OLD LINE AND PRORESSIVE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS

The Old-line and Progressive Primitive Baptist Debate

By Elder Jamey Tucker

FOREWORD

Converted from Word with true two-way endnotes. Click any ^[n] in the body to jump to the note; use the ↩︎ in the note to jump back.

OF THE DISPERSION AND THE VARIOUS NAMES OF THE WALDENSES OR FOLLOWERS OF PETER WALDO.

When Peter Waldo with his adherents, through the cruel hatred of the papists, had to leave the city of Lyons, on account of his faith, they became distributed and scattered into different parts of the world, and, hence, received various appellations, with regard to the places where they resided, as well as with regard to their faith, and to the accusations brought against them, especially by the Romanists. In the History of the Waldenses, by D. Balthasar Lydius, 

OF THE CONVERSION OF PETER WALDO, AND THE RISE OF THE WALDENSES, ETC. M. Matthias Flaccius Illyricus

(in his Catalog. Tesitum Veritatis, between fol. 263, and fol. 277, 265according to Jac. Mehrning in Bapt. Hist., page 601), writes: “About A. D. 1160, several of the principal citizens of Lyons were together, conversing on various matters, as is customary in the summer season, in Italy and France.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY. SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

[The last year of the preceding century, namely, A. D. 1100, is introduced here by way of introduction to the following century; in which it is shown, that in and shortly after that time there existed the Waldenses and Albigeois, of whom we shall speak more fully about the middle of this century. For the year 1105, some persons are introduced, who opposed infant baptism, transubstantiation, and the Roman church; also, some, for the year 1119, who condemned the mass. Certain people, who held the same views as were afterwards held in the time of Peter Waldus. Their views against the Pope, infant baptism, the mass, image worship, secular power of the church, persecution, etc. Rupert Tuiciensis gives an excellent exposition of the baptism of the ancients; he teaches, that, in order to be baptized, one must first believe, and confess the faith; that many who are baptized with water, are not renewed inwardly, because their heart is not right, though they make confession with the mouth; that the truly baptized, from servants of sin, become children of God; that the word of God was preached to the Christian youth throughout the whole year to prepare them for baptism. What a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V., has written on said words of Rupertus; what P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus have noted from the writings of Rupert; that even some learned men of the Roman church accorded with Rupert. Johannes Bohemius and Ludovicus Vives, and their belief against the Roman church. Many Christians at Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and other parts of France, called Petrobrusians; they, according to Peter, abbot of Cluny, reproved the abuses of the Roman church. Of Arnald of Brescia and Peter Abelard, who also opposed infant baptism. Henricus Petri Tholossanus opposes fifteen articles to the papists, which are all fully stated. Some peasants in France, called Apostolics, also teach against infant baptism, purgatory, praying for the dead, and the invocation of the saints. The Albigenses, from the province of Albi, and the Waldenses, the followers of Peter Waldus, now arise; the conversion of Peter Waldus, and how he, having separated from the Roman church, gathered unto himself many people, to whom he taught the doctrine of the holy Gospel, and who became his followers.

van Braght, Thieleman J.. THE BLOODY THEATER OR MARTYRS MIRROR (pp. 911-912). Welsh Tract Publications. Kindle Edition. 

MANY OF THE FOLLOWERS OF BERENGARIUS, CALLED BERENGARIANS, ANATHEMATIZED BY ORDER OF THE POPE, AT PIACENZA, IN ITALY, A. D. 1095, AND AFTERWARDS PERSECUTED UNTO DEATH, ABOUT A. D. 1100.

It is stated that after the death of Berengarius, his doctrine (spoken of above) in reference to baptism and the Supper, against the belief of the Roman church, gained much favor among his followers, who were called Berengarians; so that England, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and even part of the Netherlands, became filled with it.

A CRUEL PERSECUTION, INSTITUTED BY THE DANISH KING WORM AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS

A. D. 926. It is recorded that A. D. 926, there appeared, from another quarter than the one of which we have spoken, namely, from Denmark, a cruel tyrant who was King of said country, and whose name accorded well with his deeds. His name was Worm, and whatever he did was gnawing, biting, and devouring, so that he inflicted much vexation, misery, and grief upon the followers of the Christian faith, in persecuting, tormenting, and, as appears, killing and destroying them. Of this tyrant, P. J. Twisck makes mention with these words: 

EXTRACT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, TOUCHING THE MARTYRDOM OF THE YOUTH PELAGIUS.

