ON THE HISTORY OF THE GENERAL BAPTISTS.

To the Editor.

SIR, Loughborough, May 4, 1827. I HAVE been lately reading the History of the General Baptists, by Adam Taylor, a member of the New Connexion of General Baptists, who form the principal body of Dissenters in this place and neighbourhood. As their history and principles are in general little known among us, perhaps a brief abstract of this history may be acceptable to the readers of the Repository. The first volume is the history of the English General Baptists in the seventeenth century, and it is obviously the purpose of the author to represent them as universally Arminian Trinitarians, and thus to charge the old connexion of General Baptists with having entirely departed from the creed of their forefathers. But it is evident, that the principles of free inquiry and of the right of individual judgment, equally justify the present race in departing from the creed of their ancestors, as they justify those ancestors in separating from the Church of England. Besides, this history contains many proofs that, even at a very early period of their history, many individuals among the General Baptists were scarcely believers in the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, in 1654, a letter was written beginning, "The brethren in and about Caxton and Fenstanton, in the counties of Huntingdon and Cambridge, to the faithful in Christ Jesus at Canterbury, wish grace, mercy, and peace from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." This is indeed scriptural language, but, I think, it would hardly have been employed by rigid Trinitarians. Their reasonings in favour of liberty of conscience were very explicit and excellent. Thus, in 1662, they published an address to the King, Parliament, and People," in which they oppose the right of the magistrate to impose any thing in the worship or service of God." In 1677, a friendly separation was agreed upon in the Church at Spilshill, Kent, on account of a difference of opinion on the Trinity, part of the congregation and some of the preachers having embraced the tenets of Mr. Caffin, which bordered very closely, at least, upon what are now called Unitarian sentiments. The author allows "that there was not any system of doctrine and discipline universally adopted by the General Baptists. Among such a number of professors, each a jealous advocate for the right of private judgment, it would be unreasonable to expect complete uniformity either in sentiment or practice." Most of them no doubt were Trinitarians, yet it is obvious that there were Unitarians among them. It was early objected to them," that some of them held that Christ is not the true God." They certainly in a great measure explained away the doctrine of original sin. They said, that "the same penalties that were inflicted on our first parents for that sin, which penalties are death, and those temporal miseries that came upon them as the effect of that sin, do certainly come upon their posterity. They are brought into a mortal, dying state, liable to all the miseries of this life, and, in fine, to death itself. But, that this transgression did procure in itself the second death in the lake of fire or hell torments, either to Adam himself or any of his posterity, as is by some not only imagined but affirmed; as it is a doctrine that is altogether scriptureless and so false, so it is altogether irrational; from whence it has no room in our faith." Dr. Wall, vicar of Shoreham, in Kent, published a work against them in 1705, in which he says, They have some Socinians that creep in among them; but I have not heard of one church or congregation of them that makes profession of that doctrine." This is probably a correct statement of their situation at that time. They baptized "either

in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," or " in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Dr. Wall says, "some of them choose the latter." He insinuates that these were Socinians, "for they have many such among them."

These facts, I think, clearly prove, that though the majority of the General Baptists in the seventeenth century were Trinitarians, yet there were several Unitarians among them. But a still clearer proof of this was given by the dissensions which arose among them respecting the opinions of Mr. Caffin. This gentleman was minister of the congregation at Horsham, in Sussex, during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. Mr. Taylor admits that he was a minister eminent for his diligence and success, a man of good natural abilities, which had been improved by a liberal education." He was accused first by Mr. Wright, of Maidstone, of heresy; but the General Assembly resolved to maintain amity and friendship with him. Mr. Caffin acknowledged, "that there were some propositions in the Athanasian Creed which were above his understanding, after the most diligent and impartial examination, and therefore he never had, nor could as yet receive it as the standard of his faith." In 1693, the charge of denying the divinity of Christ was again brought against him, but the majority of the General Assembly refusing to expel him from their communion, a secession took place, and a long controversy arose among the General Baptists. The Assembly continued in communion with Mr. Caffin, and resolved," that all debates, public or private, respecting the Trinity, should be managed in Scripture words and terms, and no other." A separate connexion was formed under the title of the General Association. But after some time liberal sentiments prevailed. To these Mr. Taylor attributes the decline in numbers which took place among the General Baptists during the eighteenth century. But many more probable causes of this decrease may, I think, be seen in the nature of their connexion. They were indifferent as to the learning of their ministers. They had no academies to supply them with ministers. They did not take pains to support their ministers, most of whom carried on business, and seldom received any thing from the congregation, except travelling expenses: and when the increase of the cause rendered it necessary to contribute to their support, it was yielded to with great reluctance. Thus, when the fervour of zeal excited by their separation from the Church had subsided, there was no provision for keeping up religious instruction among them. Their churches and assemblies also were often very punctilious about trifles, especially slight differences in forms of worship, and expelled members on this account. These causes, with the decline of zeal for a ceremonial observance, will, I think, sufficiently account for the decrease in the numbers of the General Baptists.

