Baptist History Homepage
Baptists in History
W. P. Harvey
Note: Many years ago this was published, along with "Why Baptists Are Not Protestants," as a booklet by Harold Sightler's "The Bright Spot Hour" in Greenville, South Carolina.
Preface
"Baptists in History" was published in 1892. The first issue of 5,000 copies was soon exhausted. The rapid sale of the second issue of 10,000 showed that Baptists took deep interest and pride in the history of their fathers, and led me to decide to revise and publish in a more permanent form.
Before I had done this the Whitsitt controversy began,
and I waited to learn and to give my readers the benefit
of anything new and true that might be brought to light.
I have read many books, ancient and modern, in the
course of my study of Baptist history, and they have
only confirmed my confidence in the correctness of the
position I took when "Baptists in History" first
appeared.
Introduction
by J. B. Moody, D.D.
Many are the issues that have grown out of the
discussion of the subject. introduced by these few lines.
All the Christian world believes that the promise of
Christ to perpetuate his church has in some way been
fulfilled. The different conclusions have grown out of
the different meanings of the terms used. Those who
hold to a "Holy Catholic Church" believe, that such a
church, mainly "without form and void," has been
perpetuated, and thus the promise has been fulfilled.
The other extreme consists of Baptists who deny the
holy catholic church theory, and claim that the
congregational idea of the church comprehends all there
is in the term. With this claim I am in hearty accord, but
I would not in that sense attempt to prove "church
succession," as well try to prove individual succession
from Adam. Of course, the latter proposition is true,
because perpetuity of the race could not have been
otherwise. The question of legitimacy might be sprung,
but if God in the beginning promised to perpetuate the
race through lawful marriage we would have to content
ourselves, without sufficient documentary evidence,
with the belief that it has been done. The want of such
proof should keep us from such an impossible
undertaking, but we should not require God to prove his
word by the testimony of men, nor should we fail to
discourage all illegitimate propagation of the race.
No one believes he can prove church succession in the
congregational sense, hence the terms should never be
used, and the effort should never be made by historical
proof alone. Prophetic proof is sufficient for those who
believe, but historic proof is not sufficient for those who
believe not. Historic proof is sufficient to confirm the
faith of the first class, but not sufficient to overcome the
unbelief of the other class.
In the Scriptures I deny, with all Baptists, the
denominational idea of the church, but in history we are
compelled to accommodate ourselves to that idea,
because that use of the word abounds in history. I
believe a correct statement of the doctrine would go far
towards harmonizing our contending forces. This I
greatly desire to do in the following statement of the
doctrine: First, the Scriptures teach not church
succession, but church perpetuity. See Daniel 2:44, 45
and 7:14, 18, 21-28; Ps. 145:10-13; Hebrews 12:26-28;
Luke 1:33; 1 Cor. 15-24-26; 2 Pet. 1: 11. All agree, as
far as I know, that church and kingdom sustain some
sort of relation which I cannot in these few lines
discuss. The latter certainly includes the former.
The following references on the church agree with those
on the kingdom: Matthew 16:18; 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 10:17
with 11:26; Ephesians 3:10, 11 and 20, 21; 4:12-16; 5:23-32
with Acts 20:28; Col. 1:18, 24; 1 Timothy 3:5, 15; Hebrews
12:28, etc. Add such prophecies as Revelation 12:6, 14-17,
etc. Also such figures as Bride and Bridegroom,
Husband and wife, Head and body, and such parables as
Matthew 13:24-30, 33, 46-49.
Thus church perpetuity is clearly a Bible doctrine, and
we should believe it, proclaim it, repeat it, and never
deny it. But does history confirm this faith in the Bible
doctrine of church perpetuity? How? I would proceed in
the following way: Show from the Scriptures the
definition, doctrines, offices, and other characteristics
of the church. Then show from history that these
features were maintained to the third century. Then
sprang up congregational episcopacy in large city
churches. This episcopacy fought for greater power and
latitude, until it culminated in the papacy in the seventh
century. The awful persecutions of Jews and emperors
were reinforced by the episcopacy until the papacy
swallowed them all in the seventh century, but these did
not prevail in extinguishing the true churches. Here
proof is ample. When the civil and ecclesiastical powers
were combined in the po pe, the true witnesses were still
contending for the faith once for all delivered to the
saints. In Maclain's translation of Mosheim we find on
page 151, seventh century, part II., chapter 2, these
statements concerning the true and false witnesses:
"When the bishops of Constantinople maintained that
their church was not only equal in dignity and authority
to that of Rome, but also the head of all the Christian
churches, this tyrant (Phocas engaged by Boniface, 111.)
