Featured Baptist Succession in 1674

I trust Kiffin on the actual issue being debated about in his manuscript than I do A.H. Newman. The issue being debated is whether or not the church Kiffin was a member originated from paedobaptists who originated immersion among themselves. Here is what Kiffin says about the origin of that church:

It is well known to many and especially to ourselves, that our congregations as they are now, were erected and framed according to the rule of Christ before we heard of any reformation even at the time when the episcopacy was at the height of its vanishing glory. – William Kiffin: A Brief Remonstrance of the Reasons of those People Called Anabaptists for their Separation. [London: 1645] p. 6


Albert H. Newman supposed that Kiffin had referred to the Presbyterian reformation begun in 1640. However, Dr. John T. Christian researched this quotation and found that it had been written to Mr. Joseph Richart who understood Kiffin to refer to the Episcopal Reformation in the time of Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547). Christian's conclusion is further supported by primary source material coming from Hensard Knollys.

Hensard Knollys asserted that these churches had been gathered by properly ordained ministers who had been driven into the city due to persecution:

I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) that they were thus gathered; Viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the ministry, being driven out of the countries where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates [Episcopalians – R.E.P.] came to soujourn in this great city, and preached from house to house….– Hensard Knollys, A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwicks’s Book Called Independency not God’s Ordinance, London, 1645.

Both quotes deny these churches were organized and framed by paedobaptists or paedobaptist ministers or that they self-orignated immersion in 1641. So these primary sources supports Christian's conclusions on the Kiffin manuscript more than A. H. Newmans. This Kiffin manuscript is over 150 years after the fact.

The more probable theory is that such ordained ministers coming in from the country sides preached to pedobaptists separatists or even came among their secret assemblies and challenged their paedbaptism and formed the converts into the first Baptist churches.

 

I think the documentary evidence if read in the light of the historical context supports the continuation of immersion long before 1641. For example, both Daniel King's and John Spilisbury's writings argue for the perpetuity of immersion since the apostles time to their present time.No unbiased reader could possibly miss this point. Their logical deductions were based upon the promises of perpetuity of the church in scriptures.

The detractors argue that their "John the Baptist" illustration was proof that they did in fact reintroduce immersion anew. This argument was given to the Pedobaptists who denied they had any historical evidence to support their Biblical based interpretation of church succession. Moreover, I believe that deduction is a complete and utter failure to carefully read and follow their arguments. If in fact they believed it had ceased and they had reintroduced it, they would not have simply provided an "if" scenario based on John the Baptist but would have owned it as their Biblical basis for having actually done so. Nowhere, do they own it, and Crosby completely denies that immersion among them was self-originated or came from paedobaptists, as does knolley's and Kiffin. However, Daniel King explicitly points to this "john the Baptist" argument and explicitly says it was merely a theoretical argument. They did not have any written history of the Baptists at this point. Significantly, when John Spittlehouse and John Moore produced their work "A Vindication of the CONTINUED SUCCESSION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST (NOW SCANDALOUSLY TERMED ANABAPTISTS) FROM THE APOSTLES UNTO THIS PRESENT TIME" in 1652 the "John the Baptist" argument was completely dropped and never used again among these Baptists, because now they had some historical evidence for perpetuity in addition to their Bible based evidence. These later works were a "VINDICATION" of their early Bible based arguments.

 

I don't think John T. Christian questioned that it was Poole that kiffin was addressing, as he obviously read the treatise, but Christian was tracing the wording of the phrase being used by Kiffin to answer Pooles objection to another source - Mr. Joseph Richart. Thus Kiffin was hitting two birds with one stone.

A. H. Newman places the date "1640" as the start of the Presbyterian Reformation in England. This letter is written in 1645. Kiffin says,

"As to the second part of your querie, That we disturb the great Work of Reformation now in hand; [1645] I know not what you mean by this charge, unless it be to discover your prejudice against us, in Reforming our selves before you,[1640]"

Hence, his repetitive assertion of having been "separated" from their churches cannot refer to the Presbyterian Reformation of 1640 but from the Episcopalian church prior to 1640 "before" the Presbyterians themselves separated from the Church of England. "even at the time when the episcopacy was at the height of its....glory" that was only now "vanishing" (1645). The "height" of the glory of the Church of England cannot be dated anywhere during the 17th century but must be dated in about the middle of the 16th century.