“When Habdarrhaghman, the King of the Arabians, had, from bishop Ermoigus, his nephew Pelagius, as a pledge or hostage, the tyrant tore him with red-hot tongs; and, having been torn limb from limb, he was thrown into the nearest river, when he was scarcely thirteen years old.” Chron., 10th book, fol. 329, col. 1, from Merulae., fol. 621. Note.

PELAGIUS, A LAD OF THIRTEEN YEARS, AFTER MUCH SUFFERING FOR THE TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH, AT CORDOVA, HAS HIS ARMS AND LEGS CUT OFF, AND IS FINALLY BEHEADED

A. D. 925. It is stated that about two years after, namely, A. D. 925, a lad of thirteen years, called Pelagius, was put to death for the name of Christ, in Cordova, which occurred as follows: His uncle, Ermoigus (who by some writers is called a bishop), having been apprehended and imprisoned at Cordova, by the Arabian King Habdarrhaghman, said Ermoigus, in order to be released, left his nephew, who was then only about thirteen years old, in his stead, as a pledge,

A LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE REGION OF CORDOVA, BY THE ARABIS, INSTITUTED BY THEIR KING HABDARRHAGHMAN

A. D. 923. A. D. 923, a terrible persecution was raised by the Arabs against the Christian believers in the region of Cordova. This occurred mainly through the wickedness of the Arabian King Habdarrhaghman IV., who allowed himself to be called protector of the law of God, and king of the believers; but, being filled with bitter hatred against the true law of Jesus Christ, and, consequently, also against the true Christian believers, he considered and declared all Christians unbelievers and despisers of the law of God. 

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE TENTH CENTURY. SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS WHO SUFFERED IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

[About the year 910, we again refer to Giselbert (see our Account of Holy Baptism), who teaches, as it were, for the consolation of the martyrs who could not receive water baptism, that it is in God’s power to show mercy to them on account of their good will.

OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD, ITS ORIGIN, PROGRESS, AND IMMOVABLE STABILITY, THROUGH ALL TIMES.

[More Excerpts from Martyrs Mirror  https://a.co/d/dMAO8K9 - ed]

WHY RESTRICTED COMMUNION? (Revised) Santamaria

Hero image (replace alt text/caption)

WHY RESTRICTED COMMUNION?

FOREWORD

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THIS CENTURY.

[We will be publishing excerpts from our new eBook, Martyrs' Mirror

“As far as regards the preceding century, I cannot speak of any improvement, inasmuch as the secular affairs manifested themselves with much commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion prevailed more and more. The idolatrous ceremonies were very prolific; the baptismal water was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted to others; the Supper, or sacrament, was administered nearly every Sunday, at an altar or table prepared for this purpose. Excommunication or the ban of the church was used very frivolously, not only against common people, but also against emperors, kings, and princes. The punishment imposed upon penitents consisted much in abstaining for seven years from certain food, meat and wine, or in the giving of alms, building of churches, founding of cloisters, and other like inventions and burdens, 240according to the ability and mind of each respective individual. “It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped; not that they should save the supplicants, but that they should intercede, and ask God for help for them. “Holy people were presented, who had died before the time of Christ, in the Old Testament, and who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet without pain—a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting the holy fathers. “It was said that there was a purgatory, where men had to atone after this life, and wash away sin by suffering. 

