CORRESPONDENCE 1 1833 FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES (West)

The following is a copy of a Letter from our Brother, Elder Hezekiah West, of Orwell, Pa.

CIRCULAR LETTER, [Of the Chemung Baptist Association, for 1844.] (West)

BROTHER BEEBE: – By order and on behalf of the Chemung Baptist Association, I send you the following, with a request for you to publish it in the Signs. Brother Jewett is also requested to publish it in the Advocate and Monitor.

BAPTIST CHURCHES RENTING OUT THEIR PEWS (West)

South-hill, Bradford co., Pa., Feb. 20, 1844.

CIRCULAR AND CORRESPONDING LETTER OF THE ALLEGHENY BAP. ASS’N. (West)

The Messengers of the Churches composing the Allegheny Baptist Association, to the several Churches which they represent and to Corresponding Associations – Greeting:

THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS AND THE BIBLE (Santamaria)

Last night I watched the 1932 film called The Island of Lost Souls and thought about its implications, especially the line Dr. Moreau said about feeling like God - ed]

WITH MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE (Santamaria)

That sentence is like a door that only opens when you stop trying to kick it in.

Taught by Him (Santamaria)

Ephesians 4 is where Paul turns the jewel in his hand and lets the light hit it from a different angle. The first half of the letter has been singing about what God has done—election, redemption, sealing, resurrection-life, union, peace, one new man. Then chapter 4 begins to press the gospel down into shoe-leather: walk worthy… not as the Gentiles walk… put off… put on… speak truth… forgive… love.

BEHOLD I SEND YOU OUT AS SHEEP AMONG WOLVES (SANTAMARIA)

So short a sentence, and yet it carries the whole strange logic of Christ’s kingdom: power that refuses to dress up as power, victory that will not borrow the devil’s tools, courage that does not need claws.

Why a Pastor Should Care about Children’s Ministry : 9Marks (Santamaria)

MODERN YOUTH WORK AMONG SOME BAPTISTS

We encountered an article by a Baptist Reformed pastor and decided to use it as a typical example of what is passing for sound theology among Reformed Baptists.

“Party Water,” I invented “Party Water.” 

“Party Water” is just water, and the kids all know that. Nonetheless, I use it as a gimmick to advertise “Pastor Ed’s After-School Kids Class.” For the past two decades, I’ve met every Tuesday during the school year at 4 p.m. in my office with the elementary school students of our church. The 90-minute event draws about 15 children each week. 

We eat unhealthy snacks, play dodgeball in the basement, learn vocabulary words like “soteriology,” study a passage of Scripture, color a picture, drink “Party Water,” and dismiss. It’s a pretty simple operation, but it constantly ranks as my favorite ministry activity of the week. 

 I don’t have any deep philosophical underpinnings that support my rationale for doing it. Their parents are members of our church. I am their pastor. They are souls that will spend eternity somewhere, and this is an opportunity to give them the gospel. As I search my heart, I honestly don’t have anything profound to say about the necessity of the senior pastor being involved in ministering directly to children like this. It’s pretty simple. They are people who need the Word of God. My schedule allows me to do it, and I desire to do it. That’s pretty much all there is to it. 

I’m aware that my contribution is merely a supplement to their overall spiritual education. Their primary source for learning about God and His Word must come from home. With that foundational understanding of children’s ministry in place, I stand ready to reinforce what their parents teach them daily. I recall being deeply impacted as a child by the deep concern my pastor showed for my soul. Even though I was unconverted and disinterested in spiritual things, I knew my pastor was invested in my salvation. 

Like all children, I didn’t fully appreciate his commitment to my spiritual well-being until many years later. God only knows what the children of North Shore Baptist Church will remember half a century from now about our after-school class. One cannot do ministry with a crystal ball. The Lord has ordained his desired end for each of these young people. I pray that he, by his gospel, will save them. I also know that the same God who ordained the end has also ordained the means by which that end will be accomplished. 

As pastors, we are to employ the means of preaching the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. This we do on Sunday mornings in front of the entire congregation. But it’s also something we can do throughout the week with people of all ages God brings into our path. In Matthew 19:14, Jesus said to his disciples, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the Kingdom of heaven.” Much can be said about what this verse does not mean. Admittedly, it’s a somewhat challenging verse to understand and apply. However, when all the faithful exegesis has been completed, there is no doubt that children were precious in his sight. And they remain precious. As pastors, we must follow the command of our Chief Shepherd, the one who said, “See that you do not despise these little ones” (Matt. 18:10). He was, of course, referring to all believers as the “little ones,” but this certainly includes little believers. 

