What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trail of Blood
Following the Christians down through the Centuries.
56 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
156 people are currently reading
354 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
May 8, 2013
Every quotation in the book is false. The book cites no primary sources. This is not history; it's propaganda.
July 21, 2009
Baptists are not protestants because they were nver in the Catholic church. Baptists have an unbroken line back to Christ and the apostles. They are the true champions of religous freedom because they never used the sword to persecute others. Baptis history can only be traced in blood.
November 15, 2010
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.
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.
January 3, 2020
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.
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.
July 5, 2022
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.
July 4, 2013
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.
January 10, 2011
I absolutely loved this book! It is a brief look at 2,000 years of church history that traces the roots of the Baptist church from the time of the Apostles to their decision not to join with the other churches that became the Catholic church, from the martyrs during the Dark Ages to the persecution in the New World. The fundamental doctrines held now are the same as those found in the New Testament churches. It is a good, quick read for anyone looking for a brief history of the Baptist Church.
September 17, 2013
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
“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
January 11, 2020
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.
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.
September 16, 2014
Short history of Babtist denomination. Shows that Baptists are not reformers because they were never in the Catholic church
June 17, 2025
As a Baptist, it would be convenient if I could point to churches in every age that believed exactly as I do. But historically, Carroll's book is a work of wishful thinking. Even Baptist scholars reject Carroll's claims. In short, don't read this book, because it's simply not true.
•••
The main claim of the Trail of Blood is twofold: (1) Since the time of the apostles, there have always been churches with Baptist doctrine leading up to the "Baptists" of today, though they were given different names throughout history; (2) Since the time of Constantine, errant churches have used state power to persecute the true (Baptist) church, including Catholic and Protestant denominations. This long tradition of persecuting Baptists is what leaves "the trail of blood" throughout history, according to Carroll.
As to Carroll's first claim, he cites many groups throughout history, but he does not analyze any of their beliefs to prove their connection to Baptists. Carroll claimed that their true beliefs were lost in persecution, but if no evidence exists that they were Baptist, then Carroll is basing his whole thesis on silence. This is evident when reading his work, since he cites no primary sources. Most of these groups were condemned for different heresies, such as Cathari, who believed in multiple gods and reincarnation. Carroll seems to claim as Baptist any loosely "Christian" group who was persecuted by the Catholic Church. Even when a group was indeed known for being opposed to infant baptism, there's no verifiable lineage from them directly to today's Baptists.
As to Carroll's second claim, while I would agree that Christianity strayed from the truth as it morphed into Roman Catholicism over time, Carroll bent the truth to make his claims stronger. For instance, he claimed that the church was corrupted when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire in 313. However, Constantine only granted religious freedom to Christians; Christianity didn't become the official state religion until 380, under Theodosius I. Another example, Carroll claimed that the Council of Ephesus mandated the worship of Mary; however, the debate on whether Mary should be called "Mother of God" was more of a debate regarding the nature of Christ's incarnation, not the worship of Mary. And these historical exaggerations continue to the end of the book, where Carroll claimed that the Baptists of America were the first group ever to establish freedom of religion. While each individual error in Carrol's work may feel negligible, it adds up to one big false narrative that impugns the true history of the church.
Ultimely, if Carroll's claims were true, medieval Catholicism would likely have been content to condemn the "true church" for their credobaptism alone, rather than making up false accusations and destroying the evidence. You can ask yourself, which is more likely: (1) The Catholic Church ran a clever 1,200-year-long smear campaign against the true church, calling it by different names and attributing different heresies based on region, and no accurate documentation exists about these groups anymore — yet Carroll knows the truth; or (2) the groups Carroll claims as Baptist actually were who everyone else says they were (heretics or pre-reformers, depending on the group), and credobaptists existed only sporadically and disconnected throughout history, with today's Baptists coming out of the Church of England in the 1600s (as most historians believe today).
•••
Perhaps I've wasted my time writing such a long review, but I needed to write out my thoughts, especially considering how this 50-page lecture has so many 5-star reviews on Goodreads. In the final analysis, this work is not reputable, the evidence of Carroll's claims simply doesn't exist — and best of all, you don't need this book to be true to be Baptist. To me, it is almost more encouraging to learn about people in different ages independently interpreting Baptist beliefs from the Bible. So please, if you want to learn your history, read a book over 100 pages long, authored by a historian with more than an honorary master's degree, preferably written within the last 50 years.