The second volume of this work contains the history of the new connexion. This arose in Leicestershire, from the exertions of several persons who were at first connected with the Methodists of Lady Huntingdon's society, and who, after having collected several followers, became Baptists : two of their preachers baptizing each other, as a commencement of this ordinance. In 1762, Mr. Dan Taylor began to preach first among the Wesleyan Methodists, near Halifax, but not being satisfied with their discipline he separated from them, and, becoming a Baptist, was baptized by the minister of the General Baptist Church at Gamston, in Nottinghamshire. This brought him into connexion with the Lincolnshire Association of General Baptists. But he became acquainted with the Baptists in Leicestershire, and finding their sentiments more nearly resembling his own than those of the Lincolnshire Association, he persuaded them to form a

new connexion in 1770. The differences at this time between the old and the new connexions will be seen from a letter addressed by the Rev. G. Boyce, Messenger of the Lincolnshire Association, to Mr. D. Taylor.

Mr. Boyce says, "You believe, according to what you have written to me, that pure Deity or Godhead is one, pure, simple, uncompounded, undivided essence or being, in which is contained all perfection. So do I. I also understand you to believe, that this one all-perfect Being, Deity, or Godhead, is self-existent, independent, and eternal; infinite, unchangeable, and incomprehensible. So do I. In these two most august and grand points we are agreed. In the next place you believe, or at least I understand you to believe, there are three persons, distinct from each other, revealed to us under the titles or characters of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that these three persons do, independently of each other, equally possess all perfection: or, in other words, that these three persons make up that one, pure, simple, uncompounded, undivided Deity; or, that these three persons, considered as above, are but one God. In this we differ. You believe that Jesus Christ is the most high God. In this we differ. You do not seem to believe that the person who is called the Word, John i. 1, came down from heaven. Herein we are not agreed." From this statement, it is probable, that Mr. Boyce was an Arian, while the members of the new connexion were Trinitarians. It is plain, however, that the cause of division was, that the formers of the new connexion insisted on a subscription to a Trinitarian creed, while the members of the old connexion chose to leave their ministers and members at liberty to form their own opinions from Scripture. The Association of the new connexion drew up six articles "on the Fall of Man, the Nature and Perpetual Obligation of the Moral Law, the Person of Christ, Salvation by Faith, Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and Baptism." These articles are drawn up on the principles of Arminian Trinitarianism, declaring "that Jesus Christ is God and man united in one person; that we are justified by faith; that when a person comes to believe in Jesus, and not before, he is regenerated or renewed in his soul, by the Spirit of God; that it is the indispensable duty of all who repent and believe the gospel, to be baptized by immersion in water." They agreed "that no minister be permitted to join this Assembly who does not subscribe these articles, and that those who do subscribe, and afterwards depart from them, shall be considered as no longer belonging to this Assembly." Many attempts at a reunion were made, especially between the Lincolnshire Association and that of the new connexion, but they failed, in consequence of the latter requiring subscription to their articles. The new connexion has much increased, and in this part of the country forms the largest body of Dissenters. Though very much cramped by subscription to articles, they are gradually becoming more liberal, especially in this town and the neighbouring village of Quorndon. Their other congregations are, I believe, more rigid in adhering to the six articles. They are a very active, zealous body, take a great deal of pains to diffuse their principles, encourage lay-preaching and missionary exertions both at home and abroad, and are increasing both in the middle and north of England.

I have thus endeavoured to give your readers some information respecting a body of Dissenters little known among Unitarians. If any of your friends of the Old General Baptist connexion can give us fuller information respecting the history of their own party, or the separation of the new connexion from them, they would oblige,

Yours, &c. T. C. HOLLAND.

VICARIOUS PUNISHMENT.

On the 26th November, 1824, Mr. Angelini, Professor of Languages, came before the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House, and made a statement to the following effect:

My Lord, he who has violated the law ought to perish by the sword of justice. Mr. Fauntleroy ought to perish by the sword of justice. If, however, another takes his place, I think justice ought to be satisfied. Now, I devote myself for Mr. Fauntleroy. I take upon myself his crime, and I wish to die to save him. He is a father, he is a citizen, his life is useful. Mine is a burden to the world. I am in good health, my mental faculties are unimpaired. I do not ask this in order to get my action spoken of, but I apply for it as a favour.