 As our Lord entered the temple in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, he accepted the praise of the children who cried out, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” Christ then defended their right to extol him as King by quoting David in Psalm 8: “Have you never read, ’Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?” (Matt. 21:15–16) Jesus, in the days of his flesh, had an awareness of and a love for the little children. We should love the little children, too. Perhaps your schedule doesn’t allow you to hold a weekly after-school class. Perhaps your church is too big or too little to hold such a gathering. The time, venue, and format are flexible. 

What’s important is that we as pastors intentionally make an effort to show concern for the little ones in our midst. This is not to say there’s no place for a “Director of Children’s Ministries” in a church. Thank God for those who have expertise and gifting in this area! They serve the Kingdom greatly. It is to say, however, that we as pastors should never fall into the trap of thinking we are above caring for the souls of young children. Your context is likely different than mine. You’ll need to responsibly assess your availability. But regardless of your weekly calendar demands, I would urge you to prayerfully consider making a genuine effort to know, to love, to spend time with, and to give the gospel to the children in your church. 

 Also, should you opt to employ the “Party Water” refreshment option, I’ll expect royalties lest you violate the trademark.

https://www.9marks.org/article/why-a-pastor-should-care-about-childrens-ministry/

By Ed Moore¹

OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST VIEW

From a classic Old School / Primitive Baptist lens, this little “Party Water” ministry reads like a warm pastoral heart riding in a buggy labeled Sunday School—even if you never meant to hitch it that way.

What an Old School Baptist would affirm

A pastor personally caring for children in the congregation is not the problem. In fact, the instinct—“I am their pastor… they are souls… I want them to have the Word”—fits the older pastoral model better than modern “outsourcing” to a youth-industrial complex.

You also correctly put the home first (“primary source… must come from home”). Old School folks would shout “amen” to that priority.

Where the Old School Baptist alarm-bells start ringing

The “means” framing is exactly what the Old School split protested.You say: 
God ordained the end, and also ordained the means… we are to employ the means of preaching the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. That’s the precise kind of language the Old School Baptists resisted when it was applied to regeneration / eternal salvation. The 1832 Black Rock Address explicitly objects to Sunday Schools for claiming to be “the instituted means” of bringing children to salvation and for claiming the honor of “converting” masses of children—calling those claims “arrogant pretensions.” (Bethlehem PBC Oklahoma City)

Old School shorthand: the gospel is precious and powerful, but not as a humanly-managed instrument that produces the new birth on demand. (They’ll gladly say it’s powerful to call out, comfort, feed, instruct, chasten, and bring “time deliverances,” but they get very spiky when it’s treated as the mechanism of quickening.) (Primitive Baptist)

“Gimmick to advertise” feels like “new measures” DNA.Old School Baptists weren’t humorless—Beebe could be wonderfully sharp—but they distrusted 
carnal attraction as a religious engine. A cutesy brand (“Party Water”) used as an advert for a weekly youth program looks, to them, like the same principle as tract-society marketing: religion pushed by technique rather than carried by truth + Spirit. (Even if your intentions are sincere, Old School critique often targets methods that subtly re-train the church.) (Bethlehem PBC Oklahoma City)

A weekly after-school “kids class” is functionally… a Sunday School cousin.You’re not using a board, curriculum industry, or a “society,” so it’s a simpler version—but the Old School objection wasn’t only “boards are bad.” It was also the broader move toward 
auxiliary institutions that claim spiritual results by system. The Black Rock Address treats Sunday Schools alongside tract societies because they “assume the same high stand.” (Bethlehem PBC Oklahoma City)

How the three Old School “buckets” would react (in your terms)

Absoluters (anti-means instinct): most critical. They’ll like your pastoral tenderness but reject the means-to-regeneration logic and the programmatic “kids class” vibe as a doorway back into the very innovations Black Rock resisted. (Bethlehem PBC Oklahoma City)

Means Baptists (Primitive Baptists who allow more “instrumentality” talk): more open. They may still dislike the marketing/gimmick tone, but they can interpret it as instruction and “time salvation” help, not as the cause of the new birth. (Primitive Baptist)

Conditionalists: generally the most sympathetic to the “God ordains means” framing and would often approve the approach—again, with possible caution about gimmicks.

If an Old School Baptist rewrote this ministry without changing your heart

Keep: pastor knows the children, speaks Scripture, prays, catechizes, and encourages family worship.

Drop/soften: the “advertising” posture and anything that implies this meeting is an instituted pipeline for conversions.

Reframe: not “my weekly means to get them saved,” but “a pastoral opportunity to teach, admonish, and comfort—and to leave regeneration where Old School Baptists insist it belongs: in God’s immediate work.”

In other words, Old School Baptists would say your love is admirable, but your theology-of-method is standing too close to the very fire they spent a century warning churches not to warm their hands by.