•••
The main claim of the Trail of Blood is twofold: (1) Since the time of the apostles, there have always been churches with Baptist doctrine leading up to the "Baptists" of today, though they were given different names throughout history; (2) Since the time of Constantine, errant churches have used state power to persecute the true (Baptist) church, including Catholic and Protestant denominations. This long tradition of persecuting Baptists is what leaves "the trail of blood" throughout history, according to Carroll.
As to Carroll's first claim, he cites many groups throughout history, but he does not analyze any of their beliefs to prove their connection to Baptists. Carroll claimed that their true beliefs were lost in persecution, but if no evidence exists that they were Baptist, then Carroll is basing his whole thesis on silence. This is evident when reading his work, since he cites no primary sources. Most of these groups were condemned for different heresies, such as Cathari, who believed in multiple gods and reincarnation. Carroll seems to claim as Baptist any loosely "Christian" group who was persecuted by the Catholic Church. Even when a group was indeed known for being opposed to infant baptism, there's no verifiable lineage from them directly to today's Baptists.
As to Carroll's second claim, while I would agree that Christianity strayed from the truth as it morphed into Roman Catholicism over time, Carroll bent the truth to make his claims stronger. For instance, he claimed that the church was corrupted when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire in 313. However, Constantine only granted religious freedom to Christians; Christianity didn't become the official state religion until 380, under Theodosius I. Another example, Carroll claimed that the Council of Ephesus mandated the worship of Mary; however, the debate on whether Mary should be called "Mother of God" was more of a debate regarding the nature of Christ's incarnation, not the worship of Mary. And these historical exaggerations continue to the end of the book, where Carroll claimed that the Baptists of America were the first group ever to establish freedom of religion. While each individual error in Carrol's work may feel negligible, it adds up to one big false narrative that impugns the true history of the church.
Ultimely, if Carroll's claims were true, medieval Catholicism would likely have been content to condemn the "true church" for their credobaptism alone, rather than making up false accusations and destroying the evidence. You can ask yourself, which is more likely: (1) The Catholic Church ran a clever 1,200-year-long smear campaign against the true church, calling it by different names and attributing different heresies based on region, and no accurate documentation exists about these groups anymore — yet Carroll knows the truth; or (2) the groups Carroll claims as Baptist actually were who everyone else says they were (heretics or pre-reformers, depending on the group), and credobaptists existed only sporadically and disconnected throughout history, with today's Baptists coming out of the Church of England in the 1600s (as most historians believe today).
•••
Perhaps I've wasted my time writing such a long review, but I needed to write out my thoughts, especially considering how this 50-page lecture has so many 5-star reviews on Goodreads. In the final analysis, this work is not reputable, the evidence of Carroll's claims simply doesn't exist — and best of all, you don't need this book to be true to be Baptist. To me, it is almost more encouraging to learn about people in different ages independently interpreting Baptist beliefs from the Bible. So please, if you want to learn your history, read a book over 100 pages long, authored by a historian with more than an honorary master's degree, preferably written within the last 50 years.
October 9, 2017
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.
April 29, 2022
This was an interesting overview of the history of Baptist churches from earliest times. I learned some things, and there were also things to consider that I had never thought about. There were a few places where I thought the author stretched things, as far as referring to scripture (sometimes without giving a specific reference. And, although the author gave quite an extensive bibliography, there was a book or two that he referred to, that I didn't see in the bibliography. (He does say it is a partial list. ;-D) Additionally, there were places he gave information that was likely from one of the sources in his bibliography, but I would have liked to have had specific footnotes. Overall, I would recommend this book. It has made me want to do a bit more reading and research on this topic; perhaps, by following up with some of the books listed in the bibliography.
October 11, 2022
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.
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.
October 27, 2022
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.
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.
June 26, 2025
The Baptists are the most/only correct denomination because people had/have a tendency to kill Baptists for their beliefs.
There you go! You read the whole book.
