Trail of blood, accurate history of Baptist churches?

[BobAllgood]

rsr wrote

To go back to the quote in question, why would Hosius refer to "Baptists" in this context, when the name was not current at the time?

I am not a highly educated man but it seems to me that IF the Ana-Baptist exist as far back as the
1100's according to the RC Encyclopedia, then the Baptist also exist as far back as that time. IMO, to be a Ana-Baptist was to be a Baptist (baptizer
by immersion). Here is a quote fro Hassell's Church History I agree with.

"The apostolic churches were Baptist churches, because composed of baptized believers; and, even if no intervening links
were discoverable, it would be absolutely certain that the churches of the Bible Baptists of the present century originated from, and are the only spiritual successors of, the apostolic churches. The learned Mosheim said of the Baptists of his day that 'their origin was hidden in the remote depths of
antiquity.' This was quite complimentary to them as coming from a Lutheran historian, of course, but not complimentary enough after all; for although they originated in the remote depths of antiquity, their origin was not hidden at all. It was as apparent and conspicuous as the noonday sun. Did that bright luminary of Heaven cast his brilliant rays in the first century over Asia, Africa and Europe? So was the progress of these
Primitive Baptists as clearly seen in Palestine, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Mysic, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, and the Islands of the Sea. Nay, verily, they were not hidden, but were as a city set on a hill, which could not be hid." Hassell, page 283

 

[rsr]

Could be (though Hassell drinks from the same well as Carroll). But why is it that Mennonites, for example, who have a clear lineage from the Reformation era Anabaptists, do not claim antiquity for Anabaptists?

 

[Jeff Weaver]

I am a bit leary of weighing in on this issue, but here goes.....

I don;t have a copy of the trail of blood in my personal library and haven't read it in quite a while. I have read it, however. I do have a copy of Hassell's history here.

These fellows built on older works, notably by David Benedict (1848) and C. H. Orchard (1838); both of which I do have in my library as well. Benedict and Orchard footnote (I use the term loosely here) older writers than themselves as their source for their claims of Baptist antiquity.

A very long time ago (in Baptist Board terms) I posted an article on proper historical methodology. None of these fellows followed these generally accepted historical research methods. They probably weren't aware of them. None of these controversial characters cite anything like original (Primary) source material, so as far as any serious historian is concerned their works are useless on points of history.

That said, all of these fellows make the error of equating immersion with Baptist. immersion equals baptism, not necessarily Baptist. One letter difference can make a big difference. A modern day example, would an immersion by a Pentecostal make a Baptist? Of course not, and that is the fallacy of the arguments in these books.

I confess, I am a historian by training, librarian by occupation, and have written and have published several books (not in the relam of Baptist history though). A general criticism of the population in general. Many assume that because they can read and parrot what they have read they are qualified as a historian. It ain't so. I can read an engineering text, and parrot what it says, but it doens't make me an engineer. People writing history who have a primary interest in presenting a theological point of view are best viewed with skepticism, no matter the denomination. I have several histories of several denominations, and there are logical fallacies in many of them when it comes to their historical backgrounds.

Hopefully adding more light than heat.

Jeff

 

[rsr]

I think this is the post Jeff referred to above:

In writing a proper history of anything, there should be at the very least a bibliography of sources consulted, and preferably footnotes to indicate where the author got the quote, idea, etc.

Unfortunately 100 years ago, more or less, that school of thought was not adhered to except on rare occasions. Now, a history of what ever subject has to be taken with great caution if sources are not cited.

So, if you find a book on what ever subject of history and it doesn't cite its sources, you can discount what it has to say.

Now what constitutes a first hand account. An account written by the subject of study or by someone who knew him/her, or if studying a group of people someone who was a member of the group, or someone who was knowledgeable about the group. Secondary sources are things written/said about what was told them, or written by another historian.

Another problem with making a credible history is -- Were all the relevant sources consulted. In today's environment, this is where most modern histories will fail (if they fail at all).

One also has to make an assessment on the predjuices of the author. Everyone has their own set of values, etc., but in order to be a good history the author has to set those mental conflicts aside. If he/she doesn't you have commentary and not history. Much of what passes as church/religious history is actually commentary and not strictly speaking history. This can be difficult for the casual reader to determine.