“The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was very common. The holidays instituted in honor of the saints, were very many, and took away nearly one half of the year. The images and graves of the saints were greatly esteemed. Kings, princes, lords, ecclesiastics, and laymen, made pilgrimages to Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where the bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved, as though dead bones without spirit, could impart life or benefit. “The sick would confess to the ear of the priest, and thereupon receive the sacrament of the unction; after which they departed in full assurance, though without any good resulting from it. “The dead were buried with the ringing of bells, with tapers and torches, with much singing, with masses, vigils, and prayers for their souls, etc.” P.J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361. Thus, the tenth century was utterly corrupted through the superstitions of popery; but, as in the dark midnight the stars still sometimes give their light, so it was also here; for, that the marks of the true church might not be swallowed up entirely in the darkness, some, though but few, manifested themselves, who, in one and the other point, but principally in the matter of baptism, showed, that they, as regards the matter itself, did not differ from the institution of Christ and the practice of his holy apostles; which can be gathered from the writings they have left. About A. D. 910.—Or very close to the beginning of this century, the ancient writers place Giselbert, a man of learning, but accused of strange opinions by his adversaries; whom the emergency of the time compelled to stoop and hide, under the ravages of popery. He, though others have regarded him as a member of the Roman church, opposed, apparently as much as lay in his power, the Pope and the Roman church, and this not a little in the matter of baptism. 

For, while the Pope and the Roman church generally taught that it was necessary, yea, upon pain of damnation, to baptize the infants, notwithstanding they have not, and cannot have, either true regeneration or a good will [intention], which are nevertheless required of candidates (Matt. 3:7,8), he taught that it is indeed necessary to salvation, to be baptized, but that said baptism must be connected with regeneration, and a good intention; which things, besides the grace of Christ, he considered the chief means to salvation, so much so, that any one who had these virtues, though he were not baptized (that is, if there had been no opportunity), could nevertheless be saved because of the grace and power of God. Of this, there is, among others, the following annotation in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, page 567. Of the necessity of baptism.—Giselbert (Alter. 1), says: “It is true, God can save; yet, man cannot be saved without baptism; (that is, that baptism which is accompanied with regeneration, as the following words declare), for thus says the author of this sacrament himself: ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ It is, however, not in the power of man, to reject this way, and to choose to salvation another. However, it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain this means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.” Cent. Magd. X., cap. 4. Hence, when he here speaks of the good will of man, it is quite evident, that he treats neither of infants nor of infant baptism, seeing infants have no knowledge of either a good or a bad will, nor of baptism, nor of regeneration, to which said passage of Giselbert also has reference; much less have they the ability to worthily begin and execute all this, for the proper reception of baptism. He intends simply to say, that baptism is indeed necessary, yet not without regeneration; which regeneration he regards as the most important of all, according to John 3:5,7, from which he concludes that it is not in the power of man to reject this way, namely, to separate regeneration from baptism, or baptism from regeneration, which is a stricture upon those who were wont to reject the baptism of the regenerated or penitent, and to go another way, as did the Pharisees in the days of John the Baptist; who, rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (namely, the baptism of John), were not baptized of him. Luke 7:30. But, in order that no one need sorrow, who, having attained to regeneration, could not receive baptism, on account of serious obstacles or the want of a fitting opportunity, and, hence, might imagine that there was no grace or mercy of God for him, he adds this consolation, namely: “That it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain the means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.” Whatever others, especially papistic writers, may have recorded of Giselbert’s belief, detrimental to, or, at least, against the point in view, we let them be responsible for it; this is certain, that we have not as yet been able to find anything to the contrary, in any authentic writer. 

