Eliza Gould at Stallenge Thorn, near Wellington, to John Feltham at Honiton, Devon, Sunday, 23 August 1795. 

The following is an excerpt for the above letter and details Eliza's shift in sentiments in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity away from her Particular Baptist roots and more toward the General Baptists and Unitarians, even though numerous Particular Baptist congregations in the 1780s and 1790s were composed of "mixed" hearers and members, some holding firm to the doctrine of the Trinity and others to Arianism and even Socinianism (although the latter was more rare).

. . . Your Ideas and mine respecting the Trinity are strictly coincident—the blind zeal of those who stile themselves Orthodox writers & preachers, have ever been inimical to the promulgation of religious knowledge & I might add I think (without any breach of charity) of truth likewise—the tenor of the Athanasian Creed is altogether such a complex medley of rash inconsistencies, and in every respect so very incomprehensible, that I wonder our right reverend fathers in God have never attempted its abolition—but absurd and wholly incomprehensible as it is, it nevertheless is the fundamental support, & the ground work, whereon is built an immense superstructure, the church, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail but the above cited passage according to any humble Idea refers to the Church of Christ & the members of which are those who worship him in Spirit & in Truth. Independent of all external forms & ceremonies, creeds, superstitions, austerities, consecrations, & mitres, gowns, lawn-sleeves, &c.  Did you ever read Reynolds’s epitaph on bigotry, it is bound with Watts’s Lyric Poems.[25] Athanasius was an uncharitable Bigot, & his creed is I think nearly on a par, in point of rationality, with the doctrines of infallibility, & transubstantiation, for they are equally absurd & inconsistent.  Religion is a personal thing, & in my opinion the first leading principle of Christianity is that of doing good—herein we honor God, & render unto him an acceptable Service.  Religion I am sure, to day is made the Stalking Horse of the self interested, the most profligate & abandoned, allured by the splendid emoluments annex’d to their profession; & not considering the great & important work in which they are engaged, doze out a useless Life in ease & Luxury—“with impure life, they appear only to honor God, whilst their mercenary hearts on Lucre bent make traffick of the Gospel”—God forbid I should in this respect speak generally, or judge uncharitably, there are many whom I know who are an ornament to their profession, & whose moral principles, & rectitude of character I venerate & esteem.  The leaven of priestcraft appears to have tinctured in some degree every class & sect of dissenters, that I know of, except the Quakers & Sandemanians—all fond of the loaves & fishes.  I am a great enemy to all church endowments,—wherever a society is form’d for the exercises of religion (be they of what Sect or party however they may) & the leading members of that Society unite in their choice & approbation of a minister, he ought I think to be supported by voluntary subscription, & then he will most likely be the choice of his people—& for this reason, and others, I am averse to a national establishment, as being productive of bad consequences in what manner it is so.   I have not now time sufficiently to enlarge on, nor can I by giving you my Ideas, communicate more on this subject than you are already convinced of—it is unscriptural & irrational (I think), in every point of view.  I am a dissenter, & half Quaker I think, in some of my Ideas—divest them of their singularities, & they are a People worthy to be imitated, tho I take for granted no mans opinion, the Scriptures I consider is our general rule of faith & practice, & on that I ground my belief.  Religion is as you very justly remark’d, plain & simple; a diversity of opinion & sentiment I believe was never more prevalent than now—& controv­ersy is enter’d on with that degree of warmth, as tho a mans salvation depended on his getting the better of an argument but it is the actions of a man that denominates him a Christian, it is that his life & conversation be correspondent with the Gospel—it is not “those that say Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven,” but whoso doeth the will of God.  Too many there are who consider religion to consist only—but I cannot write a word more—as Mrs Q wants me & I have written the whole of this letter at intervals—so what you will be able to make of it I dont know.    

                                                         yours &c in haste

                                                                     E Gould

Text: Flower Correspondence, National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth. For an annotated version of the complete letter, see Timothy Whelan, ed., Politics, Religion, and Romance:  The Letters of Benjamin Flower and Eliza Gould, 1794-1808 (Aberystywth: National Library of Wales, 2008), pp. 16-25.

The Athanasian Creed, which played a prominent role in the Book of Common Prayer, was Trinitarian, and consequently at this time not to Eliza’s liking.  Despite her upbringing among the Particular Baptists (a denomination whose theology was Calvinistic and Trinitarian), by the early 1790s Eliza had adopted an Arian position that rejected the co-equal status of Christ with God the Father. Daniel Turner (1710-98), Baptist minister at Abingdon, like his friend Robert Robinson (1735-90), Baptist minister at Cambridge (and his friend, Mary Hays of Southwark), appears to have had some leanings away from the orthodox position as suggested in a letter dated 14 June 1782, in which he was seeking a possible position for George Dyer (already a committed Arian who had recently ministered at Oxford) with a Particular Baptist congregation at Watford. Turner writes,

I am sorry to hear such news of Mr Smith whom I know very well. I can’t think what has turn’d the Man’s head so far from the Truth except it is the puzzling nonsensical unscriptural Manner the Orthodox people too generally take in maintaining the Doctrines of the Deity of Christ upon the stupid Athanasian plan—The Language of Job is as different from that of the Scriptures as darkness from Light. Let us not attempt to explain what is inexplicable. Who by Searchg can find out the Almighty? The Bible says it is the Word of God; I therefore believe it: The Bible, the Bible.  

(Daniel Turner: Letters, MSS, and Poems, 1743-82, FPC/c.55, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford)

The Sandemanians originated in Scotland under the leadership of John Glas (1695-1773) and his son-in-law, Robert Sandeman (1718-71).  Among the group’s major tenets was the complete separation of church and state; a belief in a “reasoned faith,” as opposed to emotion or “religious affections”; and the re-instituting of certain New Testament practices, such as the love feast, feet washing, a limited community of goods, and church governance by bishops, elders, and teachers.  Eliza correctly notes that, like the Quakers, the Sandemanians rejected the common practice of ministerial emolument.