Old School Baptists didn’t argue that no one may ever speak truth to children who aren’t biologically theirs. They argued something more pointed (and more explosive): the primary stewardship for children’s religious nurture belongs to parents, and the church must not outsource Christianity into man-made “instruction machines” that imply regeneration can be produced by technique.

Trott (via the Black Rock Address he helped author)

In the Black Rock Address (1832)—a manifesto Samuel Trott helped author—Sunday Schools are rejected in their then-popular religious form because they claimed “the honor of converting” children and functioned as an “instituted means” of bringing them to salvation. The Address says that view rests on the false notion that regeneration is produced by impressions on the natural mind.

Then it makes your exact “parent vs. other teachers” question explicit:

Parents are commanded to raise children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and that command, the Address says, “instead of countenancing, forbids” parents from entrusting their children’s religious education to “giddy, unregenerated young persons.”

And it adds an important nuance that Old School writers often repeat: they could approve a “Sunday school” as a civil-literacy mercy (teaching poor children to read so they can read Scripture), so long as it is not sold as a conversion-engine and not wrapped in religious ostentation.

Trott’s volume also frames Black Rock’s target as “worldly societies,” explicitly including Sabbath-school societies.

Beebe (directly, in his “Sabbath Schools” objections)

Gilbert Beebe’s most on-point piece is his 1860 reply titled “Sabbath Schools.” His objections line up with Black Rock, but he hammers them with a mallet:

He says the system is built on the false theory that saving religion is a “mere science” that can be taught like grammar or geography—therefore functioning as though it could supersede the Holy Spirit in quickening/regenerating.

He argues it conflicts with the New Covenant promise (he’s echoing Hebrews 8:11 / Jeremiah 31:34 logic): the covenant provides that they shall not need that external “Know the Lord” instruction as the mechanism of knowing God—yet (he says) the “grand object” of the schools is to teach the unregenerate to know the Lord.

He’s especially savage about the spiritual marketing claim that the institution can “promote the salvation” of children—calling such a claim idolatrous rivalry with God’s own “beside me there is no Savior.”

Now, your “Party Water” gimmick lands right in Beebe’s crosshairs for another reason: moral suasion—using incentives and attractions to bend behavior without changing nature. Beebe explicitly mocks the “bend the twig” strategy associated with “Infant and Sunday Schools,” warning that bending doesn’t change the tree: “First make the tree good…” (his point: new nature precedes good fruit; technique can’t manufacture it).

So—should Christian education be left to parents?

From a documented Old School Baptist angle:

Yes, primarily. Parents are the first line of duty, and “outsourcing” children’s spiritual formation to a weekly program is exactly what Black Rock says the parental command forbids when it becomes a substitute or a conversion-scheme.

The church still teaches—just not by inventing a parallel institution. Old School Baptists weren’t anti-teaching; they were anti-machinery: boards, unions, and “schools” that function like spiritual factories and imply the new birth is producible by method.

The practical Old School “shape” of it

If an Old School elder/pastor is going to care for children who aren’t his biologically, he’d typically insist on this posture:

Support parents; don’t replace them. Treat your contact with the children as an extension of pastoral oversight and congregational life, not a competing “system.”

No salesmanship. Don’t hook kids with gimmicks as though attraction produces life—Beebe’s whole “bend the twig” critique is aimed at that psychology.

No implied regeneration-by-program. Teach truth, pray, exhort, and trust God to do what only God does.

Summary: Trott and Beebe don’t forbid pastors from caring about children. They forbid turning that care into an invented institution that displaces parents and pretends conversion can be engineered.

---

Endnotes

1. 1. Looks like “Pastor Ed” in Queens (and the “Party Water” piece) is Ed Moore, not “Ed George.”The article you pasted (“Party Water… Pastor Ed’s After-School Kids Class”) is published by 9Marks as “Why a Pastor Should Care about Children’s Ministry” by Ed Moore, identified there as senior pastor of North Shore Baptist Church in Bayside, New York (Queens). (9Marks)North Shore Baptist Church’s own site lists Ed Moore (1992–present) as pastor, and their children’s ministry page explicitly advertises an Afterschool Class in “Pastor Ed’s Office” featuring “party water.” (North Shore Baptist Church)Together for the Gospel also has a “Meet Ed Moore” page saying he’s served as a pastor in Queens, New York for nearly 30 years.On “Pastor Ed George” (Queens NY Baptist): with that exact phrasing, I’m not seeing a clear, credible match tied to Queens or to the “Party Water” ministry. The search results that surfaced under “Ed George” were mostly unrelated “George ___” pastors in other states or generic directory pages, not a Queens Baptist pastor connected to your text. (LinkedIn)So if your goal is to identify the author / church behind the “Party Water” writeup: it’s Ed Moore, North Shore Baptist Church, Bayside (Queens), NY. (9Marks) ↩︎