That all said there is another kind of history that does have some merit what I call folk history. A folk history is written more or less as a first hand account. If the author of the "history" has been intimately involved in what is being discussed, a folk history is perfectly acceptable. With a folk history though you have to determine what the writer's point of view is, and make the same judgments about whether or not the writer has been objective in outlining what may not necessarily put him/her in the best light. For example, have written and have had 24 Civil War histories published. In searching for source material, I often run across these folk histories, where someone notes that they could have won the war by themselves if they had had just a little more help. I discount those accounts. But if the author of the account frankly admits his/her mistakes, then I find it to have more credibility.

Hope it helps.

 

[Bethelassoc]

Since we are on the topic of ToB, I have a list of "succession" that I found in a book called "History of the Regular Baptists". I was wondering if these sources were valid since I don't have any of these books:

Polycarp was baptized by John the apostle or revelator on the 25th of December AD 95. (Neander’s Church History)

Polycarp organized the Partus Church at the foot of the “Tiber” AD 150 and Tortullon was a member of that body.
(Cyrus Commentary of Antiquity, p. 924)

Tortullon from the Partus Church organized the “Turan” Church at Turan, Italy, AD 237. (Artimage’s History)

Teleman, a member of the Turan Church organized the “Pontifossi” Church at the foot of the Alps in France, AD 398.
(Nowlins Church History Vol. 2, p. 318)

Adromicus came from the Pontifossi, at the foot of the Alps in France. (Lambert’s Church History, p. 47)

Adromicus, from the Pontifossi Church, organized Darethea Church in Asia Minor, AD 671. (Lambert’s p. 47)

Archer Flavin, from the Darethea Church, organized the “Timto” Church, AD 738. (Mosheim’s History, Vol. 1, p. 394)

Balcola, from the Timto Church in Asia Minor, organized the Lima Piedmont Church, AD 812. (Neander’s Vol.2, p. 320)

Aaron Arlington was ordained in 940 AD by the Lima Piedmont Church. (Jones’ Church History, p. 324)

Aaron Arlington organized the Hillcliff Church, AD 987. (Alex Munston’s, Israel of the Alps, p. 39)

Hillcliff Church was located in Wales, England. The minutes of the Philadelphia Association, Book 3, Item 1, show that H. Roller came from Hillcliff Church to the Philadelphia Association.

 

[Matt Black]

Just one comment on the above, out f many that could be made: Hillcliff is not a Welsh name and certainly would not have been in use as a name in Wales in 987, which is well before any kind of 'Anglicisation' took place...so most unlikely.

I still haven't seen any primary sources cited...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bethelassoc]

Matt:

Thanks for the comments. What would be considered primary sources?

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

I haven't been keeping up with the Baptist Board lately, but I happened through this morning and, lo and behold, noticed that my name had been mentioned in this threa; so I guess I will weigh in on this subject.

For one, I do not consider the "Trail of Blood" to be very accurate history. It assumes to much about the theological character of groups that we know very little about. Some of these may have been "baptistic" and some may have not; we really have no way of knowing because the historical record is so scant.

Notwithstanding, the concept of a continual succession of faithful and "baptistic" church from the days of Christ's sojourn till His second coming is an absolute teaching of the New Testament. My belief in the "trail of blood" does not depend one iota on J.M. Carrol's booklet; it rests rather on the great commission and subsequent promise of Jesus Christ to be continually with His churches as they evangelize, baptize, and indoctrinate,

"even unto the end of the world."

We ought not to fabricate historical records of the Lord's churches where none exist. We do, however, see glimpses of them from time to time in the historical record. But the absence of historical records documenting their existence no more refutes the fact of their existence than the lack of historical records about multitudes of other historical events and persons refutes their existence.

I have no problem with those who question the reliability and accuracy of of the "Trail of Blood" booklet. I have monumental problems with those who think that disproving that booklet annuls the promise of Christ to His churches.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[BobAllgood]

rsr wrote, "Could be (though Hassell drinks from the same well as Carroll)."

Yes, but it could be they drank from the well of
living water - i.e the gospel truth. My early childhood was spent in the country where we had well water, and my father raised hogs. One of the first lessons I learned was that it is better to drink water from a well than from a slop bucket.

I spent 15 years as a Protestant Baptist minister until 1976 and the last 28 years as a historic Primitive Baptist. The more I study Baptist History the more satisfied I am seeing Baptist churches started in the first century. But this is just the opinion of an OldLinePB.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Bethelassoc:
Matt:

Thanks for the comments. What would be considered primary sources?

1. Originals of documents dating from the era of the particular 'succession' claimed are, strictly speaking, primary sources

2. Copies (preferably widely regarded as accurate) of the above, whilst not stricty speaking primary sources, nevertheless can be regarded as primary

For instance, I can have faith that the Gospels accurately record the acts and words of Jesus because, although original MSS are few and far between, sufficient copies which agree with each other exist to draw the conclusion that these are accurate eye-witness accounts - primary sources. Similar wrt Julius Caesar's 'Gallic Wars'

A secondary source would be someone else's commentary, reporting or opinion on what the primary may or may not have said.

For instance, I would rather see what Cardinal Hosius actually wrote or said about the 'Baptists' rather than what Mosheim or someone else would have liked him to have said...So, as an example of a Primary Source, can anyone direct me to a MS or copy bearing Hosius' words?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I haven't been keeping up with the Baptist Board lately, but I happened through this morning and, lo and behold, noticed that my name had been mentioned in this threa; so I guess I will weigh in on this subject.

For one, I do not consider the "Trail of Blood" to be very accurate history. It assumes to much about the theological character of groups that we know very little about. Some of these may have been "baptistic" and some may have not; we really have no way of knowing because the historical record is so scant.

Notwithstanding, the concept of a continual succession of faithful and "baptistic" church from the days of Christ's sojourn till His second coming is an absolute teaching of the New Testament. My belief in the "trail of blood" does not depend one iota on J.M. Carrol's booklet; it rests rather on the great commission and subsequent promise of Jesus Christ to be continually with His churches as they evangelize, baptize, and indoctrinate,

"even unto the end of the world."

We ought not to fabricate historical records of the Lord's churches where none exist. We do, however, see glimpses of them from time to time in the historical record. But the absence of historical records documenting their existence no more refutes the fact of their existence than the lack of historical records about multitudes of other historical events and persons refutes their existence.

I have no problem with those who question the reliability and accuracy of of the "Trail of Blood" booklet. I have monumental problems with those who think that disproving that booklet annuls the promise of Christ to His churches.

Mark Osgatharp

You may be surprised, nay shocked to learn that I agree with you ref 'Preservation' vs 'Restoration'

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Elijah]

I really appreciate all the input on this thread. ( some really good info.) The question of TOB accuracy is a subject that has come up, in my home church, and you guys have offered some good food for thought. I have read the TOB a couple of times ,but did feel that there was quit a bit of assumption about some of the old groups it mentioned. My wife bought an old book the other day called "The Church of our Fathers". I read it, and found it interesting. Have any of you read this? Again thanks for the input, I plan to share some of this with my congregation.

 

[Matt Black]

Having said what I said above, I am not sure that it necessary to maintain a strict Successionist stance to be a 'Preservationist'...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
I think most would agree that the Trail of Blood is not good history.

IMO, many have made the Trail of Blood into something it never was nor intended to be, thereby creating an easy "whipping boy" to discredit the successionist view.

So what would be the best reference material for Baptist history?

There are lots of good reference materials for Baptist history, EACH to some degree revealing the prejudices or presuppositions of the author. From the "successionist" viewpoint, the best is probably A History of the Baptists by John T. Christian. From an "English Separtist" viewpoint, The Baptist Heritage by H. Leon McBeth is a good example.

