The Biblical View of Church History: Succession or Perpetuity of True New Testament Churches (Part Two)

Part One

Someone should believe true New Testament church perpetuity based upon biblical presuppositions.  God promised He would keep or preserve both His Words and His church.  Both of those relate to authority of God on earth and how He works in the world.  Jesus rules through the church as the Head of it, but which one is it?  Man also lives by every Word of God, which assumes we know what those are.  The preservation of the Lord’s words and His church affect authority and then what exactly to do and how to do it.  All these matter.

Interconnection of the Lord’s Churches and His Words

If the church is the pillar and ground of the truth or the means by which God preserved His Words, this either assumes or necessitates the existence of a true church to keep His Words.  The two — His church and His Words — are interconnected.  Even though scripture has authority over the church, the Word gives the means and authority for the church to preserve not just His Words, but also the faith once delivered unto the saints.  From the church came the canonicity of scripture.  God used a true church to canonize His Words.

The proof of a true church comes from the Words with certainty God preserved.  To know what that church is, a true believer looks to the preserved Words of God for the criteria.  What distinguishes true churches?  In a fundamental way, a church cannot, so will not, be a state church.  That eliminates Roman Catholicism from the possibility of being a church.  That’s not all.  No state church, Roman Catholic or Protestant, are true churches.  This one criteria automatically eliminates both of those.  How?  The church in the Bible is not a state church.

Also a true church will preach a true gospel, requiring true conversion or salvation of its individual members.  It will practice only scriptural ordinances and the observance of those in a biblical manner alone. A true church will limit itself to only New Testament officers.  Even though a true church can have and has had traditions, scripture is the final, and, therefore, sole authority of and for a true church.  The veracity of a true church comes from the Bible alone.

Biblical Expectations

Since the Bible teaches the perpetuity of a true church, a true believer will expect that.  In other words, a true believer presupposes the perpetuity of a true church.  It doesn’t matter if he can find historical proof for that, because historical proof is not the authority of a true believer.  Scriptural presuppositions provide the only or final basis for judging historical true New Testament church succession or perpetuity. Because true churches were often nomadic and lacked central archives, their history was written in the blood of martyrs rather than the ink of state-sponsored scribes.  J.M. Pendleton argued in Distinctive Principles of Baptists (1882):

The true church was for ages a ‘church in the wilderness,’ and its history is to be sought, not in the records of the dominant and persecuting hierarchies, but in the scanty and often distorted accounts given by its enemies.

Challenge of Absence of Ancient Writings as Evidence

Roman Catholic and various state powers systematically destroyed the writings of so-called “heretics,” as G.H. Orchard noted in A Concise History of Foreign Baptists (1855), that the victors write the history:

The archives of the Inquisition, and the records of the courts of Europe, are the sources from which we must gather the history of the Baptists. . . . for their own books were committed to the flames as soon as discovered.

J.M. Cramp echoed this in Baptist History (1868), explaining that the lack of internal primary sources was a result of “the scorched earth policy of the Papacy.” He maintained that if the Baptists of the 12th century had left behind a library, they would have been captured and burned even sooner.

Baptist polity itself — the belief in the autonomy of the local church — contributes to the lack of a denominational history. Unlike Roman Catholicism, which maintained a centralized bureaucracy, Baptists operated as independent cells. J.R. Graves argued in Old Landmarkism (1880) that because there was no “Baptist Pope” or central headquarters, there was no central repository for records. He posited that the “succession” was never intended to be a legalistic chain of documents, but a spiritual and organic continuity of local congregations.

Known by Different Names

Another reason for the lack of “Baptist” material is the claim that the true church was always called by different, often pejorative, names. Thomas Armitage explained in A History of the Baptists (1887) that the name “Baptist” is relatively modern, but the people are ancient:

They were called Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, and Henricians. . . . they were called by the names of their leaders or their locations, but they were all of one faith.

Consequently, a historian looking for the word “Baptist” in the 10th century will find nothing even though the principles of those groups are identical to modern Baptist polity.

Key Differences from Catholic Apostolic Succession

Difference #1

Catholic apostolic succession is a personal and sacramental succession of bishops, and through them, priests, who receive apostolic authority and grace via ordination. Baptist perpetuity is a congregational and doctrinal continuity of churches, assemblies of immersed believers, or the biblical faith and practices they uphold. Baptists reject the idea of a special clerical office or hierarchy transmitting grace.  The apostles’ unique office ended with their deaths, and the Great Commission was given to the church, not to a succession of bishops.

