In gratitude for a lack of neglect: a second response to Kegan Chandler

Stephen Holmes, responding to Kegan Chandler, first points out that continuing academic conversation is beneficial, even if authors do not agree in every aspect of interpretation and conclusion. Holmes agrees that European anti-trinitarianism before 1700 was not rationalist, but biblicist. Matthew Caffyn (1628–1714) fits into this pattern, even if it is debatable to what extent he can be described as ‘anti-trinitarian’. However, the author enters into further discussion on a number of topics concerning whatit means to be (General) Baptist —in other words, what is the nature of a tradition —and he clarifies some interpretative claims in the light of understandingsof Christian orthodoxy. A section in this article is devoted to Caffyn’s theological views, especially his Christology. Holmes hopes that his reflections at least clarify where he and Chandler disagree, and why. Holmes concludes, ‘The fact that there are scholars who care enough about Caffyn and the General Baptists to dispute interpretations, andjournals that consider such disputes worth publishing, is a joy.