About A. D. 925.—Shortly after, or very near the time of Giselbert, Ansbert is mentioned, who, writing on several matters of faith, or articles of religion, also makes mention of baptism, approaching herein very closely the language, or, at least, the sense of the holy apostles, which appears from the following testimonies: Bapt. Hist., page 568. Ansbert (on Rev. 19), says, according to the words of Christ, John 1:13: “Which were born not of blood . . . but of God.” “Of God, that is, through the preached word and the washing of regeneration, by which mysteries (namely, preaching and the washing of 241regeneration, that is, baptism) Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs.” He here connects the word of God, or preaching, with the washing of regeneration, or baptism, and says that by them Christ begets and brings forth unto himself heirs. How could anybody more plainly declare: 1. what true baptism is; 2. what belongs to it; and 3. what fruit proceeds from it. For, firstly, what true baptism is, he expresses by these words: Washing of regeneration, according to Tit. 3:5, indicating thereby, that true baptism is peculiar only to the regenerate; that is, to the penitent. Secondly, what belongs to baptism he expresses by these words: The preached word; for, as the apostle declares, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. 10:17. The preached word is therefore the means by which to attain to the faith, and faith is the foundation upon which truly to receive baptism. As necessary, then, as faith is, in order to be truly baptized, upon it, so necessary also is the preached word, in order to truly believe; consequently, Ansbert has justly joined the preached word to baptism, as a proof that it belongs to it, according to the words of Christ (Mark 16:15,16): “Preach the Gospel . . . he that believeth and is baptized.” Thirdly, what fruit proceeds from such baptism, when it is accompanied with regeneration and the preached word of God, he expresses with these words: “By which mysteries Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs,” which well agrees with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26,27: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These, then, who by this means become children of God, also become his heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. 8:17. Hence, said words of Ansbert are conformable to the holy Scriptures, and speak of the baptism of the regenerate, but in no wise of infant baptism. Page 569. Ansbert (on Rev. 21) teaches: “The trinity of the Godhead we dare not, and shall not pass by unnoticed, especially when we are baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity, and are saved in the faith of the unity of the same.” Here he again connects baptism with confession and faith, yea, he says that we are baptized upon confession, and saved in faith. Certainly, there is not a letter in the above passage, which savors of infant baptism, but every word denies, yea, opposes it, inasmuch as here such a baptism only is spoken of, as is received with faith and the confession of the same; but that this can be done by infants, militates not only against the holy Scriptures, but also against nature. Page 574. Ansbert (on Rev. 1) says: “He that has been washed in baptism from dead works, and, after such washing, again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed; hence, the Lord, through Isaiah (chap. 1, verse 16), admonishes thus: ‘Wash ye, make you clean.’ He washes and cleanses himself, who commits no new sins after baptism. But he that conducts himself thus that after such washing, he again pollutes the white robe with sin, let him still not despair of remission, if he desires to be washed again; for there is yet another baptism, with which publicans and harlots are always baptized—and what other is it but the well-spring of tears? in which Mary Magdalene, polluted with many a stain of vice, and Peter, when he had thrice denied the Lord, washed themselves.” 

This whole passage is a warning to those who, having committed sins unto death, were baptized for the remission of the same, that they should not rely upon this, otherwise they might be deceived; hence, against such, there are spoken these words: “He that after such washing again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed.” Then follows an admonition, not to fall into new sins after baptism; yet that any who had fallen into them, should still not despair. But to such there is pointed out another baptism, namely, the baptism of tears, that is, weeping and sorrowing for committed sins. Then it is told what persons were once baptized with this baptism of tears, namely, publicans and harlots, Mary Magdalene, and Peter, for denying Christ. Judge now, whether the above-stated things can be done by infants, or whether they are peculiar only to the adult and intelligent, and we are fully confident, that, if you are impartial, you will choose the latter, and reject the former. About A. D. 938.—Very near the time of Ansbert, a place is accorded, in this century, to Smaragdus, who, having, it seems, at some time previous to his conversion, or, at least, to his enlightenment, maintained infant baptism, now gave such testimony concerning baptism as completely excludes infant baptism, inasmuch as he, writing of the nature, virtue, practice, and benefit of baptism, very closely follows the language of Christ and his holy apostles.147 This appears from his exposition of the institution of Christ respecting baptism. “First,” he writes: “all nations were taught, and then they were baptized with water; for it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; for they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Again: “This excellent ordinance of baptism commands the apostles, first to teach all nations, then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith, and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them what they were to observe.” Smaragdus, on Matt. 28. N. B. “Thus,” says the writer who has recorded this, “the light of truth must shine forth in the midst of darkness; for, where did Christ institute another ordinance of baptism, for infants?” B. H., page 570, num. 7. Though this last passage is very acceptable and worthy of being considered, and confirms in no small measure the point we have in view we will nevertheless let the writer keep it to himself, it being only a comment on the aforementioned matter. We will, therefore, return to the matter itself, namely, to the words of Smaragdus, and we shall soon find that his aim was, to connect faith with baptism, yea, to admit no other baptism than that which is accompanied with the truth of the faith. For, what else does he intend to say with these words: “For it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith?” May we not firmly conclude from this, that this man knew nothing of infant baptism, or, at least, that he, when he wrote this, utterly denied and rejected it? Certainly, no one could oppose, or reject, infant baptism more flatly and plainly; for if it is impossible, as he says, to receive baptism aright without having previously accepted the truth of the faith, etc., he establishes that it is impossible to baptize infants aright, seeing they, because of their disqualification in regard to power as well as knowledge, cannot previously accept the truth of the faith. 