Difference #2

In mechanism and structure, Catholicism requires an episcopal, bishop-led, visible, hierarchical chain with ordination by laying on of hands in communion with the Pope or valid bishops. Baptist views emphasize independent, autonomous churches that plant new churches through scriptural baptism and organization. There is no central authority, no pope, and no requirement for an unbroken clerical pedigree. Authority resides in the New Testament and the congregation, not in a transmitted apostolic lineage.

Difference #3

In view of church history and the true New Testament church, Catholicism sees the Roman Catholics (and their bishops) as the direct, visible continuation of the apostolic church. Baptist perpetuity sees the true churches as the often-persecuted dissenting minority outside both the Catholic and Protestant state churches. These ancient congregations are said to have preserved primitive Christianity while the “official” church drifted into infant baptism, hierarchy, and other errors. The Trail of Blood famously depicts this as a bloody “trail” of martyrdom for these proto-Baptist groups.

Difference #4

Regarding theological purpose and basis, so-called Roman Catholic apostolic succession guarantees the validity of sacraments and the unity of one visible Church. Baptist perpetuity demonstrates that Christ kept His promise of a perpetual true church — not a denomination, but assemblies with NT faith and practice. It also argues that Baptists are not a 17th-century Protestant sect, but represent the original Christianity that never needed reformation because it never totally apostatized.

Difference #5

Baptists have not believed in apostolic succession, but instead affirm church perpetuity. Catholic apostolic succession is about hierarchical clerical authority passed person-to-person from the apostles.  Baptist perpetuity and succession are about the continuous existence and doctrinal fidelity of independent New Testament churches. One is top-down and sacramental; the other is bottom-up, congregational, and focused on regenerate believers obeying Scripture. These are fundamentally different ecclesiologies.

In the polemical environment of the 19th and early 20th centuries, proponents of Baptist perpetuity faced the frequent charge that their view was simply a “Baptist version” of Roman Catholic or Anglican Apostolic Succession.  J. R. Graves addresses this directly in Old Landmarkism: What is It? (1880):

The ‘Apostolic Succession’ of the Catholics and Episcopalians is a succession of officers, a grace transmitted from hand to hand. . . . But Baptist perpetuity is a succession of churches, the continuation of the visible kingdom of Christ by the reproduction of local, independent bodies holding the same faith.

To the Baptist, grace is not “tapped” from a Bishop’s finger; it is found in the local body’s adherence to the New Testament pattern.

Nature of the Chain: Sacramental vs. Scriptural

Apostolic Succession is sacramental, implying that the validity of a sacrament depends on the pedigree of the administrator. Baptist perpetuity is covenantal, meaning validity depends on the church’s identity as a scriptural bride of Christ.  J.M. Pendleton argued in Distinctive Principles of Baptists (1882) that the comparison is a smear because Baptists reject the “magic” of the priesthood:

We do not believe in a ‘priesthood’ that conveys grace. We believe in the perpetuity of the truth. If a church ceases to hold the truth, it ceases to be a church, regardless of its lineage. Romanism claims the succession remains even if the truth is lost; Baptists claim the succession is the preservation of the truth.

Direction of Power: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up

Historians like G.H. Orchard pointed out that the smear of apostolic succession ignores the direction of ecclesiastical power. Apostolic Succession is a hierarchy where the “Mother Church” authorizes the children. Baptist perpetuity describes a “trail of blood” where independent, “unauthorized” groups (by worldly standards) remained faithful to Christ.  As S.H. Ford wrote in The Origin of Baptists (1860):

The Romanist seeks a pedigree of lords and princes in the Church; the Baptist seeks a lineage of the persecuted and the despised. . . . To call this ‘Apostolic Succession’ is to confuse the oppressor with the oppressed.

Summary of Why the Comparison is False

The following table highlights why 19th-century Baptists viewed the comparison as a “mere pejorative”:

Feature	Apostolic Succession (Catholic/Anglican)	Baptist Perpetuity (Landmark/Successionist)
Focus	The Person (The Bishop)	The People (The Local Congregation)
Transmission	Manual: Laying on of hands.	Moral: Keeping the ordinances and doctrines.
Visibility	Political: Recognized by the world/state.	Spiritual: Often “in the wilderness” or hidden.
Validity	Depends on Lineage.	Depends on Loyalty to the New Testament.

The Smear of Legalism

Early 20th-century defenders like J.W. Porter in The World’s Debt to the Baptists (1914) argued that the “Successionist” label was used by liberals to make Baptists look legalistic. He contended that expecting Christ to keep His promise (Matthew 16:18) isn’t “High Churchism” — it is simply faith in the Word of God.

To say that the Church has existed in every age is not to claim a ‘popish succession,’ but to assert that Christ is a King who has never been without a kingdom.