I don't know if I've been "college-ified," but if a writer makes a claim, assures me of the validity of that claim via their own certainty, and provides no source by any citation style, I am not inclined to believe them. This doubt is doubled by the amount of personal bias that is not only woven into these lectures, but seems to be the foundation they were built upon. I appreciate the random smattering of book titles at the end. I understand that this had to be made simple for the purposes of lecturing a large group of people in a small amount of time. But when written and published into a book you'd presumably like people to read and believe, you fall dreadfully short without some good ole written context. There are many things I expected to learn from this. I learned none of them, and the few facts I did learn, I had to pry from the cold, clammy hands of deep personal bias. If I could baptize these seventy pages and wash them clean of the partiality, perhaps infuse them with the spirit of research, excerpts, and quotations, then maybe, just maybe, this book would shine proudly on the Baptist name.
There you go! You read the whole book.
I don't know if I've been "college-ified," but if a writer makes a claim, assures me of the validity of that claim via their own certainty, and provides no source by any citation style, I am not inclined to believe them. This doubt is doubled by the amount of personal bias that is not only woven into these lectures, but seems to be the foundation they were built upon. I appreciate the random smattering of book titles at the end. I understand that this had to be made simple for the purposes of lecturing a large group of people in a small amount of time. But when written and published into a book you'd presumably like people to read and believe, you fall dreadfully short without some good ole written context. There are many things I expected to learn from this. I learned none of them, and the few facts I did learn, I had to pry from the cold, clammy hands of deep personal bias. If I could baptize these seventy pages and wash them clean of the partiality, perhaps infuse them with the spirit of research, excerpts, and quotations, then maybe, just maybe, this book would shine proudly on the Baptist name.
May 8, 2023
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.
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.
October 19, 2018
Baptists are NOT Protestant.
Baptists have always been outcasts to man made religion. We believe the Bible and only the Bible. And that, the King James translation. The Bible is our organizational tool. Jesus Christ is center. And the death, burial and resurrection is the saving grace . Not works or baptism. I now know American Baptists were also persecuted. Think things will get better? Not in this world, and the devil's religions.
Baptists have always been outcasts to man made religion. We believe the Bible and only the Bible. And that, the King James translation. The Bible is our organizational tool. Jesus Christ is center. And the death, burial and resurrection is the saving grace . Not works or baptism. I now know American Baptists were also persecuted. Think things will get better? Not in this world, and the devil's religions.
March 8, 2018
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).
February 29, 2008
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.
June 9, 2022
This was a very good overview of Baptist church history. I learned a lot from it and would recommend it to anyone interested. The author/speaker is speaking from a predetermined point of view. He also makes some unsupported, dogmatic statements that I would question i.e. the church is a democracy and a congregational form of government is the only biblical one. He gives little biblical support. Otherwise, it was a book wel worth reading.
December 15, 2024
For research purposes only.
November 7, 2018
This little phamplet purporting to prove that the Baptist Church is descended directly from the apostles and John the Baptist is long on speculation and short on facts. Nowhere does the author provide any proof of his assertions. Such comments as found in this booklet are likely to lead to an exclusionary climate towards other true believers. The author’s claims about the beginnings of the Baptist church are as unfounded as the claims of those who believe in KJV onlyism. I see no real benefit from reading this little booklet as it seeks primarily to denigrate other Christians and foster misguided claims about the Baptist church-of which I am a member.
August 10, 2017
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.
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.
August 8, 2019
A Good Read and Eye Opening
This is a short simple read full of eye opening history. It's definitely not widely taught in this manner. I'm going to read it through again and take notes for additional research. The chart is very helpful, however it's not easily read on the kindle. I recommend googling it and print one of pdf or jpg charts available. Martyrs Mirror is also a hugely helpful volume!
This is a short simple read full of eye opening history. It's definitely not widely taught in this manner. I'm going to read it through again and take notes for additional research. The chart is very helpful, however it's not easily read on the kindle. I recommend googling it and print one of pdf or jpg charts available. Martyrs Mirror is also a hugely helpful volume!
April 28, 2020
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.
October 8, 2015
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.
June 2, 2010
Good little booklet on the history of Christianity and the Ana-Baptists. It's easy to read in just a few hours.
July 22, 2010
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.
August 22, 2016
Great Resoue
Very informative text about the true founding of the Baptist Church. I highly recommend this to any student, serious or casual.
Very informative text about the true founding of the Baptist Church. I highly recommend this to any student, serious or casual.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews