Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Thinkingstuff]

DHK calls me to prejudice when it come to the Pamphlet known as trail of blood. Is it fact or fiction? I contend its fiction. So let me start analysising it here. While reading it I came across this statement in the introduction:

"In 1160 a company of Paulicians (Baptists) entered Oxford. Henry II ordered them to be branded on the forehead with hot irons, publicly whipped them through the streets of the city, to have their garments cut short at the girdles, and be turned into the open country. The villages were not to afford them any shelter or food and they perished a lingering death from cold and hunger." (Moore, Earlier and Later Nonconformity in Oxford, p. 12.)

The latest dating of Paulicians is found in 970 AD. So it is a questionable quote from 1160. Fraudulent possibly? We don't know a lot about this sect but we do know they accepted the gospels but rejected the OT. We also know they made a distinction between God of the Spirit world and the God of the Material world. And we know they rejected the incarnation. Not very baptist huh?

Also I found this quote in the introduction:

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

Well, the title of the quote is misleading because its bad latin. I have been informed that Catholic priest must know latin and definately a Cardnal would know some latin especially in the middleages and the document listing all of his works would be better titled Opera Omnia. So this quote is also fraudulent. Though this cardnal did exist he was probably misquoted. Or worse words were put in his mouth.

I haven't even gotten to the body of work yet and am working my way through the introduction what other gems will I find?

 

[Matt Black]

The date's inaccurate too - Trent didn't convene until 1545, by which time the Anabaptists had been around for a couple of decades or so.

It's cod history - a few verifiable facts mixed in with a lot of speculation and quite a bit of dishonesty or fiction.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If it wasn't for the Trail of Blood, I probably wouldn't be an Orthodox Christian today...

In XC
-

 

[Jim1999]

If it wasn't for the literal trail of blood, I would still be an Anglican in the Church of England, the holy catholic church. Never mind the splinter catholic churches.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

Didn't we just have a discussion on this a couple of weeks ago?

 

[Salty]

Didn't we just have a discussion on this a couple of weeks ago?

This is the NIV* of TOB

Salty


New Improved Version

 

[DHK]

Didn't we just have a discussion on this a couple of weeks ago?

1. Yes we did have, and still do have a thread on this very subject just one page back. It wasn't very long ago.
2. This thread was started based on a false accusation from this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1381492&postcount=44

which states

First, I said, "a good 'example' of this is found in the Trail of Blood. I was using the booklet as an example.
Said, I admitted right away that it did have some inaccuracies in it.
Third, the theme or premise of the author is hard to dispute: that there are in every generation since the time of Christ assemblies of believers outside the RCC who believe similar to the way we believe. In other words God has preserved Bible-believing Christians in every generation since Christ.

If that isn't true; if there was a time where there were no Christians, then Christianity would have died out and you or I would be a Hindu which existed before Christianity, or perhaps some other religion.

Note, that I never said it was an accurate resource as the OP infers.

 

[Jim1999]

I am afraid we can all quote certain aspects of history tp prove our ascendency.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

Jim, as you know, most anti-Landmarkers hold that Baptists first showed up in, what, the 1600s. You, however have on more than one occasion cited the existence of Baptist in Wales at least a century or two earlier.

Since the doubters say there's no historical evidence that Baptists existed before the Reformation, would you provide more documentation for them?

I think they see the Trail of Blood as a strawman easy to knock down.

 

[Tom Butler]

I've noticed that the non-Landmarkers seem to do more than just disagree with the view--they seem to hate it. And it appears to me to go beyond whether there's sufficient historical evidence; there seems to be a hatred for the idea of Baptist succession, the idea that the Universal Church is a fantasy, the pre-eminence of the local church, and for anything other than competely open communion.

I suspect some of you will say I'm painting with too broad a brush. But I'm a-feared some would hate those views, even if they were beyond dispute. Naw, I take that back, it's a cheap shot.

Sometimes, though, it seems to me that the hatred of Landmarkism exceeds the hatred of Calviniism. Maybe some of you who are neither can tell me if my impressions are right or wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

I don't 'hate' it so much as pity it; that said, I do hate fiction masquerading as truth. And I would say also that the Landmark position is full of vitriol against the Catholic and Orthodox - so I would question who's doing the 'hating' here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jim, as you know, most anti-Landmarkers hold that Baptists first showed up in, what, the 1600s. You, however have on more than one occasion cited the existence of Baptist in Wales at least a century or two earlier.

Since the doubters say there's no historical evidence that Baptists existed before the Reformation, would you provide more documentation for them?

I think they see the Trail of Blood as a strawman easy to knock down.

