Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by Salty, Jan 9, 2010.
Trail of blood website
I used to have one of the booklets, but things thend to get lost over the years. I printed it out and have it--somewhere. :BangHead:
This has been so completely discreditted....surprised its still around. But then again I'm surprised by much.
Looks like its a forum with a focus.
The Trail of Blood is a good starting point to see that baptistic churches existed long before the Reformation of the Catholic Church.
I follow my own study of the trail of blood to establish the same truth attempted.
That's what I mainly like about "The Trail of Blood." It shows that Baptists were never a part of the Catholic religion. Therefore, we re not "protestants." I was labeled as a protestant when I first joined the Air Force. Then at some point they gave me new dog tags that listed me as a Baptist.
Jim, would you be willing to share with the rest of the BB your own study of the Trail of Blood? I, for one, would really be interested in your findings?
Tom, it is a lifelong study. I am not sure I can itemize every little detail. Working backwards, I take the history of baptistic churches in Wales. They formed the first two Baptist Churches in England, long before the so-called father of Baptist churches from the Reformation; Smythe, who was never a baptist and poured water on his head and called it baptism. Some of his followers did likewise.
There were many baptistic groups down through history, but greatly ignored because of sidelined concepts and doctrines that might be considered wrong.
Who did the Popish church persecute and kill during its reformation (Not the Reformation)? These victims were called heretics, and in some areas of profane history some of those heretical doctrines are mentioned. Those heretical doctrines happen to image baptistic beliefs.
All the apostles died for their beliefs except John, who died of old age. Many believers of that era had to go underground because of their fervent beliefs. The Romish church continued to grow and get most of the attention. The church fathers deviated in many viewpoints and continued to persecute these sidelined dissidents.
St. Patrick's doctrines were essentially baptistic during his early days of evangelization in Ireland. He was declared to be a Catholic after his death by the pope for religious and political reasons. This was before the baptists were formed in England. Where did his doctrines comes from?
I would not argue the points with anyone, but I am convinced. Its importance doesn't go any further than that, but it did confirm my firm views on baptist heritage.
Very interesting study Jim and I concur. I also would add what a Roman Catholic cardinal said about Baptists.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, President of the Council of Trent in 1524, said,
"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."
BTW I am not saying that you have to be a Baptist to go to heaven, but if you are going to heaven why not go first class :thumbs:
Jim, thank you. You had mentioned some time last year about the Welsh Baptists in existence prior to the Reformation.
It's unfortunate that there are groups of Southern Baptists here in the US which are celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Baptists, dating from Smythe's baptism. They are ignoring a rich heritage which goes much further back.
Jim and I agreeably disagree on this topic. I believe the evidence presented on behalf of many of those groups claimed in The Trail of Blood to be Baptist is severely lacking; early Baptist historians who propounded the connections, imo, accepted hearsay evidence and repeated each other without providing adequate sources.
The quote above is an example. Hosius did not write anything like that in 1524; he was only 20 at the time and very junior in the Roman church. He was one of five papal legates to the session of the Council of Trent that convened in 1561.
It would seem Hosius never referred to "Baptists," but did refer to Anabaptists (Anabaptistae) in his 1568 work Verae, Christianae Catholicaeque Doctrinae Solida Propugnatio (I think this translates as A Strong Defense of Catholic Christian Doctrine, or something like it.)
A portion of that, De origine haeresium nostri temporis (The beginning of heresies in our time), was translated into English in 1565 as The Hatchet of Heresies.
I am indebted for this to Stephen M. duBarry, who has posted the relevant sections of the translation at http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/hosius.anabaptist.duBarry.html.
While Hosius does list an assortment of Anabaptists, it seems that he is using Anabaptist as an easy label for any number of heretics or schismatics whose defining characteristic (from his point of view) is that they practiced rebaptism and rejected the authority.
Take the Donatists, for example. For those who would make them into proto-Baptists, I suggest a reading of Augustine's works opposing them. Those works focus entirely on the efficacy of sacraments administered by Donatist and so-called Catholic priests, not upon any other point of doctrine or practice. If the Donatists had been led astray on other points of Catholic doctrine, surely Augustine would have seen fit to excoriate them on those matters as well.
