I have desired for some time to offer a critique to J. M. Carroll’s The Trail of Blood, an endeavor which I knew would take time and effort to do well. When I began my critique, however, I realized I could spend countless hours simply correcting the errors presented in just the first few pages of Carroll’s work. The thought of the effort exhausted me, and I had not yet started. I had hoped I could present a well-reasoned refutation of this book; then I realized this could not be done. This book cannot be refuted any more than one can refute The Three Little Pigs or Alice in Wonderland. One simply does not refute a fairy tale. Carroll’s book is a fanciful history that is presented as an academic resource. When one investigates the claims he makes, they will be found to be no more credible than other cultic propaganda or philosophical strawmen.
I do not expect one to take my word for this and give up a belief that has been taught by so many others. What follows are some reasons to reject Carroll’s false version of Baptist History. In his “First Lecture,” Carroll defines ten “Unerring, Infallible Marks” or “landmarks… of this religion—the Christian Religion.”[1] I will show that most of these ten marks, as he describes them, are in error; therefore, if his basic premise for these identifying features of a Christian church is wrong, then nothing else matters. I will take this critique one step further and show that the other “denominations” Carroll falsely identifies as “Baptist” are not Baptist, never were Baptist, and in many cases would be denied membership in any orthodox Baptist congregation. If I am successful in making this case, it is my hope that we, as Baptists, will stop promoting this false narrative, which is not only untrue, but also harmful both to the future of the churches who teach it and to the whole of the Body of Christ.
Unerring, Infallible Marks?
Before jumping into this critique, I want to make it clear that I am not calling into question Carroll’s faith or integrity. I believe Carroll was a faithful follower of Christ who held these convictions with all sincerity. Sincerity, however, is not indicative of truth. Although in his day there were many reasons to reject his “Landmarkism,” and many Baptists did, there is no reason with the easy access of information today for one to accept it. One must only fact check the “landmarks” to realize the instability of this system’s foundation. These “marks” of a true Church identify more of Carroll’s presuppositions and preferences than actual doctrines according to Scripture. And this shaky foundation begins with the very first “mark.”
Mark 1
“Christ, the author of this religion, organized His followers or disciples into a Church. And the disciples were to organize other churches as this religion spread and other disciples were “made.” (Ray, Bapt, Succession, Revised Edition, 1st Chap.)”[2]
One can agree with Carroll that Christ is the author of our faith and that He built (and is building) His church, but only if this statement is to be understood that Christ is responsible for all things existing. However, this is not what is being said. The claim is that Christ is the “author of this religion” and the organizer of the church. Scripture says that Christ is “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2 KJV).[3] I will assume this is the intended meaning of “author of this religion,” but Jesus could only in the most basic of ways be credited with organizing the Church. He called the disciples, but the organization of His followers into the Church did not take place until after His ascension back to the Father. Scripture teaches that we are all part of the Body of Christ and “by one Spirit are we all baptized into [that] one body” (1 Cort. 12:13). No one was part of that body until the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was sent and baptized those in that upper room. The leadership roles were not observed until the book of Acts; elder (πρεσβύτερος) is not used in reference to those in the church until Acts 11:30, bishop (έπίσκοπος) is not seen until Acts 20:28, and the role of deacon (διακονέω) is not established until Acts 6. The only verse in the Gospels that could be viewed as Christ establishing the organizational structure of the Church is the same one that Carroll would deny is about Christ ordaining a leader for the church, Matt. 16:18.[4]
Christ did give the Church the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but these were not put into practice by the Church until after Pentecost. In this way, we can proclaim that the foundation upon which the Church is built was laid by “the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). Jesus is the corner stone. He set the course, gave the ordinances and the great commission, but as for the organization and practices of the Church, this was given throughout the rest of the New Testament.
Some may argue that I am playing at semantics, but knowing when the Church began is an important issue. One false teaching that comes from this misunderstanding is that the Baptist people can trace back to John the Baptist (more will be said on this on Mark 9). John, although living in the time of Christ, was the last of the Old Testament prophets. John died prior to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, and before Pentecost. Therefore, John was not part of the Church. He died before Christ ushered in the New Covenant and would, therefore, have been under the Old Covenant. If one claims his lineage back to John the Baptist, then one has gone too far and has reverted to Judaism. Our faith and practice begin with Jesus, who is the Head of the Church.
Mark 2
“This organization or church, according to the Scriptures and according to the practice of the Apostles and the early churches, was given two kinds of officers and only two—pastors and deacons. The pastor was called ‘Bishop.’ Both pastor and deacons to be selected by the church and to be servants of the church.”[5]
Here all Baptists can agree that there are only two Scriptural offices, bishop and deacon. It is telling that Carroll identifies the two offices as pastor and deacon, when the Scripture (at least in the KJV) gives the qualifications of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:1-7) and deacon (1 Tim. 3:8-13). This is most likely because ‘bishop’ sounded too Roman to Carroll’s Baptist readers. The Scripture uses έπίσκοπος (bishop) and πρεσβύτερος (elder) interchangeably, but pastor is something else altogether. The term ποιμήν is only found once in the New Testament translated as pastor, and there it was in the plural, pastors (Eph. 4:11). Everywhere else this word is translated shepherd. Pastor or shepherd does not identify an office of the church; it describes a gift given to the Church “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12).
The differences between offices and gifts are worth clarifying further. There are only two Scriptural offices, bishop and deacon, but there are four gifts given for the edification of the Church; Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors(shepherds)/teachers. Not all gifted as shepherds/teachers will be bishops, but all bishops/elders should have the gift of pastors/teachers (“apt to teach” 1 Tim. 3:2). Not all who are called to preach the Gospel are called to be elders. Some called into the ministry are gifted with evangelism, and they wonderfully proclaim the Truth of the Christ. These, no matter how well they preach, should not be made bishops/elders if they do not also have the gift of pastor/teacher.
It is this point that shows the error of this “mark.” When one confuses the role of bishop with the gift of pastor (then over time confuse the gift of pastor with the ministry of a preacher), then the church ends up with unqualified men trying to shepherd the flock. These men may be wonderful preachers/evangelists, but if they are not gifted with the gift of shepherd/teacher, then they are unqualified. This is the case for many Baptist Churches. They have for years sat under an evangelist, but have failed to be shepherded or taught, and, therefore, the churches have become anemic and weak due to malnutrition.
Carroll’s final point is that both offices were to be filled by persons selected by the church. This direction can be supported scripturally for the office of the deacon in Acts; “look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business” (Acts 6:3). However, the office of bishop seems to be a different matter. Paul orders Titus to “ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Tit. 1:5). Paul gives Titus the characteristics of men to look for, and a vote of the church was not part of those qualifications.
Mark 3
“The churches in their government and discipline to be entirely separate and independent of each other, Jerusalem to have no authority over Antioch—nor Antioch over Ephesus; nor Ephesus over Corinth, and so forth. And their government to be congregational, democratic. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”[6]
This “mark” is the first one that should be obviously in error to anyone familiar with the New Testament. One may argue for a congregational church government and present scriptural reasons for this conclusion, but one cannot both confess that the New Testament is inerrant and that the churches showed no government or discipline outside the local church. Here Carroll makes such a blatant error, one wonders what he thinks is taking place in Acts 15. He says that “Jerusalem [is] to have no authority over Antioch,” but in Acts 15 one finds a council of churches meeting in Jerusalem. The council in Jerusalem then issued a letter and messengers to confirm and explain the council’s decision to the churches, including Antioch. This would seem to most any reader that this council in Jerusalem had authority over Antioch. Other examples in the New Testament include Paul’s letters, which the Church today as well as the churches to which they were written accepted as authoritative even though Paul was not a member of any of these local congregations. Finally, Jesus Himself had John write to seven churches of which many believe he had Apostolic authority over during his life. All of the churches he was to write were in the same region, giving the impression that John was considered the Bishop or Overseer of all these regional churches. Even if one does not agree with this interpretation, one cannot argue that John’s letters were both authoritative and disciplinary to these churches.
Regarding the form of government, from Acts, the first church in Jerusalem seems to have an Elder lead/ Congregational hybrid government. The Apostles decided by themselves (although lead by the Holy Spirit) that the office of the deacon should be established. They presented this solution to the congregation for a vote. They did not ask the congregation to come up with the solution, but only to approve their plan. Once this plan of action was agreed upon, then the authority to select their own servants or deacons was given over to the church body. A government “of the people, by the people and for the people” sounds more American than Scriptural. Scripture teaches that Christ is the King or Head of the Church, which would make the church monarchal, not democratic. We are just a kingdom awaiting the return of our King.
Mark 4
“To the church were given two ordinances and only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These to be perpetual and memorial.”[7]
To this all Baptists will agree. Most other denominations will also agree with these ordinances. Some quibble over the method of Baptism and the proper time that one should be baptized. And still others disagree over the degree to which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. But on the front of it this “mark” is an undeniable identifier of a New Testament Church.
Mark 5
“Only the ‘saved’ were to be received as members of the church (Acts 2:47). These saved ones to be saved by grace alone without any works of the law (Eph, 2:5, 8, 9). These saved ones and they only, to be immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). And only those thus received and baptized, to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and the supper to be celebrated only by the church, in church capacity.”[8]
One should find it concerning that for “marks” of a true Christian Church, this is the first time that Carroll has seen fit to quote scripture to justify his claims. Again, we find here, areas of agreement. All Baptists will agree that only believers, “the ‘saved,’” should be members of the church and that salvation is “by grace… through faith.” The last half of this mark, however, has some issues that must be addressed.
At first glance, there does not appear to be anything out of line, but many Baptists today might find it interesting to know that for the first twenty to forty years of Baptist history, immersion was not the method of baptism. Dr. W. H. Whitsitt, the former president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in 1896 presented the results of an intensive research project aimed at determining when immersion was reintroduced in England. His discovery was that sprinkling or pouring was the only method used in England and the rest of Western Europe when John Smyth broke away from the Church of England and began what most consider the first Baptist Church around 1603. This church was founded in Amsterdam after he left the Church of England and fled to the continent. It was here that Smyth came into contact with the Mennonites and later tried to join with them. In this process to join, Whitsitt notes that; “another important item is that the baptism of Smyth and his followers was the same as that of the Mennonites, namely, sprinkling or pouring.”[9] Whitsitt later explains that it was not “until the year 1641 when Richard Blunt went to Rhynsburg, and receiving immersion at the hands of John Batten, returned to England and imparted it to the members of his church”[10] that the method of immersion returned to the shores of England. There was one group in Europe that did practice immersion, and this did influence those that would become known as Baptist, but to what degree and at what time one cannot be sure. What is known is that the Baptist movement came out of the Puritan/Separatist movement, separating themselves from the Church of England.
This leads to another critical error by Carroll. In his attempt to trace a Baptist line of succession back to the time of Christ, he ties the Baptist denomination of his day to the Anabaptists of the past, as stated in his “Third Lecture” on page 23, he says “Ana-Baptists (called Baptists today).”[11] This is a critical error because this connection was not one that was welcomed by the earliest Baptists. The London Baptist Confession of 1644, the earliest Baptist confession that is known, opens with;
A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed in London, Anno 1646.[12]
As is clear, these earliest Baptists, from which Baptists today can trace their history, did not want to be viewed as belonging to the other groups known as Anabaptists.
The final point on this “mark” is in regards to Carroll’s limitation on the “supper to be celebrated only by the church, in church capacity.” Carroll was influenced by a preacher and Baptist Newspaper Editor J. R. Graves. Graves was instrumental in promoting a theology of “Old Landmarkism.” Old Landmarkism, among other things, denies the understanding of the catholic or universal Church. Graves teaches that “this theory—of one kingdom, composed of a multitude of discordant elements, irremediably divided against themselves and engaged in destroying each other…. is too preposterously absurd to be put forth by men who have any respect for the wisdom of the Divine Founder of the Church.”[13] One must understand this to know what Carroll is calling a “mark” of a Christian church. For him, only the local church, as the local church, can celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This means if two brothers belong to two different Baptist churches, they would be unable to take communion together. This teaching runs opposed to Paul and the Divine Scripture that teaches;
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many (1 Cort.12:12-14).
There is one Spirit, and He baptizes all believers into one body. This Body of Christ is not limited or isolated to any or all local churches. According to the Book of the Revelation, all believers will one day be joined together for that Great Marriage Supper. Jesus prayed that we would be one, just as He and the Father are one (John 17:22). By this understanding, the Lord’s Supper should be available to any baptized believer who wishes to commune with his brothers and sisters in Christ.
Mark 6
“The inspired scriptures, and they only, in fact, the New Testament and that only, to be the rule and guide of faith and life, not only for the church as an organization, but for each individual member of that organization.”[14]
Baptists everywhere should confess that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice for all Christians and, by extension, the Church. However, limiting those Scriptures by which we are to find guidance to the New Testament is not a position that any Baptist, that I am aware of, has taken. Jesus spoke of the Old Testament as the Word of God and Scriptures. How is a believer supposed to know the foundations of the faith and what prophecies Jesus is said to fulfill without the Old Testament? How would one know that he is guilty of the law without some understanding of the law? And without a knowledge of one’s sinful state, why would one desire a Savior? No, both the Old Testament and the New Testaments are God’s Word and given to believers as our only rule of faith and practice.
Mark 7
“Christ Jesus, the founder of this organization and the savior of its members, to be their only priest and king, their only Lord and Lawgiver, and the only head of the churches. The churches to be executive only in carrying out their Lord’s will and completed laws, never legislative, to amend or abrogate old laws or to make new ones.”[15]
Again, the first half of this “mark” is true and good. The second half, however, is not. This can be proven incorrect by the Bible itself. Again, one should refer to Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem: “for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well” (Acts 15:28-29). Here we find a Church Council that is either abrogating old laws or making new ones, depending on one’s perspective. They either were mitigating the Old Testament law of the Jews for the Gentiles or adding new laws above that which Christ commanded in the Gospels. Nowhere does the Scripture state that the Church is to be executive only. If the Church or local churches cannot in some way be legislative, then what is the point in strongly advocating for a democratic form of congregationalism as Carroll does?
Mark 8
“This religion of Christ to be individual, personal, and purely voluntary or through persuasion. No physical or governmental compulsion. A matter of distinct individual and personal choice. “Choose you” is the scriptural injunction. It could be neither accepted nor rejected nor lived by proxy nor under compulsion.”[16]
To which, I respond, no, yes, and huh? This religion of Christ is absolutely not to be individual. We are baptized into the Body of Christ. We are many members who are part of one body. Over and over the Scripture commands us (the Church) with “one another” commands, for example, “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3 NASB), “bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you” (Col. 3:13 NASB), and “But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today,’ so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13 NASB).[17] One cannot read the New Testament and not be sure that God intends for the Church to operate as a body to do life together and to be there for each other, a community, a family.
Personal, yes. Our faith is ours alone. It cannot be inherited from one’s parents. Another cannot have faith for you, so, yes in this regard, Christianity is personal. As to being purely voluntary or through persuasion, our Calvinist-leaning brothers would completely disagree. The Scripture does teach that no man seeks God (Rom. 3:11), but that God draws each to Himself (John 12:32). Carroll may have agreed with this position and argued only that he means that faith cannot be forced, as he goes on to claim. This is true, no one can be forced to believe anything. Man may be forced to act in a manner that he does not wish, but one cannot be forced to believe something he is convinced is not true. This is true for any religion.
Carroll then says “Choose you” is the scriptural injunction. It would be better stated that it is ‘a’ scriptural injunction. Another could be “who do you say I (Jesus) am?” Or “Repent and Believe the Gospel.” There are others that could be identified as “scriptural injunctions.” Carroll finishes this “mark” with “It could be neither accepted nor rejected nor lived by proxy nor under compulsion.” Having addressed the faith by proxy or under compulsion in the previous paragraph, it is this claim that “it could be neither accepted nor rejected” that is cause for concern. Is Carroll saying that one cannot accept or reject the faith? Or is he insisting that one cannot accept or reject the, so called, scriptural injunction to “Choose you?” Either way this seems to create a logical problem. If the scriptural injunction is that one must “choose,” then one must either accept or reject Jesus as one’s Savior, thereby accepting or rejecting the faith. I am not sure what Carroll is trying to insist upon or what Baptist distinctive is being upheld with the inclusion of this statement.
Mark 9
“Mark well! That neither Christ nor His apostles, ever gave to His followers, what is know [sic] today as a denominational name, such as ‘Catholic,’ ‘Lutheran,’ ‘Presbyterian,’ ‘Episcopal,’ and so forth––unless the name given by Christ to John was intended for such, ‘The Baptist,’ ‘John the Baptist’ (Matt. 11:11 and 10 or 12 other times.) Christ called the individual follower ‘disciple.’ Two or more were called ‘disciples.’ The organization of disciples, whether at Jerusalem or Antioch or elsewhere, was called Church. If more than one of these separate organizations were referred to, they were called Churches. The word church in the singular was never used when referring to more than one of these organizations. Nor even when referring to them all.”[18]
I will first respond to the last half of this “mark” and come back to his positions on denominations. In the response to “Mark 5,” it was discussed that Carroll holds that there is no universal church. Here is part of the resulting theology. In this “mark” Carroll is insisting that because the Bible says ‘churches’ rather than the singular ‘church’ when referring to multiple, many, or all local churches, the Bible does not teach that there is an invisible, universal Church. To keep from needless repetition, refer to the discussion of “Mark 5” concerning the Scriptures’ use of the “body” as an illustration of the Church. Regarding his claim that “if more than one of these separate organizations were referred to, they were called Churches. . . . [and that] church in the singular was never used when referring to more than one of these organizations,”[19] he is just wrong. Paul says to the church at Corinth, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Cort. 10:32). Notice Jews and Gentiles are both plural, meaning all of the Jews, all of the Gentiles, and yet “church of God” was singular. Does Carroll think that Paul intends that the church at Corinth give no offense to only one local body of believers? Just in case one example is not enough, one can look two chapters over where Paul continues, “and God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues” (1 Cort. 12:28). Did God give these only to one local congregation? No, God has given this to the Church, the whole church, the whole Body of Christ.
Now we finally come to the crux of the whole matter. According to Carroll, the Baptist church is the only true church. One might argue that Carroll makes this statement about John being called Baptist by Jesus as a tongue-in-cheek remark that no one would take seriously. One would hope that to be the case, but sadly it is not. Sometime after 2004 (a publishing date is not given) Ryan McGuire published The History of the Church. In it he makes this comment; why did Jesus go to John the Baptist to be baptized (Matthew 3:13 . . .)? Would this display a connection between Jesus and the Baptists?”[20] Note that Baptists is plural. The connection is not between Jesus and the Baptist (John) in McGuire’s question, but the Baptists (the Baptist church). He makes this clear as he continues: “keep in mind that it was not John the Methodist, John the Presbyterian, or John the Pope, but it was John the Baptist.”[21]
This view that the Baptist church is not Protestant and never came out of the Roman Catholic Church, but has a continuous line back to John the Baptist is foundational to the Trail of Blood theology. All else rests on this position. Having identifiers or “marks” of the true church is what allows Carroll to make this case. However, having discussed now nine of the ten marks one should be able to see many errors, falsehoods, and scriptural refutations throughout these “marks.” This one, in particular, would be laughable if so many well-meaning and faithful Christians did not preach it as truth. Just to put a fine point on it, NO, Jesus was not identifying Baptist as a denomination, but a descriptor of John. He was John the Baptist because he baptized. Following this logic, we could also have Tannerites, because in Acts Peter stayed with Simeon a tanner. No one believes there was a sect called “tanners.” This was Simeon’s profession and, therefore, Simeon the tanner. Again following a similar line, the word translated Baptist is used fourteen times, whereas πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros, where we get Presbyterian) is used sixty-seven times and έπίσκοπος (episkopos, where we get Episcopal) is used at least seven times. To be fair, none of these are ever used as denominational distinctions.
Mark 10
“I venture to give one more distinguishing mark. We will call it––Complete separation of Church and State. No combination, no mixture of this spiritual religion with a temporal power. ‘Religious Liberty,’ for everybody.”[22]
Baptists have always held a position of separation of Church and state. This, however, is derived more from a history of persecution at the hands of state churches rather than scriptural exegesis. Of course, one may point to Jesus’ statement about taxes or His conversation with Pilate about His kingdom not being of this Earth, but does the Bible not also say that Jesus will return and will reign on the throne of David? Will the Baptists then denounce a state-sanctioned church? Will they demand “religious liberty for everybody?” I think not.
Right from the start, this “trail of blood” history is off to a shaky start. The ten identifiers of the “true Christian church” have been, with rare exceptions, based on preferences and opinions rather than biblical prescriptions. Ending with a “mark” that has more to do with a history of persecution rather than biblical teaching is a perfect transition into the last issue that must be addressed, the so-called “Trail of Blood” itself.
Baptist Successionism?
It is true that Baptists have suffered a history of persecution. However, that history is exaggerated by Graves, Carroll, and all others who have promoted “Baptist Successionism.” What is meant by Baptist Successionism is that Baptist churches can purportedly trace their history back, in an obscure, but unbroken line to John the Baptist. This allows them to claim the suffering of many religious sects over the last 2000 years. Seemingly, all sects or congregations that baptized adults rather than children met the qualification to be called Ana-Baptist and, therefore, are considered the forefathers of the modern-day Baptist churches. Regardless of the ten “marks” that have just been discussed, truly the only thing that matters to make the cut for being a Baptist-by-another-name is baptism of adults only. Having discredited the “unerring, infallible marks,” if it can be shown that this “Baptist succession” is also unsustainable, then there will no longer be a foundation to hold this fairy-tale history together.