DAVID & BATHESHEBA (Santamaria)

DAVID & BATHSHEBA

Contents

• FOREWORD
• THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DAVID & BATHSHEBA
  • 1) It begins with a power imbalance, not courtship
  • 2) It happens while David is shirking his proper role
  • 3) The sin is layered and escalating, not a single bad decision
  • 4) The relationship is entangled with the betrayal of a faithful man
  • 5) It produces a public justice moment: Nathan’s confrontation
  • 6) David’s response is one of the clearest repentance models in the Bible
  • 7) God’s forgiveness is real, but the consequences are severe and generational
  • 8) Their first child dies—an unusually hard theological knot
  • 9) Bathsheba later becomes politically significant, not merely “the woman in the scandal”
  • 10) The relationship sits at a bizarre intersection of sin and covenant history
• HOW WAS THE LAW OF MOSES APPLIED TO THE AFFAIR?
  • What actually happens in the narrative
• WHY WOULD GOD USE THE UNION BETWEEN DAID AND BATHSHEBA TO BRING FORTH THE MESSIAH
  • God had already bound the Messiah to David’s house.
  • The Bible refuses to pretend the line is morally clean—on purpose.
  • God is showing that human evil can’t derail divine purpose—without excusing the evil.
  • It kills boasting at the root.
  • It previews what Jesus came to do.
• HOW WOULD DAVID'S MURDER OF BATHSHEBA'S HUSBAND WORK IN THE PLAN
  • The Bible’s own pattern: one act, two intentions
  • 2) God folds the crime into a public moral revelation
  • 3) The murder triggers covenant consequences that reshape the whole monarchy story
  • 4) And yes—historically, it’s part of the chain by which Solomon comes
  • The clean, hard conclusion
• WHAT DID BEEBE AND TROTT THINK OF THIS?
  • Trott’s way of saying it (and it fits your question almost perfectly)
  • What does that mean for “How does Uriah’s murder work in the plan?”

---

FOREWORD

CALVINISM AND PARTICULAR BAPTISTS (Crowley)

I recently read a conversion narrative which nevertheless left me in the place of Old Jack, "Me no get hold of him." It did prompt a close examination of Calvinist doctrines. Although I have used "Calvinist" as a shorthand for divine sovereignty, I am more and more convinced that English and American Predestinarian Baptists in their formative period (1641-1679) were not Calvinists, nor were many later Particular Baptists in America, especially (1679-1832). The following excerpts by Peter Lumpkin from Calvin's Institutes derive from premises somewhat true, a doctrine which all my fathers in the faith held in the utmost abhorrence:

John Calvin on Infant Salvation

And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” (Rom. 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt. (Institutes, Book 2, Sec. 8)

“But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified.(Inst. Book 4, Sec. 17)

And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction…This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God (Inst. Book 4, Sec. 18)

“As far as relates to young children, they seem to perish not by their own, but for another’s fault; but the solution is twofold; for although sin does not appear in them, yet it is latent, since they carry about with them corruption shut up in their soul, so that they are worthy of condemnation before God (Ezek. Comm. 18:4)

“We ought, therefore, to hold it as a settled point, that all who are destitute of the grace of God are involved in the sentence of eternal death. Hence it follows, that the children of the reprobate, whom the curse of God pursues, are liable to the same sentence. Isaiah, therefore, does not speak of innocent children, but of flagitious and unprincipled children who perhaps even exceeded their parents in wickedness; in consequence of which they were justly associated with their parents, and subjected to the same punishment, seeing that they have followed the same manner of life…it was with their parents that the rejection began, on account of which they also have been forsaken and rejected by God. Their own guilt is not set aside as if they had been innocent; but, having been involved in the same sins as to reprobation, they are also liable to the same punishments and miseries. (Isa. Comm 14:21)

“I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination” (Inst. Book 3, Sec. 23, 7)

Of this particular passage, 19th C. Reformed theologian Dr. H. J. Van Dyke says:

"Now let us be candid with ourselves, and even with our opponents. Historic Calvinism does include what Calvin himself calls the horribile decretum, that by the election and predestination of God many nations, with their infant children, are irretrievably doomed to eternal death” (Variations within Calvinism, pp.39-40). 

 “If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient” (Inst. Book 4, Sec. 16, 21)

THE OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST VOICE (Santamaria)

 

THE OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST VOICE

FOREWORD

OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS - WRITINGS (Santamaria)

PRESBYTERIAN OLD SCHOOL BOOKS SUMMARIES

Contents

• FOREWORD
• Summarization of important old school Presbyterian works
• Chapter-by-chapter summaries of eight long 19th-century Old-School/New-School controversy documents.
• 8) Isaac V. Brown, Historical Vindication of the Abrogation of the Plan of Union (1855) — chapter-by-chapter

FOREWORD

God’s Sovereign Work in His People: Resting in Unconditional Grace (Smith))

If we truly embrace the plain declarations of Scripture, we must acknowledge these foundational truths:

INFRASTRUCTURE IN DOCTRINE

 

INFRASTRUCTURE IN DOCTRINES

Contents

• FOREWORD
• INTRODUCTION
• HEBREWS 6.1-2
• SO WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT DOCTRINES IN ORDER?
• WHAT WERE THE OPINIONS OF BEEBE & TROTT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF ESCATAOLOGY

FOREWORD

Kill Your Sin - Founders Ministries (Sasntamaria)

[This article was written by Tom Ascol, Pastor of the Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL since 1986. Prior to moving to Florida, he served as pastor and associate pastor of churches in Texas. He has a BS degree in sociology from Texas A&M University (1979) and has also earned the MDiv and PhD degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft Worth, Texas. He has served as an adjunct professor of theology for various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary, the Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, African Christian University, Copperbelt Ministerial College, and Reformed Baptist Seminary. He has also served as a Visiting Professor at the Nicole Institute for Baptist Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Tom serves as the President of Founders Ministries and The Institute of Public Theology. We do not agree with him. But this will be a part of a new series where, based on the writings of Elder Beebe, we formulate what would have been his response - ed]

Moody & Sankey 1875 in London (Santamaria)

  Moody’s London work (especially the big Moody–Sankey campaign in 1875) drew real-time criticism that it produced unhealthy side-effects, even from people who weren’t denying that some good also occurred.

ORIGIN AND PERSONAGES OF CONDITIONAL TIME SALVATION (Santamaria)

Elder J.R. Respess (1840–1927) was a prominent Primitive Baptist preacher and writer, widely respected for his contributions to the Primitive Baptist publications and theological discussions. Here is a list of his significant writings, with a focus on his contributions to the Primitive Baptist movement:

📚 Key Writings of Elder J.R. Respess:

---

1. "The Primitive Baptist" (1877–1927)

• Contributions: Elder Respess was a regular contributor to The Primitive Baptist paper, which was a major publication for the Old School Primitive Baptist community. He wrote extensively on salvation, church governance, and the Christian walk.

• Key Focus: Much of his writing emphasized the importance of obedience and faithfulness in the Christian life, while affirming God’s sovereign grace in salvation.

---

2. "The Kingdom of God."

• Summary: This work delves into the concept of God's Kingdom, focusing on the spiritual reign of Christ in the hearts of believers.

• Key Themes:

  • The nature of Christ’s kingdom as a spiritual and invisible kingdom.

  • Obedience as a central aspect of life in God's kingdom.

  • The relationship between church life and the Kingdom of God.

---

3. "The Absolute and Conditional."

• Summary: In this book, Respess outlines his views on the difference between Absolute predestination (God’s sovereign election) and Conditional Time Salvation (obedience and faithfulness for temporal blessings).

• Key Themes:

  • Eternal salvation is unconditional (solely by grace).

  • Time salvation (blessings in this life) is conditional on the believer's obedience to God’s Word.

  • Explores the doctrinal division between Absoluters and Conditionalists within the Primitive Baptist movement.

---

4. "Salvation: By Grace, Through Faith, and Works."

• Summary: This treatise emphasizes the relationship between grace, faith, and works in the believer’s walk.

• Key Themes:

  • The role of faith as the channel of grace.

  • Obedience and good works as the fruit of salvation.

  • The proper understanding of grace that leads to a godly life.

---

5. "The Scriptural Doctrine of Election"

• Summary: Elder Respess elaborates on the Biblical doctrine of election, with a strong emphasis on God’s sovereign choice in salvation.

• Key Themes:

  • The eternal election of the saints by God's grace.

  • Election is unconditional; however, experiential salvation depends on the believer's obedience.

---

6. "The Great Commission."

• Summary: In this work, Respess discusses the Great Commission given by Christ in Matthew 28, emphasizing the church’s role in carrying out the gospel mandate.

• Key Themes:

  • Evangelistic duty of the church to preach and baptize.

  • Importance of church discipline and maintaining godly order.

---

7. "The Sovereignty of God in Salvation."

• Summary: A significant work where Respess outlines his views on the sovereignty of God, especially in the context of salvation.

• Key Themes:

  • God’s absolute control over salvation and eternal life.

  • Emphasis on the unconditional nature of salvation, affirming God's grace.

  • The relationship between sovereignty and free will, in which free will is acknowledged but God’s plan prevails.

---

8. "The Faith Once Delivered."

• Summary: In this work, Respess defends the historic teachings of the Primitive Baptists and urges adherence to biblical doctrines that were passed down through the church.

• Key Themes:

  • The preservation of biblical faith through the generations.