opposed their pretensions, and granted the
pre-eminence to the church of Rome: AND THUS
[p. 2]
WAS THE PAPAL SUPREMACY FIRST
INTRODUCED." (Emphasis mine.) On the same page
he says of the others: "Multitudes of private persons
expressed publicly, and without the least hesitation,
their abhorrence of the vices, and particularly of the
lordly ambition of the Roman pontiffs; and it is highly
probable that the Waldenses or Vandois had already, in
this century, retired into the valleys of Piedmont, that
they might be more at liberty to oppose the tyranny of
those imperial prelates." Is not this the church fleeing
into the wilderness? Were they not persecuted for
opposing the corruptions of the apostolic doctrines?
Call them by what names you please, they constituted
the line of true witnesses to this time, and according to
prophecy they were driven into the wilderness. These
persecutions continued till the Reformations. The
Catholics were then joined by the Reformers in the
bloody work."
The persecuted were anti-Catholics, and in a large
measure anti-Protestants, for whatever of catholicism
was incorporated in the Reformations was protested
against by the Baptists, who were then called
Anabaptists. Mosheim says the Baptists were in other
times and places called Anabaptists, and these in other
times and places were called Mennonites, and that these
descended from "the W aldenses, Petrobrusians and
other ancient sects, who are usually considered as
witnesses of the truth in the times of general darkness
and superstition." According to Mosheim, page 291, the
Vandois or Waldenses derived their name from the
valleys of Piedmont, into which we found they were
driven in the seventh century. These Waldenses, or
Leonists, were the Waldenses whom the bloody
inquisitor Reinerus Sacco said had flourished above 500
years before Peter Waldo, and mentions authors of note
who make their antiquity date back to the apostolic age.
The note closes thus: "When the papists ask us where
our religion was before Luther, we generally answer, In
the Bible, and we answer well. But to gratify their taste
for tradition and human authority we may add to this
answer, and in the valleys of Piedmont. "
John Wesley says in his Revision and Notes, seventh
edition, on Revelation 13:7: And it was given him to make
war with the saints - "With the Waldenses and
Albigenses. It is a vulgar mistake that the Waldenses
were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons. They were
much more ancient than he; and their true name was
Vallenses, or Vandois . . . This name Vallenses, after
Waldo appeared, about the year 1160, was changed by
the Papists into Waldenses, on purpose to represent
them as of modern origin."
Thus it is clear that the Baptists are the continuation of
those who have come down from the apostles through
persecutions, which is one of the chief characteristics of
the true church. Now we are told by some who deny
church perpetuity that we have principle perpetuity.
That our doctrines in the main have been held by these
persecuted peoples. Well, does not that include
doctrines concerning the church? Christ said his church
should not be prevailed against, and to the church were
committed the doctrines and the ordinances, and that
Christ should have glory in the church "throughout all
ages," and that the church is the "pillar and ground of
the truth," and by the church should be made known
unto principalities and powers, etc.
If the church of Christ died in the wilderness or
anywhere else, during the persecution or any other time,
show us the place and time in history. Who or what was
it that prevailed against the church? In what mortuary
report can we find a record of its death? What historian
chanted its obsequies? The bride of Christ dead! Where
is the place of her inhumation? I would go and weep
there.
Who saw the dismal glare of the funeral pyres
And sung the requiem by the sullen fires?
Had she funeral rite or curfew's tolling dirge?
Produce the supposed dead body of Christ, and grant an
autopsy, and I will prove that it is neither dead nor
sleepeth. Will not the wife at the marriage supper of the
Lamb be the bride that he betrothed?
But for a skillful and satisfactory refutation of opposers'
arguments (?), I am proud to refer the reader to the
work of our dear brother, W. P. Harvey, in the pages
following. (Hot Springs, Ark., March 15, 1896)
==========
[This document provided by Pastor Steve Lacrone, Burton, OH. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More American Baptist Histories
Return to Baptist History Homepage