Replies

Hmmmm....unfortunately I'm not familiar with this event nor could I find it in my readings. In fact, until this conversation, I never heard of the Trail of Blood theory although I have come across some writings that state Baptists came up independent of Rome. Below is a link to a person who believes in the Trail of Blood theory.

Please note that while some of the information looks valid there are scant historical references to substantiate some of the claims being made. Don't yell at me for his views but the views are interesting.

Read it about half down, which is covering everything the book says about the early Church history. This is an example of the author's style:

7. During the period that we are now passing through the persecuted were called by many and varied names. Among them were Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. Sometimes one group of these was the most prominent and sometimes another. But some of them were almost always prominent because of the persistency and terribleness of their persecution.
8. Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings. In the main they were. And some of them, considering their surroundings, were marvelously so.

There is never a concrete example of those "persecuted ones" who were "in the main" "loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings". The teachings that the author mostly concentrates on revolve around praxis and meaning of baptism but he fails to link them to any historically recorded opinions. The views that he names form a disparate group of heresies that stood in no relation to the theology the author approves of, except that they, too, denied authority. His mentioning of "Ana Baptists" in the same 5-6 century context as Donatists and the like is either ignorant or deliberately misleading; www.anabaptists.org, for example, states that "January 21, 1525, is generally considered the birthdate of Anabaptism".

His naked assertion that prior to Emperor Constantine the churches generally did not recognize the authority of bishops and in particular the bishop of Rome is false; a casual reading of the letters of Irenaeus, Pope Clement or Ignatius, just to name a few, would dispriove that.

The author is either unfamiliar with the wealth of historical evidence available on the entiore history of the Church, or purposely decides to avoid making specific references.

This book is worthless.