  • Importance of staying true to the teachings of the apostles.

  • A defense of Primitive Baptist tradition and its distinctive beliefs.

---

9. "Christ's Mission on Earth."

• Summary: Respess examines Christ's earthly mission, focusing on the purpose of His coming and the nature of His work.

• Key Themes:

  • Christ’s work as Redeemer and Savior.

  • The spiritual transformation that believers undergo in Christ.

  • Christ’s sacrifice and its implications for the believer’s life.

---

📚 Other Contributions:

In addition to these specific works, Elder J.R. Respess also contributed to various sermons, articles, and periodicals throughout his life, particularly in the publications of the Primitive Baptist denomination. Many of his writings emphasized the sovereignty of God, the importance of Scripture, and the necessity of faith and obedience for experiencing God's blessings in this life, while affirming that eternal salvation was always by grace alone.

CIRCUMCISION (SANTAMARIA)

The Jews (Israelites) were not circumcised in Egypt for several interrelated theological, historical, and practical reasons, as suggested in Scripture and interpreted by Jewish and Christian traditions. Here's a scholarly explanation:

---

The question of whether Jewish priests (Levites or Aaronic) were circumcised while in Egypt is an important one, particularly because of Joshua 5:5, which states:

"All the people who came out of Egypt were circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not been circumcised." (Joshua 5:5, NIV)

This suggests that those who came out of Egypt, including Moses, Aaron, and the priests, were circumcised. Let’s break this down into historical, textual, and theological evidence:

---

1. Scriptural Evidence that Priests Were Circumcised in Egypt

a. Moses was circumcised (or obligated to circumcise)

• Exodus 4:24–26 records the incident where God sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Zipporah then circumcised the child and averted judgment.

• This passage implies that circumcision was still expected and enforced by God, even in the period following Egyptian slavery.

• Moses’ failure to circumcise his own son seems to be an exception, not the rule, and may reflect the influence of his Midianite marriage rather than Israelite custom.

b. Aaron and the Levitical Line

• No passage in the Old Testament ever indicates that Aaron or the Levitical priests were uncircumcised.

• In fact, participation in the Passover was strictly limited to the circumcised only (Exodus 12:48):

  “No uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”

• Aaron and the priests participated in the original Passover in Egypt (Exodus 12), which confirms that they had to be circumcised to partake.

Thus, logically:

• Only circumcised males could partake of the Passover (Ex. 12:48)

• Aaron and Moses partook of the Passover

• → Therefore, Aaron and Moses were circumcised

---

2. Priestly Line Continued Without Disruption

• Levitical and Aaronic duties, once instituted in the wilderness (Exodus–Leviticus), assumed a pure lineage and obedience to covenantal signs.

• Since God chose Aaron and his sons for the priesthood, they would not have been allowed to serve while in an uncircumcised state.

• Ezekiel 44:7 (later, during exile) criticizes priests who allowed the uncircumcised in heart and flesh into God's sanctuary—implying that both external and internal circumcision were expected.

---

3. Historical Interpretation

a. Jewish Tradition

• Rabbinic sources (e.g., Midrash Rabbah, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael) affirm that circumcision was practiced among faithful Israelites in Egypt, though it declined or ceased for others.

• Some traditions say tribes like Levi remained more faithful during Egyptian bondage (cf. Exodus 32:26), suggesting the Levites may have preserved circumcision more strictly.

b. Theological Logic

• The sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:10–14) was circumcision, and failure to circumcise meant cutting off from the covenant community.

• For Israel's deliverance to be based on God's covenant with Abraham (Exodus 2:24–25), there had to remain at least a core of circumcised Israelites, especially among the leaders.

---

Conclusion:

Yes, the Jewish priests in Egypt were circumcised, and this is provable through:

1. Scriptural deduction: Passover participants had to be circumcised (Ex. 12:48), and Aaron and Moses participated.

2. Priestly qualifications: Aaron could not have served as high priest if he were uncircumcised.

3. Covenantal continuity: God honored His covenant with Abraham, implying at least partial continuity of the covenant sign.

4. Historical Jewish tradition: The tribe of Levi was more faithful than others during Egypt and likely maintained circumcision.

Would you like sources from Jewish commentators or early church fathers as well?

1. Biblical Reference:

In Joshua 5:2–9, we are explicitly told that the generation born in the wilderness had not been circumcised. The reason is given:

“All the people who came out of Egypt had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness on the way after they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.” (Joshua 5:5, ESV)

So, two facts are clear:

• The original Israelites who entered Egypt were circumcised.

• Their descendants stopped circumcising either during slavery or in the wilderness.