Futhermore, there is no issue about the mode of baptism but only the subjects of baptism (infants). Again, this supports Christian's argument that immersion was far older than the Presbyterian reformation during the 1500's when there are several records of Anabaptists refusing the baptism of children without any hint of the mode being the problem. Yet, immersion was the well known mode of baptists at the time of this written debate. Hence, this is another proof that Whitsitts 1641 date is completely errorneous concerning immersion in England by Baptist.

Since Kiffin outrightly claimed the constitution of their churches in London occurred "before" the separation of the Presbyterians from the church of England, while the Church of England was at the "height of its....glory" than Knolly's statement is fully supported when he claimed they had been framed and constittuted not by paedobaptists ministers or paedobaptist members in London, but by ministers already approved by churches existing outside of London long "before" 1640 even at the "height" of the Church of England's "glory" during the middle 1500's.

Moreover, Knolly's comment that these ministers outside of London had previously been approved before entering London indicates clearly of older Baptist churches outside of London before these seven churches were constituted. This supports the archaelogical evidences drawn from the church graveyards of the Hillcliffe and "church of the Hop Garden" which date their churches back to the late 1400's.

Furthermore, all of these Baptists (including Kiffin in this response) argued for the perpetuity of Baptists based upon the New Testament Scriptures perpetuated to their present day. If the origin of Baptists was no different than the origin of the Presbyterians - the Church of England as paedobaptists who merely restored immersion among themselves and self-originated the first Baptist church in London, then Knolly's response to the constitution of these churches would be an outright lie. Whitsit was obviously in error or Kiffin was lying as Kiffin said that they were constituted not merely "before" the Presbyterian Reformation (1640) but during the time that the church of England "was at the height of its vanishing glory."

Lofton dates the Presbyterian Reformation to the years 1643-1649 but that does not help his argument in the least, because Kiffin says Baptist church were formed "before" that, when the church of England was at the "height of its.....glory" and the "height" of the church of England was certainly a very long time before 1643.

Also, the fact that Kiffin was arguing about being "separated" from Presbyterians "BEFORE" they had separated from the church of England proves he was addressing the Presbyterians at the time when they were essentially one with the Church of England when the church of England was in the "height of its....glory."

John T. Christian correctly interpreted Kiffin. When Kiffin and Knolly's statements are taken together the picture is clear. Ministers from other Baptist churches had arrived in London "before" the 1640 [or 1643) Presyberian reformation when the Church of England "was at its height of vanishing glory" [1550] and constituted them out of former paedobaptist materials. The "height of its.. glory" that was now vanishing (1645) would be in the days of Henry VIII. There are numerous accounts of laws enacted against Anabaptists during the period of Henry VIII, in keeping with John T. Christian's interpretation of the language being used by Kiffen being traced to Joseph Richart who understood Kiffin to mean exactly that.

Anyway you look at this, Whitsitt, Lofton and Newman are proven wrong and Christian is vindicated.

 

I am just sticking to the language used by Kiffin. He says this in 1645. He says the Baptists were "before" the Presbyterian Reformation, and if Newman's date for that reformation is 1640 than Baptists preceded 1640.

He additionally says that the time that Baptists preceded the Presbyterian Reformation was "at the time" when the "espiscopacy was in the height of its....glory." There many records throughout the 16th century of laws enacted against Anabaptists and Kiffin and these churches were being called "Anabaptists" by the Presbyterians.

The phrases "before you" and "at the time when the episcopacy" cannot refer to the same time or same Presbyterian reformation.

My own research of the records provide plentiful primary source materials of Anabaptists between 1550-1640 in England. In 1641 for the very first time in England Baptists were allowed to publish their views.

Objective analysis simply does not support Whitsitt's view. I believe there is an ecclesiology bias at work. ALL who embrace whitsittism are advocates of the universal invisible church theory - ALL. However, that theory cannot be found within Reformation Anabaptist Confessions or in any Baptist Confession not only up to 1641 but at least up to 1689. I would argue that it is not found in the 1689 Confession but is being repudiated if that confession is interpreted in light of the Westminster Confession. Section one only allows for the glory church of all the elect in all ages but sections 2-15 carefully repudiates the Reformed doctrine of a universal invisible church.