Fifty years before Carroll wrote his work, Graves lays out his version of Church history and this faithful line of believers, saying;
These uncorrupted witnesses of Jesus, were called “Cathari’- at first, the Pure, and afterwards by the names- of their most prominent ministers and leaders, as Novatians, Donatists; and after they fled to the valleys of the mountains from the face of their implacable persecutors, where for ages they were hid as in a ” wilderness, ” they received the general name of “Waldenses” and Vaudois, which meant the inhabitants of “valleys” or “valleymen.”[23]
Carroll echoing Graves elaborates that “during the period that we are now passing through (600-1300) the persecuted were called by many and varied names. Among them were Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptist; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses.”[24]
It will be best to review a selection of these sects in the order they appear in the historical record. However, it is important that one is clear on Carroll’s position concerning these groups. They are not “Reformers” who broke from the Roman Catholic Church; in his opinion these were never part of the “Catholic” church. Concluding his work, Carroll sums up by reminding the reader:
During every period of the “Dark Ages” there were in existence many Christians and many separate and independent Churches, some of them dating back to the times of the Apostles, which were never in any way connected with the Catholic Church. They always wholly rejected and repudiated the Catholics and their doctrines. This is a fact clearly demonstrated by credible history. . . . 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.[25]
The first group to consider are what Graves lists as “‘Cathari’- at first, the Pure, and afterwards by the names- of their most prominent ministers and leaders, as Novatians, Donatists.”[26] Here there seems to be some confusion between Graves and Carroll. Graves seems to be using Eusebius’s Historia Ecclesiastica as his source in identifying the Novatians as “Cathari.”[27] This group’s founder lived between 200 and 258 A.D in Rome. Carroll, in his chart that is provided with his book, lists the Cathari at around 500 A.D. and in France/Spain. These would be what today are called the Cathars, whom we will address later. For now, just know there is potentially some confusion regarding these two groups. The Novatians of the 3rd Century were certainly part of the established Church in Rome. As Eusebius documents, the founder Novatus was “a presbyter of the Roman Church.” [28] His problem with the Church was not infant baptism, but the treatment of those who under heavy persecution had either rejected the faith, made some sacrifice to the Roman gods, or in some other manner “proven weak in the time of persecution.”[29] It was the opinion of Novatian that “they no longer had any hope of salvation, not even if they did everything demanded in a genuine confession and conversion.”[30] Novation and his sect were excommunicated from the “established church” (not by their own desire to leave) as “it was decreed unanimously that Novatus, his companions in arrogance, and all who supported his hatred and inhumanity to the brethren should be considered outside the church, but that those brothers who had fallen should be treated and restored with the medicine of repentance.”[31] Thus, the very first dot on the unbroken line leads one not to an independent Baptist-by-another-name church but right into the Church of Rome.
Almost 100 years later, this same controversy arose, but this time by Donatus Magnus. He held that anyone who allowed Scripture, liturgical books, or other church property to be confiscated were to be labeled as traditors. Such persons should be disqualified from administering the sacraments of the church. Again, this schism has nothing to do with infant baptism. Unlike the Novatians, the Donatist existed side by side with the Roman Catholic church, with mostly the same doctrines, except the treatment of lapsed clergy. This sect was eventually destroyed with the Muslim invasion of North Africa.[32]
Moving ahead on Carroll’s chart, one comes to the Cathari. This sect of Cathars are not the Novatians who called themselves ‘pure’ or cathari, but a group that took the name of Cathars. Unlike the first two groups that have been discussed, the Cathars were not part of the Roman Catholic Church. That being said, they would not be considered in any way orthodox. Y. Tzvi Langermann, writing on the Cathars and their view of creation and its opposition to Jewish creationism, explains that “the Cathars professed the existence of a lesser god or a lesser creator, who was responsible for the material world in which we humans find ourselves.”[33] This theology is called “dualism.” They believe that the God of Christianity only created the “spiritual” which is good and that some lesser god, maybe Lucifer, created the material or physical, which is evil. This teaching is heresy according to the Bible, which teaches, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1-3). The Cathars is not a group any Baptist should wish to claim as a forefather in the faith.
