Exposing Dr. J. M. Carroll’s
TRAIL OF LIES
In 1931 J. M. Carroll published a booklet entitled “Trail of Blood”.
Although that booklet claims to present a history of Baptists, it
contains so much misinformation, distortion, and outright falsehood
that I feel a responsibility to expose the false history that it
presents.
Concerning the
origin of Baptist churches, the Encyclopedia Britannica says this:
“BAPTISTS,
members of locally autonomous Christian churches, whose historians have
proposed various hypotheses to explain their origin. The only tenable
theory of Baptist origin, however, is that they derive from English
Congregationalism in early 17th century… Not until the time of John
Smyth (d. 1612) did the Baptist movement in England break away from
Brownism (see Congregationalism). Smyth had been appointed an Anglican
clergyman and lecturer in Lincoln (1600). As a Separatist he led the
Gainsbrough church whose members, with those of Scrooby Manor, migrated
to Holland (1606). The latter group settled at Leyden and were
represented among the Pilgrims aboard the “Mayflower”; the former went
to Amsterdam. The Arminianism of the Mennonites and their rejection of
infant baptism appealed to Smyth… When Smyth later proposed closer
association with the Mennonites, a schism occurred and the dissenters
supporting Thomas Helwys (1560-1616) returned to London, forming the
first Baptist church worshipping English soil. The church met in
Newgate street, London, and so the origin of the “General Baptists,”
so-called because they repudiated the Calvinistic doctrine of
predestination and affirmed Arminian view of individual responsibility.
They also held that no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any
other”; and that “the magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or
matters of conscience nor compel men to this or that form of religion.”
By 1644 they had 47 churches and up to 1653 affusion [pouring]
persisted as the mode of baptism.” (1956 edition, volume 3, page 87)
While J. M. Carroll
makes no mention of John Smyth, or any of the history recounted in the
preceding paragraph, he cannot deny the fact that there were not any
Baptist churches before that time. To get around that fact, he makes
two totally false claims. He claims that Anabaptists were actually
Baptists, and that they existed from the time of the Apostles. And, he
claims that many of the other sects that have appeared over the
centuries were actually Baptists by a different name.
Although I intend
to show why those claims are false, I don’t want you to take my word
for it. In the back of the booklet “Trail of Blood,” you will find a
fold out chart that claims to illustrate the origin of denominations.
That chart lists the sects that J. M. Carroll claims were Baptist by
another name. A number of those sects still exist, and you can find out
what they really believe simply by going to their web-site.
For example: The
Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are Anabaptists, However, it should
be obvious that they are not Baptists as J. M. Carroll claimed. While
they reject infant baptism, they baptize by pouring (not immersion),
and they did not exist before 1525. The following statement is from
“anabaptistchurch.org”
“The
first Anabaptist congregation was organized by Conrad Grebel, George
Blaurock & Felix Manz in Zollikon, Switzerland in 1525. This
congregation began calling themselves “Brothers in Christ”. They were
truly brothers in Christ according to their first "Church Order",
written in 1527, and called the Swiss Order or The Congregational
Order: ‘Of all the brothers and sisters in this congregation none
shall have anything of his own, but rather, as the Christians in the
time of the apostles held all in common, and especially stored up in a
common fund, from which aid can be given to the poor, according as each
will have need, and as in apostles' time permit no brother to be in
need.’” (translated by John H. Yoder)
Likewise, the
Waldensians have not existed from ancient times as J. M. Carroll
claimed, and since they baptize infants they are clearly not Baptists.
The following statement is from “waldensian.org”
“The
Waldensian Church originated with the preaching of the merchant Valdo
(Waldo of Lyons, from whom the church’s name originates), 1140 - 1217.
He lived during the same period as Saint Francis of Assisi (1181 or
1182 – 1226). Like Francis, Waldo also believed in the value of the
evangelical poverty of the early church and, after a profound spiritual
crisis, gave all his assets to the poor in order to freely preach.”
Far from being a separate church as J. M. Carroll
would have us believe, the Donitists were Catholics who disagreed with
the Pope over certain issues. A Catholic article that I found on the
internet has this to say about them: “the Donatists were not
heretics. They upheld Catholic doctrine and always considered
themselves part of the Catholic Church, though separated from Rome.”
Far from being Baptists, the second century sect
known as the Montanists were started by a priest named Montanus. While
he claimed to have some of the gifts of the Spirit, he also claimed
that Christ’s sacrifice was not successful in saving the whole world,
and that he (rather than the Holy Spirit) was the comforter that Christ
promised to send.
The Paulicians were started by Constantine of
Mananalis in the seventh century. While they rejected the Catholic
hierarchy and sacraments, most of them had their children baptized by
Catholic clergy. Far from being Baptists, they rejected the Old
Testament, and much of the New Testament. At the same time, they
believed that there were two God’s (one who made the evil material
world, and one that made the good spiritual world) but denied that
Christ was God, claiming that He was an angel.
Mr. Carroll also
quotes Mosheim as saying, “Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there
lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered
tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.” What he does
not tell his readers is that the “Dutch Baptists” Mosheim spoke of were
Mennonites. In addition, his reference to people who “lay secreted,”
may have included Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, and others who had
separated themselves from Rome, but could not have included Baptists or
Anabaptists since they did not exist at that time. Furthermore, “the
principles” that Mosheim referred to included a dependence on works,
for contrary to what Mr. Carroll claims, no one prior to Luther (other
than the Apostles, and possibly some of their immediate disciples)
taught justification by faith alone without the works of the law
(Romans 3:28).
[Note: John Bunyan, the author of
“Pilgrim’s Progress” and a man who has been called the Baptist Apostle
of England, came to faith in Christ through reading Martin Luther’s
Commentary on Galatians.]
THE NEED FOR HONESTY
Those who falsify
Baptist history undermine the credibility of what we say about
salvation, and that can only hinder the work of leading people to
Christ. If it is wrong for the papacy to falsify its own history, it
wrong for Baptists to do the same thing.
Furthermore, it was
less than honest for J. M. Carroll to portray Ulrich Zwingli as the
nemesis of Baptists, when most Baptists are theologically Zwinglian. It
is true that Zwingli tortured some Anabaptists. However, since Calvin
was Zwingli’s successor, and both Arminianism and Dispensationalism
branched off of Calvinism, the only non-Zwinglian influence in Baptist
theology, is that of Martin Luther. And, Luther regarded Zwingli as a
false teacher.
The key factor that set Luther’s theology apart from
Zwingli’s had to do with the definition of doctrine. Zwingli taught his
own opinions as doctrine while explaining away passages that did not
agree with what he thought. In contrast, Luther believed that Scripture
is so clear that we can teach what it actually says, and should regard
those truths explicitly stated in the text as the divine doctrine while
rejecting any doctrine that contradicts the words of Scripture
(1Corinthians 1:13, Isaiah 8:20). “Neither ought any doctrine be taught
or heard in the church but the pure Word of God, that is to say, the
Holy Scriptures; otherwise accursed be both the teachers and hearers
together with their doctrine.” (Martin Luther, quoted by Dr. Francis
Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1, pg 52)
CONCLUSION
I do not need a false history to validate what I
believe. Not only has every Christian congregation (including the one I
belong to) been started by Christians that came from another
congregation, which in turn was started by Christians who came from
another congregation all the way back to the Apostles, but true
Apostolic succession is determined by the Word of God, not men. The
only men who can honestly claim to be successors of the Apostles, are
those who are carrying on the work of the Apostles by teaching and
preaching the doctrines they gave us in Scripture (2Corinthians 1:13).
Gary Ray Branscome