization. Leonard limits his narrative to statements grounded in the historical documents and avoids loaded language or assumptions that theologically privilege Taylor and the New Connection. His description of the attempt to unite the New Connection and the General Assembly is limited to a single, factual statement without unproven assumption or even supported interpretation. Instead, Leonard simply writes that Gilbert Boyce "made an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the two Baptist groups." (27)

Conclusion

By the end of the 1600s, General Baptists at local, regional, and national levels experienced conflict over numerous issues, including issues connected with Christology. Historians of Baptist origins and early Baptist life rightly discuss General Baptist life during this period and rightly record that the only General Baptist movement to survive this period was the group of Trinitarian General Baptists who cast their lot with Daniel Taylor's New Connection. This conclusion is accurate and based on sound historical research. However, it is at this point that most historians depart from historical methodology and use assumptions and loaded language in describing why General Baptists experienced division and decline.

As has been shown, many modern historians of Baptist history employ in their general surveys language that privileges the Trinitarian commitments of Matthew Caffyn's opponents and Taylor's New Connection. It naturally follows, then, that the reasons for decline in General Baptist life (a "decline," by the way, that is rarely defined) can be traced to leaders such as Caffyn and his supporters in the General Assembly who were unitarian in their Christology. Those who were Trinitarian, but who supported the inclusion of Unitarian Baptists in their fellowship, are generally presented as theologically compromising Baptists. Yet, attributing General Baptist decline to the presence and influence of Unitarian thought is an unproven assumption. Such assumptions may, in fact, prove to be true, but the historiography bears out that the theological position of Caffyn's opponents, Daniel Taylor, and the New Connection are used as the frame of reference.

Missing in the historical analysis is a thorough investigation of the primary documents of all of the key individuals, as well as congregations. Additionally, what is meant by "decline"? Or, are there other possible explanations for what happened among the General Baptists of the period and why? Significant questions about Matthew Caffyn also persist. It does not appear that Caffyn thought himself to be a heretic with a weak Christology. Instead, he seems to have been committed to what he saw as a pure New Testament Christology purified from the non-biblical influences of church tradition. Caffyn did not seek to ban Trinitarianism among the General Baptists, but his opponents sought to ban unitarianism from the General Assembly. Likewise, Taylor's New Connection pushed the General Assembly for a well-defined Christology, yet the General Assembly's rejection of this demand is presented as a decline.

Why did General Baptists decline? Why did Taylor's New Connection emerge and thrive? Historians answering these questions in surveys of Baptist history have to date mostly answered with assumptions rather than conclusions. Further research in the primary sources is required if these questions are to be asked accurately and answered adequately. It is clear that Matthew Caffyn spread Unitarian Christology and Dan Taylor insisted on Trinitarian Christology. Was Matthew Caffyn wrong to spread Unitarian Christology? Was Dan Taylor right to insist on a Trinitarian Christology? These may be questions historians are unable to answer.

(1) Glenn Jonas reviewed a version of this article and offered valuable suggestions. I use the word "Unitarian" and "unitarianism" with a lower case "u" to reflect the belief system of non-Trinitarian Baptist Christians of the period who thought of themselves as Baptists, rather than non-Baptist members of the Unitarian Church.

(2) William T. Whitley, A History of British Baptists (London: Charles Griffin and Company, 1923), 172.

(3) Ibid., 174.

(4) Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1950).

(5) Ibid., 88.

(6) Ibid.

(7) Alfred C. Underwood, A History of the English Baptists (London: The Carey Kingsgate Press Limited, 1947), 106.

(8) Ibid, 127.

(9) Raymond Brown, The English Baptists of the 18th Century (London: The Baptist Historical Society, 1986), 20.

(10) Ibid., 21.

(11) H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987).

(12) Ibid., 156.

(13) Ibid., 157.

(14) Ibid.

(15) David W. Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 68-69.

(16) Ibid., 69.

(17) Bill Leonard, Baptist Ways; A History (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2003), 95-96.

(18) Whitley, A History of British Baptists, 221.

(19) Ibid. Torbet follows Whitley on this, quoting the same line (A History of the Baptists, 100).

(20) Underwood, A History of the English Baptists, 155-156.

(21) Brown, The English Baptists of the 18th Century, 98.

(22) Ibid.

(23) Ibid.

(24) McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 158-170.

(25) Ibid., 170.

(26) Leonard, Baptist Ways, 97.

(27) Ibid.

Merrill M. Hawkins, Jr. is associate professor of counseling and religion at Carson-Newman University.