Baptist Historians Today and Yesterday

Baptist Church Successionism

 

I. Angry Words by Our Enemies

 

     Those who write our history have two options available to them from the pages of secular history. One option is the historical evidence left behind by the enemies of Baptists. This abundance of source material does not speak favorably of the Baptists. Robert Robinson a noted historian introduced his book entitled “Ecclessiastical Researches” in 1792 with warnings concerning the veracity and accuracy of the writings of many ancient historians.   He said,

 

“Ecclefiaftical hiftory may be so written as to ferve the interefts of parties while the difguise remains: but to ferve the caufe of truth and virture at large the covering muft be taken off, for either that or the caufe musft go to decay.” (p. 2).  He went on to list six major problems that confront the student of history in regard to the Baptists. He cautioned the readers in regard to “words….contradictions…..epithets, and false colouring….rhetorick…Attestation…. and spurious writings…” (pp. 2-12).

 

 In addition to these problems are the problems of failure to undertand the historical, social and religious background behind many historical statements. Even such modern day scholars as Dr. John MacArthur makes a noted emphasis in regard to ancient historians that caution must be exercised because of intentional exaggerations and distortions (Electronic Bible Study Library by John MacArthur).

 

 

II. The Whitsitt Factor or the “Historical Scientific Method”

 

    Another obstacle in the study of Baptist history is the impact of William H. Whitsitt (1841-1911) and George A. Loften (1839-1914) on modern Baptist Historians. Dr. Whitsitt  was the president who succeeded Dr. John A. Broadus of Louisville Baptist Theological Seminary. Whitsitt set forth the position that Baptists in England began in 1641. His major thesis was that the practice of immersion of believers had ceased to exist in England and was not restored until 1641. He claimed that his work was based on a more “scientific” method of research and thus with one stroke of the pen obliterated all previous Baptist histories as lacking careful scientific research and thus without credibility. Based upon this  “1641 theory” he concluded that all Baptists in America originated after 1641 and from previous paedobaptist churches.

       The furor from the Baptist academic community of scholars that resulted against Whitsitt was so great that he was forced to resign as President of the Seminary. However, George A. Loften took up Whitsitt’s position along with Albert H. Newman and Henry C. Vedder.

     Dr. John T. Christian led the opposition against the “1641 theory. He was joined by  B.H. Carroll, W.W. Everts, T.T. Eaton, W.A. Jarrell, D.B. Ray and a vast many others. Dr. Christian went to England and Europe and brought back a great deal of evidence against the theory.

    Whitsitt had failed to take into consideration that in 1641 a new law in England had allowed dissenters the use of the press for the first time. Baptists had previously been outlawed from expressing their views and from meeting in public. Hence, when this new law came into effect, Baptists and their views on immersion came streaming forth from the presses in 1641.

     What Whitsitt, Loften and others had discovered was not that immersion and Baptists were “new” in 1641 but rather what was “new” was their presence and views made public through the printed page in 1641.

       However, the advocates of this “new” position dismissed the labors and data provided by Dr. Christian and others as “polemical” in nature and thus not worthy of consideration. They advertised their own studies as more “scientific” and “credible” and without denominational bias. However, later researches revealed that these men had strong theological bias that led them to ignore historical evidence contrary to their “theory.”  They all believed in the universal invisible church theory and this “theory” provided them the ammunition to break free of what Baptists had believed in for centuries. In fact, Whitsitt first made public his new “theory” as an editorial in the New York Independent which was a leading Pedobaptists paper.

    As Baptists moved away from certain theological truths, nearly all seminaries among Baptists adopted the “scientific” theory of Whitsitt. Notably, all of these seminarians embraced the universal invisible church theory. It is these seminary professors that produced not only a new breed of church historians but replaced the older Baptist History books with those that teach the “scientific” method in regard to Baptist origins.

      Of course the godfather of this “scientific” method was William H. Whitsitt  and his defenders (Loften, Newman, Vedder). These “new breed” of Baptist historians produced such later writers as Robert G. Torbet, W.W. Barnes, Robert A. Baker, Morgan W. Patterson and H. Leon McBeth. These men and their Baptist History books dominate most Baptist seminaries today.

    However, the original researches of John T. Christian and W.A. Jarrell, G.H. Orchard, and others provide sufficient data to show the inaccuracies of the “new breed” of church historians.

