(This is an article I recently wrote on this subject. I post it, not to stir up the waters, but for informational purposes only)
Why I Still Recommend "The Trail of Blood"
By Ben Stratton
Probably the most famous book ever written dealing with Baptist history is J.M. Carroll’s little fifty-six page booklet "The Trail of Blood". Since it was first published in 1931, well over two million copies of this book have been published and it remains in print in several different places. However in recent decades "The Trail of Blood" has been sharply criticized. Some Baptists have considered it to be "unreliable", "inaccurate", and "a poor history". In the face of these criticisms should Baptist pastors continue to distribute and recommend this booklet to their congregation? I believe they should and below are few reasons why.
Before I mention some position reasons I recommend "The Trail of Blood" I must first deal with the criticisms of the book. The biggest criticism is that the booklet contains numerous "inaccuracies". These critics complain that "The Trail of Blood" includes such groups in our Baptist lineage as Waldenses, Paulicians, Donatists, and Anabaptists. They contend that these groups were heretics and it is inaccurate to include them in our Baptist story. Without taking the time and space to defend each of these groups, let us mention that years earlier the great English Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon declared, "We are the old apostolic Church … we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novations, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussities, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have . . . an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles" (Charles Spurgeon in New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 7, p. 613) For centuries in the past and even today many Baptist preachers and historians have looked to these groups mentioned by Carroll as being true New Testament churches during the Dark Ages.
The second biggest criticism of "The Trail of Blood" is that the book is "unscholarly". These critics feel that "The Trail of Blood" is a "Reader’s Digest" version of Baptist history. However they fail to realize that Carroll never intended "The Trail of Blood" to be an academic work. In it’s introduction, the story of how the book came to be printed is told. Carroll was traveling from church to church giving a series of lectures on Baptist history. Dr. J.W. Porter, an influential Baptist leader, heard these lectures and was so impressed with them that he determined they should be printed in book form. It is important to note that Carroll was giving these lectures on Baptist history in local churches, not in universities or seminaries. Previously Carroll had served as President of Oklahoma Baptist University and Howard Payne College and at the time of his death in 1931 he had one of the largest libraries in the world on Baptist history. Carroll was a scholar on Baptist history and if he had been giving these lectures to academia he would have made them much more scholarly.
There are a number of positive reasons I still recommend "The Trail of Blood". One reason is its brevity. Very few Baptist church members will ever read a large book on Baptist History, yet many will read a concise booklet such as "The Trail of Blood". A second reason is because it is biblical. Very few Baptist history books deal with the Scriptures, but "The Trail of Blood" gives a biblical basis for what it teaches. A third reason is the excellent chart at the back of the book. People love pictures and this chart clearly illustrates the story of the Baptist people over the last two millenniums. And finally "The Trail of Blood" is simple. Many other books on Baptist history are so deep they are difficult to comprehend. In contrast the "The Trail of Blood" is so readable a young teenager can understand the truths contained in it. These are just a few of the reasons I still recommend "The Trail of Blood". It is my prayer that Baptists will continue to recommend and distribute this important booklet.
