Yet Kiffin is responding directly to Robert Poole's question:
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.
That Kiffin is referring to the Presbyterian reformation "now in hand" is borne out later in the pamphlet:
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.