# Errors in "The Trail of Blood'?



## Jash Comstock

I recently picked up a copy of the notorious "Trail of Blood" booklet by J.M Carroll. I read through it cursorily and it seemed like propaganda or something. Anyways, I was wondering if anyone could give me some examples of the errors in it, so I can read with discernment. What are the errors in it? I know that it is untrue, but I don't have evidence to refute it.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

well for instance the Cathri and albigsinsie or whatever were gnostic heresies not Baptists in disguise. also the Waldensians were closer to the Reformed thatn the anabaptists and actually joined the Reformed church after the Reformation.


----------



## jogri17

Also you have a huge gap between from the late patristic period to the Waldensians, so you still don't close the gap.


----------



## Marrow Man

James McGoldrick's book addresses the problems very well. You can view a large portion of it for free here: Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History - James Edward McGoldrick - Google Books


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Any one who actually knows church history sees this booklet as a joke. It is an effort to refute the charge that Baptist theology is derived from the Anabaptists of the 1500s. It claims that credoBaptists have always existed. And may be some did. But the history presented in this booklet is just plain wrong. Also the only difference between the Catholic church and the Donatists and Novatians at that time was whether to allow the lapsed, who denied Christ during persecution, back into the church. They did not practice "believer's baptism". I think it is a big farce.


----------



## Marrow Man

The problem is that the so-called "Trail of Blood" is taken very seriously by some Baptists, even some of those of the Reformed stripe. I ran across a copy of the _Trail_ in a Lifeway Christian bookstore of all places a couple of years ago. And there is a whole chapter in McGoldrick's book dealing with the false claim that St. Patrick was a Baptist. That sounds silly, until you realize that a Reformed Baptist website like The Reformed Reader still has the text of the sermon "St. Patrick was a Baptist" on its website. If you check the sources for the latter, you will see that one of them is indeed from J.M. Carroll's _Trail of Blood._


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Exactly. It is propoganda, not real history. Patrick was a pedobaptist.


----------



## JML

Marrow Man said:


> That sounds silly, until you realize that a Reformed Baptist website like The Reformed Reader still has the text of the sermon "St. Patrick was a Baptist" on its website. If you check the sources for the latter, you will see that one of them is indeed from J.M. Carroll's Trail of Blood.



Wow. Scary stuff. Who runs Reformed Reader?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Jash Comstock said:


> What are the errors in it?


It begins with the assumption of apostolic succession in protestantism, then attempts to go about proving it historically.
The book "or idea" is guilty in the premise of its very own existance.
It is basically bringing a piece of the Romish view of the Church into protestantism.


----------



## Gavin

I have a book by Orchard " the History of the Baptists" up till about 1500s' it seems pretty similar, but I think he was reformed from his notes.
He seems to give a fair amount of evidence, worth looking at.


----------



## bug

Marrow Man said:


> The problem is that the so-called "Trail of Blood" is taken very seriously by some Baptists, even some of those of the Reformed stripe. I ran across a copy of the _Trail_ in a Lifeway Christian bookstore of all places a couple of years ago. And there is a whole chapter in McGoldrick's book dealing with the false claim that St. Patrick was a Baptist. That sounds silly, until you realize that a Reformed Baptist website like The Reformed Reader still has the text of the sermon "St. Patrick was a Baptist" on its website. If you check the sources for the latter, you will see that one of them is indeed from J.M. Carroll's _Trail of Blood._



It's not mentioned in the footnotes as a source;



> 1. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 17, Copyright 1946, P. 383.
> 
> 2. Smith, J. Lewis, Patrick of Ireland Not a Romanist, Associated Printing Co., Stockton, Calif., 1924, P. 10.
> 
> 3. Ibid.
> 
> 4. Encyclopedia Brittanica, P. 383.
> 
> 5. Ironside, H. A., The Real St. Patrick, Loizeaux Brothers, New York, Pp. 13-14.
> 
> 6. Stoddard, John L., Stoddard's Lectures -- Ireland, Geo. L. Schuman & Co., Chicago, Copyright 1901, P. 148.
> 
> 7. Ibid.
> 
> 8. Smith, Patrick of Ireland . . ., P. 13.
> 
> 9. Ironside, The Real . . ., P. 1.
> 
> 10. Smith, Patrick of Ireland . . ., Pp. 17-18.
> 
> 11. Cathcart, William, The Baptist Encyclopedia, Louis H. Everts, 1881, P. 887.
> 
> 12. Smith, Patrick of Ireland . . ., P. 20.
> 
> 13. Ibid.



And there is also a lot of material on that site that contradicts baptsit sucessionism - perhaps there is a reason Sam put it up, perhaps it is more to do with the significance of the sermon, rather then the content. I don't know, but before we start with the 'wow who own that site' perhaps the benefit of the doubt should be given to owner, after all, "love believes all things."