---

2. During Egyptian Bondage:

There is no direct biblical record of Israel practicing circumcision while in Egypt. Several theories explain why:

a. Oppression and Cultural Suppression:

Egyptian slavery may have made religious practices like circumcision difficult or dangerous. As foreign slaves, Israelites likely had little freedom to perform rituals. Egyptians also practiced their own form of circumcision, typically partial and at puberty—not infancy—so Israelite circumcision may have been seen as foreign or threatening.

b. Spiritual Decline in Egypt:

Ezekiel 20:5–8 strongly suggests that the Israelites fell into idolatry while in Egypt:

“...they rebelled against Me and would not listen to Me. They did not cast away the idols of Egypt.”

This spiritual compromise may have led to the neglect of the covenant sign (circumcision), since it symbolized faithfulness to God's covenant with Abraham.

---

3. In the Wilderness:

Even after the Exodus, circumcision was not resumed during the 40 years in the wilderness. This seems to be an act of divine judgment or consequence:

a. Sign of Covenant Withheld:

God may have withheld the covenant sign from the disobedient generation that would not enter the Promised Land (cf. Numbers 14). The delay in circumcision parallels the delay in entering the land. Only after the wilderness generation died off did Joshua resume circumcision at Gilgal.

b. Re-covenanting at Gilgal:

Joshua 5 presents the circumcision at Gilgal as a national renewal of the covenant, once the new generation was poised to inherit the land. God says:

“Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” (Joshua 5:9)

This implies that lack of circumcision had left them under spiritual reproach, which was only removed once they re-obeyed.

---

4. Theological Symbolism:

In a deeper sense, circumcision symbolized separation, obedience, and identity with God's covenant. Neglecting it during Egyptian bondage and the wilderness symbolizes:

• Israel's loss of identity under oppression

• God's displeasure with their unbelief

• The need for renewed obedience in the new land

---

Summary:

The Jews were not circumcised in Egypt likely due to a combination of:

• Oppression and loss of religious freedom

• Spiritual compromise and idolatry

• God’s judgment during the wilderness period

• A divine plan to renew the covenant only upon entering Canaan

This neglect was reversed in Joshua 5, when circumcision resumed as a public recommitment to God's covenant with Abraham.

Would you like the Jewish rabbinic view or early Christian interpretations (e.g., in the Church Fathers) as well? 

It is very likely that some Jews (Israelites) in Egypt were not circumcised at the time of the first Passover, and therefore did not participate in the meal.

Why?

Because Exodus 12:43–48 explicitly forbids any uncircumcised person from eating the Passover:

Exodus 12:48 –
“No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.”

This law applied not only to foreigners or servants, but to Israelites themselves. Participation in the Passover required circumcision as a covenant sign.

---

Historical Context:

During the centuries in Egypt, the Israelites fell into neglect of circumcision, especially during their slavery.

Joshua 5:5 –
“Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness... them they had not circumcised.”

This suggests that only a segment of Israel maintained the practice, and likely only those who obeyed God's command were circumcised before the first Passover in order to participate.

---

Therefore:

✅ Some Israelites were circumcised before the first Passover and ate it.
🚫 Some were not circumcised and were therefore excluded from the meal.

There is no mention of mass punishment for uncircumcised Israelites at that moment — only that they could not participate in the covenant meal.

---

Conclusion:

• There were likely Israelites in Egypt who were not circumcised at the time of the first Passover.

• They would have been excluded from eating the lamb, according to God's command in Exodus 12:48.

• Only those who obeyed and were circumcised took part in that foundational covenant meal.

The uncircumcised Israelites were not automatically killed by the angel of death unless they disobeyed God’s specific command to apply the blood of the lamb.

---

Let’s break it down carefully:

🔑 Exodus 12:12–13 – What prevented death?

“When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you…”

God's judgment passed over houses marked with blood, regardless of who was inside — circumcised or not. The protection was based on obedience to the instruction to kill a lamb and apply its blood to the doorposts.

---

🔍 So what if an Israelite was uncircumcised?

• If an uncircumcised Israelite lived in a house where the blood of the lamb was applied, then that house was passed over.

• Circumcision was a requirement to eat the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48), but not explicitly a requirement for deliverance from the plague.

• The judgment came to the firstborn in homes without the blood, not to individuals based on personal circumcision status.

---

🧾 Summary:

Condition	Consequence
Blood applied to the doorpost	Death angel passes over the house
No blood on the doorpost	The firstborn in that house dies
An uncircumcised person in a protected house	Likely spared, but excluded from eating the lamb
Uncircumcised, disobedient, and did not apply blood	Firstborn likely perished

---

Final Thought:

God's instructions were very clear. Those who believed and obeyed applied the blood, and their households were protected. The issue at Passover was not primarily circumcision, but faith shown through obedience (Hebrews 11:28).

Hebrews 11:28 – “Through faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.”

