Baptist Succession in 1674

[West Kentucky Baptist]

Even IF Kiffin is referring to the Presbyterian reformation, this quote still goes against Whitsittism. Notice the quote again:

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

Whitsitt and many modern Baptist historians would have us to believe that the English Particular Baptists "rediscovered" immersion in 1641. However Kiffin says "our congregations as they are now, were erected and framed according to the rule of Christ before..."

Notice the words - "Before" and "rule of Christ" Kiffin is saying the English Particular Baptist churches were formed and holding to believer's immersion hold before 1641!

Kiffin is not talking about the early General Baptist churches because he and the other early Particular Baptists did not consider them New Testament churches.

By the way, back in 2010 I asked the leading SBC Baptist Historian about this quote. I ran into him at an SBC annual meeting and asked him personally. He told me he had never heard of this quote!!

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, we're going round and round. Kiffin said the Baptists originated before the "Reformation," which I interpret as the Presbyterian Reformation, based upon the context of the document. The Anglican Church was at the height of its glory not in under Henry (who was, in effect, its pope and throttled the bishops) but under Laud, whose high church sympathies were not curtailed until Parliament removed him and a dozen other bishops in 1640, thus initiating the Presbyterian Rerformation.

The term "glory" could not characterize the Church of England after 1603 as the decline of the church of England began in that year not its "glory." There is only one other possible period that can be called the "glory" period of the Church of England if it is not during Henry VIII and that is the Elizabethian period where Catholicism was severely persecuted without toleration until the ascension of James 1 in 1603. Moreover, most historians use the very term "glory" to describe the Elizabetheian period but never use that term for the period under Laud. Indeed the period under Laud was the period of the decline of the church of England.

So, I would challenge you to provide any credible historian that would characterize 1603-1688 as anything other than the period of decline of the Church of England. I would also challenge you to find any credible historian who denies the Elizabethian period is the "glory" period of the church of England as all historians use that very term to describe this period in relationship to the periods that immediately precede and follow it.

Laud was in the "vanishing glory" period while it is either King Henry VIII or Elizabeth that can only be called the "HEIGHT of its....glory" period.

I am sure you are very well aware of the many accounts of laws passed against Anabaptists during the 16th century in England long before the 1633 Spilsbury date. I think Christian demonstrated that immersion was not the issue in 15th century England as it was practiced by the church of England with regard to infants. Hence, the issue was not immersion but the subjects for immersion.

That the Baptists' reformation antedates the Presbyterians' is not in dispute.

The Generals had churches dating back to the teens and twenties. Spilsbury's church dates back to 1633; Kiffin joined in 1635. All were previous to the Presbyterian ascendancy and thus the Presybyterian Reformation.

Well, obviously Whitsitt was wrong on all counts then wasn't he????