Well, here we go again - after another long absence, I note that "Dean198" asked for some quotes. Clearly, few of us have the kind of library necessary to quote only "primary" sources on much of anything, especially dealing with the middle ages or before! Possibly "secondaries" will be forgiven, since they are at hand.
Mosheim, "Church History," p. 39, relating to 1st Cent.: "The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own laws . . . ." The bulk of this invaluable work is given to showing the departures from the apostolic and primitive simplicity, including centralization which led to
"papacy" and "decrees of councils," etc. On p. 122, he shows that the followers of Donatus, after losing an appeal to the emperor, declared themselves independent and self-governing. (See Leonard Verduin's "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" for a thorough discussion of this.)
Re Paulicians, Mosheim, p. 233: "They had not ...
an ecclesiastical government administered by bishops, priests, and deacons; they had no sacred order of men distiniguished ... from the rest of the assembly; nor had councils, synods, or the like institutions any place in their religious polity." On the same page, he defends them (as does Gibbon) against the charge of Manicheanism.
Peter Allix, "Ancient Churches of Piedmont," my ed. 1821, speaks of Albigensians and Waldensians together, and in his preface says: "What I undertake in these my reflections is only this; to set down the true antiquity of both those Churches, who were so famous in the thirteenth century, because of the opposition they made against the corruptions which the Romish Church had introduced in matters of faith, worship, and the government of the Church." (p. xiv) He then details their lineage century by century "from the time of the apostles to the said thirteenth century." One thing stands out; their congregations were self-governing, for which they were severely persecuted. He quotes the full decree of Pope Lucius III (1181-85), pp. 281-285, and the decree of King Ildephonsus against the Waldenses, pp. 285-287, and that of the Emperor Frederick against "the Cathari, Paterines, Leonists, Speronists, Arnoldists, Circumcised, and all other heretics . . . ." (p. 288)
One quote, out of Allix, from Claudius, c. 820, out of a long discussion in Ch. IX: "We know very well, that this passage of the Gospel is very ill understood: 'Thou art Peter, etc.' under the pretense of which words the stupid and ignorant common people, destitute of all spiritual knowledge, betake themselves to Rome, in hopes of acquiring eternal life; for the ministry does belong to all the true superintendents and pastors of the Church, who discharge the same, aslong as / they are in this world; and when they have paid the debt of death, others succeed in their places, who enjoy the same authority and power." (pp. 83 / 84) This early "waldensian" (valley dweller) clearly taught the equality of congregations and of their pastors rather than a centralized form of church government, for which he was condemned by Rome.
And from Glanmor Williams, "Reformation Views of Church History," these quotes: "Bullinger,for instance, responded with warm approval to Gregory's comment: 'I affirm boldly that whosoever
he be that calleth himself the universal priest is a forerunner of Anti-Christ.' The real turning point had come with the relations between the Emperor Phocas and Pope Boniface III. . . .
It was Phocas, said Calvin, 'who conceded to Boniface III what Gregory by no means demanded - that Rome should be the head of all churches'."
And: "Because the unholy alliance of Church and State from the Age of Constantine onwards had made for the negation of all that they understood by the Christian Church, the Radicals [Anabaptist groups - RCB] held it to be utterly unthinkable that tarue believers could have been comprehended within the utterly corrupt state Church. During the thousand years and more of darkness, the true Church was in dispersion among those called heretics." (p. 20 - John Knox Press, 1970) This reference, of course, is to Reformation times, but shows the Anabaptist view of earlier history.\
Well, it is tired and I am late; the case is far from complete, of course, and I will grant (with Allix!) that we cannot defend all that any of these folks held, any more than we would try to defend everything that is posted on this board, or that goes under the "Baptist flag," OR even in our own group of Baptists. (I'm SBC; 'nuff said?)
But if there is a succession (and I affirm that there is), it is among these persecuted, ignored and ridiculed "heretics" rather than among the
"established" state religions which have sought to impose both their form of chruch government and their views of history on the rest of us.
Peace! Charles - Ro. 8:28
