amicably managed, in a Baptist church at Spilshill, in the parish of Staplehurst, Kent, on account of a difference of opinion regarding the Trinity; a part of the flock had embraced the teaching of Caffyn. There was room for latitude in the treatment of this article among the Arminian baptists, for in their 'Brief Confession' of March 1660 neither the Trinity nor the Godhead of Christ is explicitly stated. Caffyn did not vent his views in print, but in his preaching he avoided 'unrevealed sublimities,' and in conversation he owned his disagreement with material points in the Athanasian creed. His views were at least susceptible of an Arian interpretation. Accordingly, Joseph Wright denounced him to the general baptist assembly of 1691 as denying both the divinity and the humanity of Christ, and moved for his excommunication. What Joshua Toulmin calls Caffyn's 'truly protestant and ingenious defence' satisfied the assembly. Wright returned to the charge in 1693, but again the assembly refused to censure Caffyn. Wright withdrew and protested. The matter was agitated outside the assembly, and at length the Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire churches demanded and re-demanded (1699) a further trial, and the assembly agreed to go into the case at Whitsuntide of 1700. They fulfilled this promise by appointing a committee of eight, including four of the complainants, to confer with Caffyn and draw up a healing resolution. The committee were unanimous in offering a declaration which evaded rather than determined the points in dispute; and the assembly recorded its satisfaction with Caffyn's defence. Just before the next assembly, Christopher Cooper of Ashford published a reply to 'The Moderate Trinitarian,' &c., 1699, by Daniel Allen, whose work seems to have inspired the mediating policy of the assembly's committee. Cooper charges Caffyn with unsoundness respecting Adam's fall, Christ's satisfaction, and the soul's immortality; he quotes a description of Caffyn's opinions as 'nothing but a fardel of Mahometanism, Arianism, Socinianism, and Quakerism.' At the same time he admits that Caffyn took pains to convert Socinians. He deplores the spread of Caffyn's errors 'in Kent, Sussex, and London, but especially in West Kent.' When the assembly met (1701) the Northamptonshire churches complained that Caffyn had not been properly tried. The assembly, after debate, affirmed by a large majority that Caffyn's declaration, with his signature to 'the aforesaid expedient,' was sufficient and satisfactory. The minority seceded, and formed a new connexion under the name