The document is easy to knock down. Now I've never said there weren't some baptist in Wales before the 1600's I just think you'll have a difficult time showing baptist have been around since the begining. Were are the baptist documents in 90 AD or 200 AD or600 AD or 900 AD or 1000 AD?

 

[Tom Butler]

There were, of course, no groups called Baptist way back then. Nobody disputes that. The Landmark position is that there were, in fact, groups of Christians who held to similar beliefs as modern-day Baptists. They are the groups with which Landmarkers claim kinship. Some of those groups, such as Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrussions, Anabaptists and the like, have been tagged as weirdos, who had some strange practices.

One does not have to subscribe to every belief or practice held by a group to claim kinship. Shoot, some modern day Baptists are a bit weird, too. even in our beloved Southern Baptist Convention. Still, we manage to find common ground with Southern Baptists all the way backto 1845, and with all Baptists back into the 16th century.

If I am going to insist that 5th century New Testament churches (or even lst century groups) look exactly like mine, then I'm going to be out of luck. By the same token, if I'm going to insist that all Baptists churches today look like mine, I'm in trouble again.

I still suspect that the real problem for anti-Landmarkers is not so much the question evidence as it is a distaste for the Landmark views regarding the local church and the non-existent Universal Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There were, of course, no groups called Baptist way back then. Nobody disputes that. The Landmark position is that there were, in fact, groups of Christians who held to similar beliefs as modern-day Baptists. They are the groups with which Landmarkers claim kinship. Some of those groups, such as Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrussions, Anabaptists and the like, have been tagged as weirdos, who had some strange practices.

One does not have to subscribe to every belief or practice held by a group to claim kinship. Shoot, some modern day Baptists are a bit weird, too. even in our beloved Southern Baptist Convention. Still, we manage to find common ground with Southern Baptists all the way backto 1845, and with all Baptists back into the 16th century.

If I am going to insist that 5th century New Testament churches (or even lst century groups) look exactly like mine, then I'm going to be out of luck. By the same token, if I'm going to insist that all Baptists churches today look like mine, I'm in trouble again.

I still suspect that the real problem for anti-Landmarkers is not so much the question evidence as it is a distaste for the Landmark views regarding the local church and the non-existent Universal Church.

Honestly I could care less about those last two issues. What I'm seeking is historical evidence. The problem with connections to Paulicans etc... is that they are obviously heretical. Anabaptist at one point in Germany insisted in polygamy. So if there is a "base" baptist belief that came from the Apostles shouldn't we see evidence for it throughout 2000 years? Sola Scritpura would have to be one evidence we could easily look for, Sola Fide is another, wouldn't there be a record of non heretical churches that were apart from all the other churches (if the landmarkist position holds water) We don't have to find exact beliefs but at least base beliefs. Would you say that if baptist were connect throughout history there would be evidence (even from their enemies) of them? If they were different did they practice a liturgy and then stop at some point? Because many of the relationships that are claimed had some form of liturgy. Many also had creeds yet many baptist say creeds are antithesis to a baptist position. I think the onus is on Landmarkist to prove their point.

 

[Jerome]

Well, the title of the quote is misleading because its [it's?] bad latin [Latin?]. I have been informed that Catholic priest [a Catholic priest? Catholic priests?] must know latin [Latin?] and definately [definitely?] a Cardnal [cardinal?] would know some latin [Latin?] especially in the middleages [Middle Ages?] and the document listing all of his works would be better titled Opera Omnia. So this quote is also fraudulent.

Exactly. An author's poor use of a language makes it difficult to take his writing seriously.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

I don't 'hate' it so much as pity it; that said, I do hate fiction masquerading as truth. And I would say also that the Landmark position is full of vitriol against the Catholic and Orthodox - so I would question who's doing the 'hating' here.

The Catholic and Orthodox doctrines have nothing to admire. They are apostate churches that point people to Hell. From the Reformation until just recently the common consensus was that the Beast or the Antichrist of Revelation was the Pope of the RCC. Look in almost any classical Protestant commentary and almost all will agree on this singular point.
A popular commentary, for example is Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian who lived 1798-1870. This is what he wrote concerning the "mystery woman Babylon" in Revelation 17:5,6:

Re 17:6
The meaning here is, that the persecuting power referred to had shed the blood of the saints; and that,
in its fury, it had, as it were, drunk the blood of the slain, and had become, by drinking that blood,
intoxicated and infuriated. No one need say how applicable this has been to the Papacy.

Most other Protestant commentaries agreed. Was this a matter of hating? Or was it a matter of looking at history objectively without revising it (as the RCC and others do), and comparing it to Scripture. They were more honest with the Word and with history back then, than many are today, who are loathe to offend the political sensibilities of many. Political Correctness had not become a fad back then.

 

[DHK]

Anabaptist at one point in Germany insisted in polygamy.

