| Title | : | The Trail of Blood |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | - |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 56 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1931 |
The Trail of Blood Reviews
-
Every quotation in the book is false. The book cites no primary sources. This is not history; it's propaganda.
-
This booklet is a stretch to say the least. The groups that are included as part of the 'trail of blood' were heretical, as some didn't hold to the Trinity or didn't even believe in Christ's divinity. So, yes, the Church did reject these groups, just as Baptists/Protestants would today!
For a better history of the Baptist Church read "Baptist Successionism" by James Edward McGoldrick. This Baptist author proves point-by-point why "The Trail of Blood" is far from fact. -
To say this book represents a facile understanding of church history would be putting it mildly. The book clearly has one agenda: Force the Independent Fundamental Baptist ideology into church history, so they can claim that they go back to Christ. In so doing they start claiming random groups/denominations of Christians that in reality don't look anything like them. They claim the Donatists, and Paulitians, which if you know anything about these groups then you know that they are definitely NOT Independent Fundamental Baptists. The book tries to stay away from the term Protestant. Carroll just lumps all the reformers in with the Roman Catholic church, and doesn't feel any need to distinguish between the two. This book is deceiving, and puerile, and I hope that no one takes it seriously.
-
After reading Fox's Book of Martyrs, this read was swift, and help bring the particulars together. I was already aware of the Baptist doctrine being Biblical in its closest form. I really enjoyed this read as a history major, as a theologian, and church history student. Between Fox's Book of Martyrs, and The Trail of Blood, it helps bring Western Civilization, and American history into perspective. It clarifies the misunderstood and incorrect application of "Separation of Church and State" which is not in the Constitution. Breaks my heart for misguided papal religion that is not of God, but a man made religion. Easy five stars.
-
Carroll offhandedly refers to as “baptist" almost any non-catholic religious group in history. I kept waiting for him to examine the theology of these various groups, but he never did; there was NO discussion of what these groups actually believed! Apparently the only real requirements to be considered “baptist” is to believe in baptism by immersion and to have been persecuted by establishment churches. The complete lack of meaningful footnotes and quotes made this book completely useless. For an actual study of what these various groups believed, read James McGoldrick’s “Heirs of the Reformation” (formerly published as “Baptist Successionism.”)
Carroll wrote he believes that every time the Bible uses the word “church” it is only referring to individual, local churches (a belief referred to as Local Church Onlyism). According to people in this vein of thought, since "church" can only refer to local churches, when Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18), He was referring to local churches which would propagate other local churches. They would argue that if there was ever a time in history when this line died out and there were no physical meetings of an organized "baptistic" church, then Jesus' broke His promise of Matthew 16:18. Therefore, Baptist successionism is seen, not as a historical argument verifiable by empirical and rational methods, but is seen as a theological issue. They would argue that to question that there was not a succession of physical, local church congregations is to charge Jesus with the sin of lying and unfaithfulness to His promise.
To be clear, I believe that there have always been true believers on earth ever since the time of Christ. But to say that they were always meeting in a succession of organized, local churches throughout history cannot be verified and goes beyond what the Bible teaches. -
5 Stars
“I first read this book along with "Why Be A Baptist" by Boyce Taylor and "The Church That Jesus Built" by Roy Mason back in the sixties. I have never gotten over them. God made me a Christian by conversion. He made me a Baptist by conviction. Just as there is one way of salvation, even so, that is the way it must be when it comes to Christian service. None of the different denominational ways of service can be right if they do not agree with the old landmarks of the New Testament pattern. Speaking institutionally, Christ's promise of perpetuity to His first local N.T. congregation must remain true until His return. ”
Larry K wrote this review Wednesday, June 19, 2013 -
Short history of Babtist denomination. Shows that Baptists are not reformers because they were never in the Catholic church
-
As a Baptist myself, I can say that Carroll does at least a passable job pointing out the errors of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries. His historical work, however, is often incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong.