----------



## rbcbob

Jash Comstock said:


> I recently picked up a copy of the notorious "Trail of Blood" booklet by J.M Carroll. I read through it cursorily and it seemed like propaganda or something. Anyways, I was wondering if anyone could give me some examples of the errors in it, so I can read with discernment. What are the errors in it? I know that it is untrue, but I don't have evidence to refute it.




I am curious how you can know that it is untrue but not have the evidence to refute it. That would seem to be a dangerous way to formulate your theology!


----------



## Marrow Man

bug said:


> It's not mentioned in the footnotes as a source;



No, but it is listed in the bibliography just below that. Note the second entry.



> BIBLIOGRAPHY:
> 
> Campbell, Thomas, History of Ireland, L. White, Dublin, 1789.
> 
> Carroll, J. M., The Trail of Blood, Byron-Page Printing Co., Lexington, Ky., Copyright 1931.
> 
> Cathcart, William, The Baptist Encyclopedia, Louis H. Everts, 1881.
> 
> Christian, John T., A History of the Baptists, Vol 2., Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville,
> 
> Tennessee, Copyright 1922.
> 
> Dickens-Lewis, W. F., "Was St. Patrick a Presbyterian?", The Converted Catholic Magazine, May 1946.
> 
> Edman, V. Raymond, "St. Patrick goes to Confession," Moody Monthly, March 1948.
> 
> Ironside, H. A., The Real St. Patrick, Loizeaux Brothers, New York.
> 
> Mead, Frank S., See These Banners Go, Grosset & Dunlap, Inc., New York, Copyright 1936.
> 
> "Patrick, St.," Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 17, Copyright 1946.
> 
> Smith, J. Lewis, Patrick of Ireland Not a Romanist, Associated Printing Co., Stockton, California, 1924.
> 
> Stoddard, John L., Stoddard's Lectures -- Ireland, Geo. L. Schuman & Co., Chicago, Copyright 1901.
> 
> Vedder, Henry C., A Short History of the Baptists, The American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia, Copyright 1907.


----------



## Marrow Man

bug said:


> And there is also a lot of material on that site that contradicts baptsit sucessionism - perhaps there is a reason Sam put it up, perhaps it is more to do with the significance of the sermon, rather then the content.



I don't know about that. On the homepage of the Reformed Reader site, he states (first sentence), "Throughout the ages, Baptists have been known by different names... ." Then, below that, he includes the following Spurgeon quote: "We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at thereformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves." (Note: the quote on the page is much longer). At the very least, that makes it sound like he has bought into the whole "Trail of Blood" myth, even if he has not.

If he is your friend (you refer to him by first name), then why not contact him and ask him? The only reason I know about the website is that I have seen thoughtful, knowledgeable Baptists link to it on St. Patrick's day. In the end, it winds up perpetuating the whole "Trail of Blood" silliness. It's like suffering from some sort of inferiority complex. Baptists have their own history, with many fine Christians in the last few hundred years. They don't need to go back and falsely drag Patrick into their family tree.


----------



## Marrow Man

OTOH, the website author does include this section under the page "A Primer on Baptist History" (not written by him):



> The next view of Baptist origin is not held as strongly today but still finds expression in some Baptist circles. This view is known as the Continuation or Successionist view. It states that the Baptist church can be traced back through the ages in an unbroken succession of organized Baptist churches (although they all did not have the name Baptist) to Jesus Christ and John the Baptist. We must be careful in the way we refute this position, for we in no way want to say that our Baptist heritage has not come from Christ and the truths laid out in Holy Scripture. But we must speak against a position that lays out a history with a trail of real Baptist churches that can be traced from the New Testament to the present day.
> 
> This Successionist view has been presented in a little booklet called The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll. This booklet tries to show that “according to History...Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ.” This book and others like it have stressed that John the Baptist represents the denominational start and that Jesus formed it and promised that it would never fail. They have made arrogant statements like “the real church is Baptist” and “all Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination.” These types of views are based upon inadequate sources and upon more of a polemical mindset than a historical one. They make large assumptions where evidence is lacking. This hard-core position arose in a time (1800's) of intense denominational competition, when people believed faith was something that came from within themselves and not a wonderful gift of God’s grace. Many thought that this type of view would bring back a security that had been lost with the emergence of modern-day society.14
> 
> We must also be reminded that almost all early Baptists rejected a successionist view. John Smyth was one of these, as can be seen in his writings: “I deny all succession except in the truth” and “There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven.”15 Thomas Helwys, speaking out against a successionist mindset, said: “No man can ever prove it...cast it away, seeing there is no warrant in God's word to warrant it unto you, that he or they were the first.”16 Also, John Spilsbury, a Particular Baptist pastor, stated: “There is no succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God.”17 This last quote gives us the proper way to look at ourselves as Baptists. Though we have not always existed as a Baptist denomination, it is upon the eternal truth of God’s Word which we have been formed! Again, we are reminded of this in The Baptist Confession of Faith chapter 26.3:
> 
> The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
> 
> Thus, what we must see is that the Baptist denomination started out of the Reformation, specifically the Separatists in England. With this in mind, we are a Protestant group who must reflect our traditional Reformed background and hold, as our forefathers did, to the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone, the authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I don't think too many Baptists take The Trail of Blood to be historically accurate anymore, maybe some of the KJV only crowd, but most do not. I took Baptist history at an SBC seminary, and I can tell you that we were not taught the things contained in the trail of blood as being a true and accurate. We were taught that modern day Baptists most likely came from the English Baptists, who were themselves offshoots of the Puritans. Many different Christian groups claim to be directly descended from the apostles including Catholics and Orthodox. In truth, their claims of apostolic succession do not hold up any better than the Baptist claims. Regardless, it is true that there were always Christians who were not part of the Catholic church and these Christians did have an influence in one way or another on Baptists as well as all protestants