    Dr. T.T. Eaton summarized the arguments based on the evidence that Dr. John T. Christian produced from England in these words:

 

“1^st. It is admitted that there were Anabaptists in England before 1641, who were very strict in their belief and interpretation of the Bible, and were ready to die for their faith. But it is denied that any of them ever saw their duty in the Bible in regard to baptism till 1641, and then they all saw it at once and began to practice it.

 

2^nd. It is admitted that these Anabaptists were constantly reminded of immersion by the rubric of the state church and by the writings of the commentators and scholars of the period. Yet it is denied that any of them took the hint until 1641, and then they all took it and adopted immersion.

 

3^rd. There is no account of any Anabaptist church’s having practiced sprinkling and changing to immersion, and the absence of any such account cannot be explained on the ‘1641 theory.’

 

4^th. The only direct evidence offered in favor of the ‘1641 theory’ is the statement of an anonymous document, the oldest extant copy of which is less than 40 years old, which is not confirmed by any writer of the period, and which has been proved to be full of gross mistakes-names wrong, dates wrong, titles wrong and facts wrong.

 

5^th The other evidence offered is circumstantial, and is, moreover not to the point. The other testimonies cited to prove the ‘1641 theory’ say nothing about 1641, but speak of these Anabaptists as ‘new and upstart,’ &., which we would naturally expect when we remember that in 1641 the abolition of the persecuting courts left them free to publicly preach and practice their beliefs as they could not do before.

 

6^th We have actual documentary and monumental evidence of the practice of believers immersion in England before 1641.

 

7^th. It is claimed that ‘distinguished historians’ have adopted the ‘1641 theory.’ Four names have been mentioned, but qualifications should be used in citing these names. On the other hand, it were easy to cite scores of names of eminent historians who reject the ‘1641 theory.’ Not a single man in England has adopted it, so far as known, and many of them have distinctly rejected it. Surely historians in England can be supposed to know the facts of the history of England better than those in other lands. And, moreover, equally distinguished historians, and more of the, too, in this country distinctly reject the theory.”

 

     Dr. Christian demonstrated that although there is proof of a couple of churches originating out of pedobaptist material there is no proof that all Baptists in England came from these two churches. Indeed there is evidence that Baptists didn’t come from them. This theory falls into the same category as the Munster origin of Baptists and the Swiss origin of Baptists. All these theories have one common factor, they all provide historical data of the beginning of a certain church but then all make the unproven assertion that Baptists began with each case. It should be obvious that Baptists cannot have three separate origins as a denomination. Either they began in Switzerland or they did not. Either they began with the Munster Rebellion in Germany or they did not. Either they began with John Smythe in England or they did not.  However, there is abundant historical evidence in each case to show the previous existence of Baptists separate and distinct from each of these cases.

 

 

III. Opponents of Organic Baptist Succession

 

      The historical facts when studied carefully still confirm the overall truth of ancient Baptist historians. Baptists have historical monuments of their existence in every century all the way back to Christ. It is true that there are no historical records that prove that any Baptist church today comes link by link from the church at Jerusalem. However, there are no historical records to prove that anything living today came seed by seed back to creation. But anyone who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God believes that a cow has come in organic succession from the fist cow created by God. Why? Because the Bible says God created everything with the ability to reproduce after its own kind and because the present day “cow” has all the features and characteristics of the kind of “cow” God created.  The same is true with Baptist churches today. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 cannot possibly be carried out apart from this same great creation reproductive principle. Jesus did not authorize anyone to make disciples that preach ANOTHER gospel or administer ANOTHER baptism or teach ANOTHER doctrine in practice. What He commanded was that they were to make disciples of LIKE FAITH AND ORDER. The commission cannot possibly be carried out apart from an assembly of like faith and order and cannot be carried out without producing an assembly of like faith and order. For example, how could the administrator of baptism teach them to observe the Lord’s supper apart from the church institution. How could they teach them the church institution apart from actually organically assembling with them in order to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded…”  The continued organic succession of this commission is made sure by His promise that He would be with them “all the days” or as one non-baptist scholar interprets it “day in and day out until the end of the age.” The organic principle of succession is inherent in the commission  

     There has always been heretical groups under the name of “Baptist” and there always will be. True Churches of Christ claim to be such and claim identity with the churches that have been faithful to Christ all the way back to Christ. N.T. Churches come into existence either directly through another existing N.T. Church or indirectly through its ordained ministry. Even among those Baptist churches that denied a “link chain” succession back to Christ there were those who practiced what they called “regular church order” which in essence is bring into existence new churches through the present existence of a New Testament Church or through its ordained ministry.