For instance, in the last portion of the book in which he describes the process of of disestablishing churches in the newly-independent United States, he writes "We venture to give one early Congressional incident." He goes on to describe a bill introduced by Patrick Henry that would have allowed individuals to direct their taxes to the church of their choice (as opposed to having one state church). Such a bill was introduced by Patrick Henry and it was, as Carroll relates, defeated after Patrick Henry became Governor of Virginia. The only problem with Carroll's version of the story is that all of it took place in Virginia's House of Delegates in 1784, not in the United States Congress (which would not meet until March of 1789, nearly five years later).
This kind of basic error of historical research is, sadly, not an isolated incident. If Carroll cannot be trusted to accurately relate such basic facts, it stands to reason that he cannot be trusted to draw valid conclusions from the established historical facts either. Whatever the history of the Baptists might be, one will surely not get an accurate picture from this book.
UPDATE 1/11/2020: For those who want a fuller, critical treatment of the claims of Baptist successionism (one that treats the history carefully and eviscerates the thesis of J.M. Carroll and others), consider reading
Heirs of the Reformation: A Study in Baptist Origins, by James McGoldrick. -
This little book originated from a series of lectures Carroll delivered on the topic of church history attempts to establish the perpetuity view of Baptist history. Carroll's work has received a great deal of attention. Responses range from lavish praise to harsh criticism. Carroll's book emphasizes the persecution of Baptists, particularly at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, thus the title. The first of many surprising statements comes in the title page. Here the author makes the claim that his forthcoming relation of the history of what he considers the true church is "little known." This is a surprising statement considering the considerable scholarship that had been invested in the topic at that point from Eusebius onward. It soon becomes apparent after a few pages that Carroll's criteria to judge whether a group was Baptist or not is if they were or were not accepted by the established church. Thus the author lumps a divergent range of movements together into one group he identifies as "Baptist." Needles to say, historical accuracy is sacrificed in favor of advancing the case for perpetuity. The serious students of church history will also be disappointed by Carroll's utter lack of engagement with the various groups he mentions. He does not, for example, provided any real depth of understanding of them nor does he successfully link them with the Baptist movement he is striving to defend.
-
I have thumbed through this little booklet more than once. Recently, I saw a copy in my old books and thought I need to knock it out. I read most of it in one sitting.
The booklet appears to be 3 or 4 lectures that cover big chunks of time. The purpose is to give the basic path of the Baptist church. The author on more than a couple of occasions referenced an event or person and said that he couldn’t deal with that due to so much to say and no time to deal with it. So much of the book is just names, dates, the most basic of details. Your appetite is definitely not filled.
It is not beautifully written & would likely be a transcription of the lectures. Although the martyrologies are gripping, there are fuller accounts in other places.
I’ve heard comments about the accuracy of Carroll’s work, but I have no real idea about that. There are no referenced quotes with only a list of books that he used. There are more detailed books to reference. -
A full review of this beautiful book is coming soon!
For now though, suffice it to say that I wept while reading this book. The trail of blood that can be traced down through the ages is a somber thing to study. The history contained within the pages of this book is one reason why, by the grace and strength of God, I will never apologize for being a Baptist.
Notable Quote:
"Into the Dark Ages went a group of many churches which were never in any way identified with the Catholics. Out of the Dark Ages came a group of many churches which had never been in any way identified with the Catholics." They were the Baptists. -
Excellent overview of Baptist history, focusing on the many persecutions Baptists have faced, particularly during the Dark Ages in Europe and during early America. Stars removed for the form, as it was not written as a book but as typed up lecture notes; and for the complete lack of supporting citations for the detailed factual assertions (though there is an extensive bibliography).
-
A great history book of Christians and what they went through to get where we are today. A short book easy to read can be finished in a few hours.
-
I read this book many years ago and probably tried to read the authors mind a little bit. Since that time, I have read much more broadly in both Baptist history and general church history. I am glad I readdressed this book.