So, while circumcision determined who could eat the lamb, it was the blood on the doorposts that saved the firstborn — and this was the dividing line between life and death that night in Egypt.

Application of the Prophecies Contained in Daniel From Chapters 8 to 11,

Remarks designed to show the proper and extended application of the prophecies contained in Daniel from chapters 8 to 11, inclusive, with a particular reference to the texts chapter 8.13-14 And 12.7-12.

The Dawn of The Immortal Morning (Smoot)

“Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” – 2 Thessalonians ii, 3.

“Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led astray with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.” – 2 Peter iii, 17.

THE BRIGHTER EVIDENCE (SMOOT)

Dear Brother Beebe & Sons: – From the reading of the obituary of Mr. Ebenezer Alden in the last received number of the SIGNS, I have felt like offering a few thoughts upon this subject.

THE WHOLE CREATION GROANS (SMOOT)

Reply to Brother Cory

Brother Elijah Cory of Moorland, Indiana, has requested our views on the following Scripture:

“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” – Romans viii, 22, 23.

With old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ / And seem a saint when most I play the devil." (Santamaria)

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy / With old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ / And seem a saint when most I play the devil."

And pious action we do sugar o'er The devil himself." (Santamaria)

"We are oft to blame in this,—'Tis too much proved — that with devotion's visage
And pious action we do sugar o'er
The devil himself."

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF ELDER SAMUEL TROTT (Santamaria)

Elder Samuel S. Trott (1783–1866) was a prominent American Baptist preacher and a foundational figure in the Old School Baptist movement, also known as Primitive Baptists. His theological perspectives and leadership significantly influenced Baptist practices in the 19th century.

Early Life and Ministry

Born in 1783, Trott's early life details are sparse. He initially joined a Presbyterian church, where he described himself as a "pretty strict formalist" and a "legalist." Over time, his theological views evolved, leading him to embrace Baptist principles. On December 22, 1810, he was baptized by Elder William Parkinson in New York City. By 1816, Trott had moved to Ohio, where he engaged in teaching and preaching.

Leadership in the Old School Baptist Movement

Trott emerged as a leading figure among Baptists who opposed the modern missionary movement and other "new measures" being introduced into Baptist and Protestant churches during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Alongside Elder Gilbert Beebe, he was instrumental in articulating the principles of the Old School Baptists, emphasizing a return to what they viewed as the original doctrines and practices of the church.

The Black Rock Address of 1832

One of Trott's most notable contributions was his involvement in drafting the Black Rock Address in 1832. This document delineated the distinctions between the Old School (Primitive) Baptists and those adopting new practices such as mission societies, Sunday schools, and theological seminaries. The address articulated the Old School Baptists' commitment to traditional Baptist ecclesiology and their rejection of what they perceived as unscriptural innovations.

Pastoral Roles and Writings

Trott served as the pastor of the Welsh Tract Baptist Church in Newark, Delaware, a congregation with historical significance among Baptists. He was also a prolific writer, contributing extensively to publications like the "Signs of the Times," where he addressed various theological topics, including the doctrine of predestination. His writings often emphasized the sovereignty of God and the doctrinal positions of the Old School Baptists.

Elder Samuel S. Trott lost a son in the Mexican-American War. His son, William Trott, enlisted and served in the war but tragically died during the conflict. William Trott was a soldier in the United States Army during the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), a conflict that arose between the U.S. and Mexico after the annexation of Texas and territorial disputes in the southwestern U.S. Death in Battle: William Trott, who was likely in his late teens or early 20s at the time, was killed in battle during the war. The exact details of his death are not fully documented in the sources, but it is known that many young men, including soldiers from various backgrounds, lost their lives in the intense and bloody conflict.

William Trott’s death deeply affected Samuel Trott, and it is noted in some of the biographical accounts of Samuel's life. The loss of a son in such a tumultuous and significant war was a personal tragedy for Trott and highlighted the difficult realities that many families faced during this period of American history.

Later Years and Legacy

In his later years, Trott continued to minister and write, remaining a steadfast advocate for the principles he had long championed. He passed away in 1866 at the age of 83. His contributions left a lasting impact on the Primitive Baptist tradition, and his writings continue to be referenced by those within the movement.

IT IS NOT THE THINGS THAT COME INTO A MAN...(SANTAMARIA)

Jesus’ statement—“There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him”—is not a clever slogan. It is a doorway into the Bible’s whole doctrine of sin, purity, and the only real cleansing. And Scripture backs the logic at every turn.

LET THE DEAD BURY THE DEAD (Smoot)

“Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about Him, He gave commandment to depart onto the other side.” “And a certain scribe came, and said unto Him, Master, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest. And Jesus saith unto Him, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head. And another of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow Me; and let the dead bury their dead.” – Matthew viii, 18-22.