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill, I am glad to hear that. Sadly, when some incorrect theory is popularized, it is very hard to undo. _The Trail of Blood_ is but one example. Or consider the influence of _Left Behind_ theology in our day. Another example (lesser known) took place in Mississippi in the 1800s. A Presbyterian minister was responsible for popularizing the so-called "Curse of Ham" doctrine that was used to justify slavery (I'm not sure that originated with him). His sponsoring presbytery was up in Ohio, and ordered him to stop publishing the pamphlets about this, but I don't think he listened. And in some sections of Mississippi (I know from personal experience) you still hear people regurgitating that same doctrine today.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim, thanks for that McGoldrick book link. I've collected a number of books on the Waldenses (Wylie, Allix, Faber, Wm Jones), and I find it's mostly scholarly Baptists that desire to reprint these books. There is scholarly debate as to whether the Waldenses / Vaudois were credo or paedo (I think paedo but am not sure). I am sure the _Apostles_ were paedo!


----------



## Marrow Man

Steve, I have a paper copy of the book, but it was kind of expensive (> $30-40 for a paperback book). But now a good bit of it is available for free on Google!


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Marrow Man said:


> Bill, I am glad to hear that. Sadly, when some incorrect theory is popularized, it is very hard to undo. _The Trail of Blood_ is but one example. Or consider the influence of _Left Behind_ theology in our day. Another example (lesser known) took place in Mississippi in the 1800s. A Presbyterian minister was responsible for popularizing the so-called "Curse of Ham" doctrine that was used to justify slavery (I'm not sure that originated with him). His sponsoring presbytery was up in Ohio, and ordered him to stop publishing the pamphlets about this, but I don't think he listened. And in some sections of Mississippi (I know from personal experience) you still hear people regurgitating that same doctrine today.



I heard it often in rural Baptist churches as a child (early 1970's) in north east Mississippi.


----------



## recosby

I wrote a two papers on the Waldenses while in seminary at Westminster California. One focused on the issue of their relationship to Baptist Successionism, and the other focused on their relationship to the Reformed. I believe that the question as to whether the Waldenses were Paedo or Credo is an illegitimate question all actual evidence points to the fact that they themselves did not baptize, but for the most part went to the Roman church for both the supper and baptism. Their primary thing that they did outside of the Church was hear confessions and prescribe penance. They believed that the Roman priests were too corrupt to properly do that. Wylie, Allix et. al. have a heavy theological ax to grind and base all of their work on the faulty research of Samuel Moreland a Puritan that assembled most of the extant material that we have on the Waldenses. The question with Moreland was whether he was just a poor researcher or intentionally dishonest. which ever is the case he misdated most of the papers attributing papers written after the reformation to the Waldenses much earlier.Most notable the "The Waldense Confession of faith" which he dated to 1120, was in fact written by Martin Bucer. Euan Cameron, one of the for most medieval/reformation scholars of our day wrote his dissertation on the Waldenses. He argues that the Waldenses were not absorbed by the reformation, so much as converted. In the end The Waldenses have more in common with the Franciscans than they do either Baptists or Reformed. By the way they are not the only two groups that try to claim the Waldenses, Both the 7th Day Adventists and the Plymouth Brethren claim them as well. There are probably more that do as well, but those are two prominent ones that I have found.

Sorry for the long post, but this is a hot topic with me and having been raised around many of those who claim them as baptists it is a hot topic for me.


----------



## Marrow Man

Wow, Rob, that was a fascinating post on the Waldenses. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Beau Michel

Amen Marrow Man.Baptists share a common history with all their Reformed and Puritan brethren.Many of the groups in the Trail of Blood have little in common with modern Baptists.Mennonites,Quakers Amish,and Anabaptists would more likely be the descendents of many of these groups in the Trail of Blood.Modern Baptists as we know them came out of Puritan England. Beau Michel-Reformed Baptist


----------