Mr. Angelini proceeded to support this request to die on the scaffold, with great energy of manner and uncommon external manifestation of sincerity.

The Lord Mayor expressed his surprise at so astonishing an application, and stated his doubts as to the soundness of the petitioner's faculties.—Mr. Angelini vehemently assured his Lordship of the perfect condition of his understanding. "Accordez moi cette grace," said he, "j'ai tout mon tête." He was informed that it was contrary to all justice, and to all practice too, as a man of his education might have known, that the life of an innocent person should be taken as a substitute for that of one who was guilty, however disposed the innocent person might be to make the sacrifice. -Mr. Angelini pleaded the example of Jesus Christ dying in the room of the guilty, and other considerations without effect.

On the day following he introduced himself to the Ordinary of Newgate, saying, that he had come to take the place of the convict, as he was very anxious that that person's life should be saved in consideration of his wife and family.

Such is the historical fact, as narrated in the public prints of the day. Now supposing the conversation with the Ordinary to have been prolonged, might it not have been to the following purport?

We by no means allege that any such conversation took place; for the truth is, that the Ordinary was then about to administer the Sacrament: and after remonstrating with Mr. Angelini on the absurdity of the application, on finding that the more objections he stated, the more noisy he became, he left him, desiring one of the officers to talk to him on the subject. Angelini, after some expressions of regret at not being allowed to die on the scaffold, suddenly quitted the prison, into which he had gained admission upon the strength of the Lord Mayor's name.

For the elucidation, however, of the principles of Angelini's application and the Lord Mayor's refusal, without presuming to take the smallest liberty with the Reverend Ordinary, we shall suppose the conversation to have proceeded with a fictitious personage holding his important office.

The Reverend Ordinary and Mr. Angelini.

Scene-Newgate.

Ordinary. Upon what principles is it, Mr. Angelini, that you persist in making this very extraordinary application?

Mr. Angelini. Very extraordinary application!

0. Yes, I must say very extraordinary application.

A. Not, however, unprecedented; but that you should call in question the principles on which it may be founded, I own to you excites in turn MY utter astonishment.

0. How so?

4. Because they are principles not only of ordinary, but of universal operation-principles in accordance with the sentiments and usages of mankind in all ages and countries-principles in conformity to the analogy of nature, and which constitute the very spirit and foundation of the Christian faith.

0. You take an extensive range of argument, though I am at a loss tɔ discover how it bears upon your suit. You wish to be received as the substitute of the unfortunate Fauntleroy: now I tell you plainly, what you yourself must know, that the law allows of no such substitution; neither is it conformable to the usages of mankind, nor consistent with the dispensation of justice.

A. My substitution may not, indeed, be strictly conformable to the usages of mankind, because few persons will be found so disinterested as to lay down their lives to save those of their guilty fellow-creatures, consequently the law takes its usual course. But if a case should occur, as in the present instance, that a person should present himself, whose most earnest wish it is, from the regard which he bears to the guilty, to take upon himself his crime, and suffer in his room, may not the law be satisfied, and all the ends of justice amply secured?

O. I do not see how this is possible. The law neither requires, nor can accept, of any satisfaction from you: for in no respect have you been known to infringe it. Were you, therefore, to suffer death under the sanction of the law, the ends of justice, so far from being served, would only be most grossly perverted for justice demands that the innocent be protected, and that the guilty alone should suffer.

A. But can no substitution be allowed ?-May I not relieve a person groaning under a burden and take it upon myself, and even carry it for him to the place of its destination? If I be a person of known wealth, would I ever be rejected as unfit for becoming surety for another who had incurred some trifling pecuniary obligation? Had Fauntleroy been incarcerated for debts instead of forgery, do you imagine that his creditors, if I should step forward and advance to the whole of their claims against him, would still detain him, and refuse the payment, because it was made by me? Or, supposing that they should be so perverse and so blind to their own interests, could any law or justice prevent me from supplying him with all the funds requisite to answer their demands? If, therefore, you allow of no substitution, you put an end, not only to the kindly offices, but even to common intercourse in society; but so long as the principles of our nature continue the same, this you cannot effect. If, then, in the ordinary transactions of men, there be nothing more commonly required or received than substitution, why may it not be accepted in the matter of life and death, as in the case of Damon and Pythias?-But substitution is the very principle which holds and binds society together. What, I pray you, are our gallant soldiers and sailors but so many substitutes for the rest of their countrymen, ready, for their sakes, to encounter danger and death? Instead of being treated with scorn, they are hailed as the defenders and heroes of their country; even their death is regarded as glorious, and costly monuments are erected to perpetuate their memory and their fame.