This is where I stopped reading (yes, I'll go back and finish after I type this comment). Even a little research into some of these groups, especially the Albigenses and the Cathari, should make the Baptists (and any Christian for that matter) not want to identify with them.
You would think! I always tell Baptists Successionists (after they tell me that the Cathari are their ancestors) that I fully agree there might be a relationship between those medieval supporters of sodomy and ritual murder (the Cathari) and modern day Baptists. That usually stops them in their tracks. Then we can have a more rational conversation.
I’ve never figured out why they want to claim a connection to people who practiced every sort of depravity, either, but that seems to be a proud claim of Protestants (that the Cathars were the secret church and the ancestors of Protestantism, etc.). I actually didn’t realize this until a former Protestant (now Catholic) friend told me about her Sunday school education and how Protestants traced their “lineage” to the Cathari, the Albigensians, and just about any hideous heresy known to God and man.
I'd agree with that. Until I had read this article, I had thought the "trail of blood/Baptist successionism" claim was based on doctrine (Christology, Soteriology) and not polity (autonomous government, closed/members-only communion, credo-baptism by immersion). Generally speaking, Baptist preachers in 19th-century America eschewed the formal doctrinal training other clergy received. One joke during that time defined a Methodist as "a Baptist who has learned to read and write." It wouldn't surprise me if "Trail of Blood" author J. M. Carroll had no idea (or cared) what these groups actually believed. Baptists historically are anti-creedal in their beliefs, as the creeds themselves were created by "established religions" and therefore suspect of containing error.
You can find the entire tract "The Trail of Blood" online. Note that the Reformers - Luther, Calvin, et al - fare little better than the Catholics do in it's brief survey of church history:
During all these hard struggles for Reformation, continuous and valuable aid was given to the reformers, by many Ana-Baptists, or whatever other name they bore. Hoping for some relief from their own bitter lot, they came out of their hiding places and fought bravely with the reformers, but they were doomed to fearful disappointment. They were from now on to have two additional persecuting enemies. Both the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches brought out of their Catholic Mother many of her evils, among them her idea of a State Church. They both soon became Established Churches. Both were soon in the persecuting business, falling little, if any, short of their Catholic Mother.In it's conclusion/afterword, author J. M. Carroll lists what he considers the distinctives that mark a "true church". Note that specific beliefs re Christology, soteriology, etc aren't among them:
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament laws.
8. The various churches -- separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God--but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.