The main premise of this book is solid—that there were faithful, Gospel-centered congregations apart from the Catholic church since the days of the apostles. I could not possibly agree with that any more.
Here are the fundamental doctrines Carroll looked for in "dissenting churches":
1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament laws.
8. The various churches—separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God—but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State. 10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.
These characteristics described many various groups, many of which were certainly very similar to modern Baptists.
It does concern me that the author embraces groups that were very irregular, at best. The Montanists, for instance, were early heretics, as is well documented by many, many sources. Montanus was a preacher who believed he received direct communication from God and traveled around with two female prophetesses. Nothing about that sounds Baptist to me. Yet, they are included in this book.
Also, he seemingly embraces all Anabaptists far and wide. It is without question that Baptists certainly descended from the Anabaptists. However, so did the Mennonites and Amish groups. Anabaptists varied widely in their beliefs and practices. Some were "Baptistic". Others simply were not. And that is not debatable. Extremists would describe some Anabaptists and modern Baptists (including myself) would have absolutely nothing to do with them.
In Carroll's defense, he did offer the caveat, "Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings." Yet, he offered not so much as one example of that. Furthermore, he continued to essentially claim them all.
Carroll makes too many assumptions. He certainly proved there were churches outside the Catholic line. He did not, however, prove all of these were Baptists.
If you are truly interested in Baptist history, this should not be your only source. In no way is this thorough and most of it is backed by no documentation whatsoever. Carroll admits this saying, "You will note of course, and possibly be surprised at it, that I am doing in these lectures very little quoting. I am earnestly trying to do a very hard thing, give to the people the main substance of two thousand years of religious history in six hours of time." However, with these types of enormous claims, there must be references.
And for what it's worth, there are groups outside Baptist churches today that meet the above qualifications. (like Grace Community Church pastored by John MacArthur, for instance).
We need to stay out of the author's head and not assume he "meant" something he didn't clearly state. We need to take him for what he has written here. If his desire was to show that there were Baptistic churches among the dissenting churches, I'll agree with that premise. If he believes ALL of the dissenting voices were Baptists (as it appears at the surface level), it's going to be very difficult to convince me of that.
For what it's worth, there's no hint whatsoever of chain-link succession or Baptist Bride in this book. That has been the case in literally every Baptist history book I have read to date. -
This is one of the most thought provoking books I have read on the Baptist faith.
Though this book is short on details and specifics it gives an excellent overview of Baptist history. This is a great place to start if you want to study Baptist history. There is an extensive list of books cited at the end of the book to help you on your way to learning more about the struggles Baptist have overcome to become the faith we are today. -
I really loved this book when I first read it. But, due to its brevity, it is not strong in nuance. I have also learned over the years that the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement in general loves stories and histories that present neat and tidy histories of its founding, as well as our nation's founding. And neither histories are really this tidy. Still, I enjoyed the graphic that shows the roots of all Christian faiths/denominations of our day ... that is a fascinating piece all its own.
-
I really enjoyed reading this small booklet. The trail of blood is the blood of Christians that gave their lives to be persecuted by their enemies. By the way the persecutions continue for those who are willingly to give their lives for the gospel. A recommended reading for all those who call themselves Christians.
-
Good little booklet on the history of Christianity and the Ana-Baptists. It's easy to read in just a few hours.
-
A brief overview of Baptist history. Oversimplified. Maybe a good primer, but there are much better books available on church history.The chart is cute though.
-
Great Resoue
Very informative text about the true founding of the Baptist Church. I highly recommend this to any student, serious or casual. -
Revisionist history at best and (more likely) rationalized self-deception at worst. To put it bluntly, this book is full of unproven assumptions. Save your brain cells and skip this book.
-
Despite the flack and skepticism I've heard against this book, it is really quite a reasonable (if highly abbreviated) treatment of Baptist history. Recommended.
-
There are no citations in this book. The author makes huge, sweeping statements without providing any historical evidence for his points.