You have demonstrated Tom Butler's point well. You paint all anabaptists with the same brush. The word "Ana-baptist" simply means "re-baptizer" or "baptize again." It was a name given out of disdain and ridicule. They did not choose that name because they wanted it. They got that name because their converts came out of Catholic or Anglican Churches who had already been baptized as infants. Once saved, they had to be "re-baptized," since their first "baptism" wasn't considered a baptism at all. The label came from the Catholics and Anglicans.

The statement you just made is extreme and probably refers to less than 1% of all anabaptists. Do you believe that that is a fair representation of the Anabaptist movement to paint all of them as polygamists, even all the ones in Germany as polygamists. Like the RCC, you would like to tarnish Bible-believing Christians with an evil and wicked paint brush, using an exception (which you probably can't document in the first place), and then generalize that all these Christians are the same wicked evil unsaved people. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Tom Butler]

For those who wish to attach some degree of aberration to those ancient groups claimed as ancestors by many Baptists, one should consider that these people were considered enemies of the established churches of the day, whether Catholic or otherwise. Some of those aberrations were probably lies perpetuated by their enemies to discredit them.

No one denies that there were variations. But most of those groups share a number of doctrines also held by modern Baptists. They also share a history, that is, they were persecuted by the established church.

Lutheran historian Mosheim wrote that these groups existed in Wales, and were hidden in the forests of Europe before Luther and Calvin came on the scene.

Now, I want to quote a letter written in 1519 from Bohemia to the famed Catholic theologian Erasmus.

"These men have no other opinion of the Pope, cardinals, bishops, and other clergy than of manifest Antichrists. They call the Pope sometimes the beast, and sometimes the whore, mentioned in the Revelation. Their own bishops and priests, they themselves do choose for themselves, ignorant and unlearned laymen, that have wife and children. They mutually salute one another by the name of brother and sister. They own no other authority than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. They slight all the doctors, both ancient and modern, and give no regard to their doctrine. Their priests, when they celebrate the offices of mass, (or communion,) do it without any priestly garments; nor do they use any prayer, or collects on this occasion, but only the Lord's Prayer, by which they consecrate bread that has been leavened. They believe, or own little or nothing of the sacraments of the church. Such as come over to their sect, must every one be baptized anew in mere water. They make no blessing of salt, nor of water; nor make any use of consecrated oil. They believe nothing of divinity in the sacrament of the eucharist; only that the consecrated bread and wine do, by some occult signs, represent the death of Christ; and, accordingly, that all that do knee down to it, or worship, are guilty of idolatry; that that sacrament was instituted by Christ to no other purpose but to renew the memory of his passion, and not to be carried about or held up by the priests to be gazed on. For Christ himself, who is to be adored and worshipped with the honor of Latreia, sits at the right of God, as the Christian Church confesses in the Creed. Prayers to saints, and for the dead, they count a vain and ridiculous thing; as likewise auricular confession and penance enjoined by the priest for sins. Eves and fast-days are, they say, a mockery and disguise of hypocrites."

Sounds like Baptists to me. And remember, this was written by someone who was not praising, he was condemning. Erasmus was sort of a reformer who chose to work within the RCC, but when two of the people described in the quoted paragraph complimented him, he lashed out at them, calling them "Anabaptists."

 

[Jim1999]

There is all kinds of such evidences in historym IF one truly wants to find it. My agrument remains that it seems impossible that the NT church should disappear completely unto magically Smthe appears on the scene to develop baptistic churches along with the reformers, when not one of the reformers developed a baptistic church and even Smythe got the baptism incorrected...pouring water on his own head, and then he never did form a baptist church........I am puzzled!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

Jim, I would think that one would be embarrassed to hold to such a notion that Jesus had no church on his earth from the First century to the Reformation. Particularly in the light of Matthew 16:18.

I can anticipate the reply, "wait a minute, we didn't say there wasn't one; we just said there's no documentation."

If anybody wrote this, I just missed it, but I have yet to read anything on this board by any anti-Landmarker that supports unbroken succession of New Testament churches from apostolic times until today. They have trashed without exception every Christian group cited by the Landmarkers as progenitors of modern Baptists. They have left the world with nothing but weirdo cults which apparently bear no resemblance to a first century New Testament church.

So we are left with the question, were there, or were there not, true NT churches in existence somewhere from Jesus' time until now?

This is a trick question, so consider the implications of your answer.

Choose from one of the following answers:

1. Yes, and we Baptists claim them as ours.
2. Yes, but they weren't Baptist because Baptists didn't begin until the Reformation.
3. No, because there's no evidence. There were times when there was no New Testament church in existence.
4. Don't know because the evidence is thin. But we accept by faith Matthew 16:18.

If none of these answers will do, give your own.