I would like to mention here a "substitute" for the Trail of Blood - A History of Antipedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 by Albert Henry Newman. Of this book Glenn Jonas says it "is considered now to be a classic in the study of dissenting sects throughout church history..." This book comes from an interesting viewpoint in that Newman agreed with Whitsitt that immersion was "restored" by the English Baptists in 1641, but also believed that the principles of Baptists had existed from the time of Christ. His view of Baptist history was akin to that of Vedder and Cramp. An article in the Baptist History and Heritage said, "Albert Henry Newman ranks as one of the most prolific and competent church historians Baptists have ever produced." Newman is often considered as mediating between the older Baptist church historians and the modern scientific historiograhy. While he desired neutrality, objectivity, and fair treatment of all sources, he also rejected the concept of the indifference and detachment of the scientific method, stating, "It is not the scholar who is without personal interest in Christianity and who studies its history in a purely scientific spirit, that is likely to enter into the fullest appreciation of the facts of church history; but the scholar who is most profoundly imbued with the spirit of Christianity." Mennonite historians such as Harold Bender dubbed Newman the father of American Anabaptist historiography.

A. H. Newman from Mennonite Encyclopedia
A. H. Newman from Handbook of Texas Online
A. H. Newman from Baptist History and Heritage

 

[PBAnswers]

Thank you RL Vaughn for these comments and the LINKS to the A H Newman work. I especially like the quote "It is not the scholar who is without personal interest in Christianity and who studies its history in a purely scientific spirit, that is likely to enter into the fullest appreciation of the facts of church history; but the scholar who is most profoundly imbued with the spirit of Christianity." I study Baptist History to try and learn the Truth and not to satisfy a predetermined agenda. I fear too many "scholars" set out to prove their preconceived ideas in order to try and influence others based on their own misunderstanding of the truth.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

I was once in a Bible conference and made the statement that Tertullian was a "Campbellite" - meaning that he believed in baptismal salvation. One of the other men in the meeting was visibly upset and after the meeting he explained why: he had written a history of his church and traced it back through a church purported to have been founded by Tertullian. My statement had broken a link in his chain.

I explained to him that whether or not his church was traced through Tertullian's church was not the issue - the issue was that we have the writings of Tertullian and in those writings he strenuously defended the doctrine of baptismal salvation.

This is the sort of problems into which successionists fall - and I say this as a successionist - when we attempt to prove succession by the "historical record." I have little doubt that we will discover on judgement day that some of the churches that Baptists claimed as their ancestors were, in reality, anti-Christian cults (just as many "Baptist" churches are today).

I can't trace the history of the church I pastor back beyond the 1930s. Past that, I have only a general idea of where our ancestors came from and beyond the Atlantic shore, I have even less of an idea, and beyond 16th century England, even less.

Yet I am still a successionist because:

A. Christ taught the perpetuity and succession of His churches.

B. The church I pastor is the same sort of church founded by Christ.

C. I have experienced the providential hand of God working in my ministry in the church I pastor.

I have no doubt whatsoever that when God opens His history books, there will be a iron clad, organic, unbroken, chain of churches from the church I pastor back to the church at Jerusalem. I base this hope on no "historical record" other than the written word of God and the handwriting of the Holy Spirit on my heart.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Mark,

Where have you been? It has been a long time. Missed your input.

 

[rbrent]

Aaron Arlington organized the Hillcliff Church, AD 987. (Alex Munston’s, Israel of the Alps, p. 39)
Hillcliff Church was located in Wales, England. The minutes of the Philadelphia Association, Book 3, Item 1, show that H. Roller came from Hillcliff Church to the Philadelphia Association.

Matt Black replied:

Hillcliff is not a Welsh name and certainly would not have been in use as a name in Wales in 987, which is well before any kind of 'Anglicisation' took place...so most unlikely.

Seems to me The Trail of Blood booklet traces a succession of beliefs from the times of the Apostles rather than a trail of churches named ‘First Baptist Church’ of Jerusalem to ‘First Baptist Church’ of Antioch to ‘First Baptist Church’ of Toulon and etc.

The Hillcliff Church of Wales probably wasn’t called ‘Hillcliff’ in 987 but perhaps it had a Welsh name which in the intervening years became ‘Hillcliff.’

To reject Hillcliff Church because we feel the name Hillcliff wouldn’t have been used in 987 is to focus on trivialities.

 

[rsr]

Robert: Thanks for the links on Newman; the Baptist History and Heritage article was especially good.

 

[Jim1999]

On the question of Hillscliffe being a Welsh name, it is not, The actual place is called Celtic Hill Cliffe (Pembrokeshire).(Wales)

The Hillscliffe Church is in Warrington, England (Gloucester).

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Jim