Thus it is with many on the list. While there are flashes or agreeable doctrine (so we think, from our vantage point), it is difficult if not impossible from our position to determine how closely such groups resemble the beliefs of modern Baptists, and to try to fit them into that mold is unreasonable and unwarranted.
Yes, I posted that information here back in 2008:
Perhaps the false charges of gross lies, bogus, ahistorical, fraudulent, a hoax, etc., that another moderator and other posters here have previously made in regard to the Hosius quote will finally be put to rest.
With regard to the well-worn "well he wasn't president at Trent" protestation, take a look at subtitle of the other sixteenth-century English translation of Hosius:
And please, nobody resurrect the "Hosius never wrote a book called Apud Opera" line.
Apud is not part of a book title, but a citation word like Ibid.
I think you are mistaken. You may want to check out Opera, Venice, 1573, p. 202 where he did indeed write about baptist that were persecuted. Anabaptist/Baptist are of the same origin.
So bearing all this in mind that means that the Baptists never did protest about Rome's excesses? It is important to remember why the reformers died. It was because they denied the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. That the wine and bread at the mass did remain but that, wine and bread and did not turn into the actual blood and body of Christ.
Does that mean that the Baptists that died during the Inquisition did not protest against this doctrine?
All I seem to read here is that the Baptists had nothing to do with that. We must be careful that we do not think that we being Baptists will get to heaven first just because we believe in submerging people rather than sprinkling them.
Those Reformers who died at the hands of the Romish church knew only that they were fellow believers in Christ, as do all believers under persecution.
We used to have a pastor visit our church (We are a Baptist church as was he) who was very knowledgable about the church of Rome and the Reformation. He went to be with the Lord not long ago. His name was Pastor Ashdown. A very gracious man when it came to speaking to Catholics.
I never found him speaking of the Baptists as a separate entity.
Remember also this Protestantism still applies to us today. Does this mean that you do not protest about the errors of Rome today? Or are you among them who stay aloof of these things? And say with the Pharisee, "I thank thee Lord that I am not as other men"?
The reason probably that Baptists as such were not part of the Reformation was that Baptism was not considered to be an issue that involved salvation. (don't quote me as saying it is not important) The great issue then was the problem of indulgencies, this lead to a complete re-assessment of the entire belief system of the church of Rome.
But no doubt there were Baptists who died for the same reasons as the other protestants. They would not die because they believed in a particular form of baptism ie dipping or submerging. For the book of common prayer (1549) says, "Then the priest shall take the child in his hands, and ask the name. And naming the child, shall dip it in the water thrice. First, dipping the right side; second, the heft side; the third time dipping the face toward the font; so it be discreetly and warily done. And if the child be weak it shall suffice to pour water upon it."
So the Catholic church would see no reason to persecute someone because of this belief. So are we protestants today against the errors of Rome? Or do we not care for any of these things? Mind you, it is unfortunate that Baptists were persecuted by both the church of Rome and the Reformed church in the 17th century. It should be a warning to us that we too could fall into the same error and regard others as heretics just because they do not hold to our forms.
Having said all that of course it does show that the church was not in total darkness for a thousand years as many of us had been taught. It was that the church of Rome had grown so powerful that it had taken centre stage and thus eclipsing the faith of many true believers who had been faithful to the Lord for centuries.
The Trail of Blood is available online for free:
you can find it online here: http://www.trailofblood.com/The Trail Of Blood.htm
I wanted to comment on your post about baptisms - One of the issues was baptismal regeneration - does baptism save you? The early early Baptists knew better, but many were burned at the stake for refusing to baptize their babies. It was not the method, but the reason behind the baptism that caused such a big chasm.
Thanks for the link; I am in need of some good reading on our history.
This ain't it! :laugh:
I love this quote that was posted on www.reformedreader.org :
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.
—Charles H. Spurgeon
Christian history, in the First Century, was strictly and properly Baptist history, although the word "Baptist," as a distinctive appellation was not then known. How could it be? How was it possible to call any Christians Baptist Christians, when all were Baptists?" William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, p. 286.