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.
I wouldn't exactly say that. Much of the author historical information seems to jive with other things I know to be true. If you read to the bottom you'll find a very detailed laundry list of references materials which the author claims to be the basis for his history. Trouble is there are no footnotes to compare against. You don't know where specifically he got his information.
There are some assertions (e.g. 500 million Baptists dying over ...) I would challenge him on. I agree with your assessment that there is never a concrete example of the persecuted people. The "Baptists head on a pole for 30 miles" seems a little incredulous to me even for the Middle Ages. This wasn't 4th century Rome.
My understanding is the author considers all "believers" outside organized Church/church from the conception of the Church to be Baptists (not just Ana-Baptists). This seems to be a rather broad brush treatment. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that all these "loose" Christians represents Baptist beliefs even by the author's definition. That being said it would seem equally incredulous to me to believe that there was a period of time (after the 2nd century) when everyone who called themselves Christian was a member of the existing Church. What would one call them? By the author's VERY LOOSE definition (e.g. believe church and state should be separate, immersion baptism, loose denominational structure) you could almost fit anyone into that category.
Even though some of the information is questionable, the author presents some valid points and his history seems to be about accurate. I wouldn't dismiss the entire history. That being said I noticed he left out the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1610. I questioned why he didn't go into this important document from the Baptist perspective. It would seem to me the Baptists must have start forming before the time he seems to indicates.