This should be enough for anyone who holds the true faith in good conscience to reject Carroll’s Baptist Successionism, but one should review one more group. One group that makes the biggest link in this theory is the Waldenses. There is good reason to believe they, as a faith system, predated the Reformation and existed in the 1200s. They were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church (which fits with Carroll’s assertion of a persecuted line of faithful believers). Much more is known about the Waldenses than many of the other sects listed in the Trail of Blood because they still exist today. Unfortunately for Carroll, they do not advocate for Baptistic distinctives such as one might expect, especially believer’s baptism; instead they are in association with the Calvinist Reformed churches. According to their own website they are:
a member of the World Council of Churches, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and Conference of European Churches. The Methodist component is a member of the World Methodist Council, as well as the Conference of European Churches. The relationships between the Waldensian Church and the Protestant churches of the USA are strong, especially with the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America, the United Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ.[34]
One thing that can be said about all of these with which the Waldenses associate is that they all participate in infant baptism.
The Baptist Fairy-Tale
In a world saturated with “fake news,” the one place a soul should be able to find Truth is in the Church. If Baptists insist on promoting a false history and claiming it to be true, they will continue to struggle to grow. It does not matter from whom one has heard this fiction and how Godly that person is. This has been taught by sincere and faithful Christians for more than 100 years, but sincerity does not turn a lie into truth, no matter how much one believes it or wishes it were true. Baptists can trace their history to the English Separatists from the Church of England in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Even with this history, the Baptist church has experienced so many splits and changes that today it would not be recognized by a Baptist of the 17th Century.
There are many Baptist distinctives that Baptists should hold firm. Baptists have made many great contributions in both the politics of religious freedom for all and in the fulfillment of the Great Commission to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That Baptists do not meet some unbroken line back to John the Baptist does not devalue the Baptist church as part of the Body of Christ. It just means that Baptists are not the entirety of the Body of Christ. Baptists are known for their reliance on the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice, so they may find peace in the words of Jesus; “if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32) Let us go forth and continue in His word and not in false histories and fairy-tales.
[1] J. M. Carroll, The Trail of Blood, 1931, Accessed December 23, 2022, (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5KNDPrp7IBZMjNuN1JPdEdVdUU/edit?resourcekey=0-_eyl5eSfbiX1MgHIw-htgw), 6.
[2] Ibid.
[3] KJV is used unless otherwise noted.
[4] “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
[5] Carroll, 6.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] William H. Whitsitt, A Question in Baptist History: Whether the Anabaptist in England Practiced Immersion Before the Year 1641? (Louisville, KY, Chas T. Dearing: 1986), 56.
[10] Whitsitt, 61.
[11] Carroll, 23.
[12] London Baptist Confession of 1644. Accessed on December 23, 2022. https://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm. Emphasis added.
[13] J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What is It? (Memphis, TN: Graves, Mahaffy & Co., 1880), 19-20.
[14] Carroll, 6.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] These verses are quoted in the 1995 NASB. Emphasis added. The reason for using the NASB in this section is this is the version Dr. Leventhal used when compiling his list of these “one another” commands. An honest reader will agree that the “one another” readings here are faithful understandings of these passages context.
[18] Carroll, 6.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ryan McGuire, The History of the Church (Lumberton, MS: Blessed Hope Baptist Printing Ministry, Publish Date Unknown), 53.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Carrol, 6.
[23] Graves, 168.
[24] Carroll, 15.
[25] Ibid., 34-35.
[26] Graves, 168.
[27] Paul L. Maier, trans., Eusebius: The Church History, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 239. “Novatus [Novation], a presbyter of the Roman church. . . . He became a leader of a new sect whose members pridefully called themselves “the Pure.” “The Pure, being the English translation of the Latin “Cathari.”
[28] Ibid.
[29] Maier, 238.
[30] Ibid., 239.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Park, Jae-Eun, “Lacking Love or Conveying Love?: The Fundamental Roots of the Donatists and Augustine’s Nuanced Treatment of Them,” The Reformed Theological Review 72, no. 2 (August 2013): 103–21. (This article was used in the general information of the Donatist and the reason for the schism.)
[33] Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Of Cathars and Creationism: Shemarya Ikriti’s Polemic against a Dualist Eternalism,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 13, no. 2 (2006): 159–170. 163.
[34] “Who We Are,” American Waldensain Society, https://www.waldensian.org/2-whoweare/, Accessed on December 28, 2022.