Unless some one would say that he held, that there is a certain faith, or germ of faith, as others call it, in infants from their birth (as was afterwards advanced by the Lutherans), upon which, some were wont to assert, they ought to be baptized. But this is easily refuted; for, besides this, that in the time of Smaragdus, as far as can be seen, they knew nothing of this hidden faith, or germ of faith, in infants, much less baptized them upon it, he plainly indicates that he is speaking of another faith, which he calls the truth of the faith, that is, a true and genuine faith; which true and genuine faith no one ever, to our knowledge, not even to the present day, claimed for infants, in order to establish infant baptism upon it. Moreover, Smaragdus required of the candidates for baptism, not only the truth of the faith, but also regeneration, as appears from his comments on John 3, where he says: “He that is regenerated through water and the Spirit, is invisibly changed into a new man, and from a carnal man is made a spiritual man; and he is therefore rightly called, not only spiritual, but also spirit.” B. H., p. 573, num. 11. In this passage again there are several things mentioned, which indicate nothing else than that he is speaking of the baptism of adults. For, besides that the words, John 3, were not spoken to an infant but to Nicodemus, a master in Israel, the circumstances adduced by Smaragdus in regard to it also indicate, that it is to be understood of none but adult persons. For, what else does he mean to say by the word regenerated, than that the baptized person who has previously truly prepared himself for baptism, gives up his old, earthly birth, and becomes a new creature? Thus also, when he says that the baptized person is changed into a new man; for, how shall any one be changed into a new man, who was not an old man before? And also, when he adds, that such an one, from a carnal man is made spiritual; for, how is it possible, from a carnal man to become spiritual, if one has not previously been carnal or lived after the flesh? Therefore, to become spiritual, does not simply mean, to receive the Spirit of God, but to live after the Spirit, in the fear of God, and in all the Christian virtues. Gal. 5:21–24. This being so, we will leave the testimony of Smaragdus and proceed to others of his cotemporaries, who held the same belief and left it to us in their writings. A. D. 952.—

It is stated that in the time of the Emperor Otho the Great there lived and wrote, in Greece, a very virtuous and learned man called Theophilact, who, writing on various matters of faith, also makes mention of baptism, not differing herein, as far as we have been able to ascertain, from the Anabaptists of the present day, but agreeing with them very well on the subject of baptism upon faith. Bapt. Hist., page 571, Theophilact on Luke 15, says: “As many of us as have been baptized have put on Christ.” These are the words of Paul, Gal. 3:27, which the apostle does not speak to infants, but to the believing saints of the Galatian church, namely, that they had indeed, become children of God by faith, but had put on Christ by baptism.” Continuing he says: “Then he puts on our hand (namely, to us who through baptism have put on Christ) the ring, the seal of Christianity, which works in us.” Again: “Every one that is baptized, is also made a child of God, yea, readopted as such; he is also, when he is washed from sin, made a partaker of the fatted calf, and becomes the joy of the Father and his servants, the holy angels and men, even as one that has arisen from the dead, and who was lost, and is found.” He here compares the candidates to the prodigal son who, repenting of his evil life, arose to go to his father, to seek grace, and was received by him with outstretched arms. Thus, he would say, it is also in baptism: The sinner seeks grace, confesses his sins, manifests sorrow for them, yea, prays and supplicates for forgiveness. God, the Lord, who is the true Father of all men by reason of creation, meets him, embraces him with the arms of his grace, yea, pardons all his past sins, and, in token thereof, commands one of his servants to baptize him. This he compares to the putting on of the ring, saying: “Then he puts on our hand the ring, the seal of Christianity.” What he further says concerning the killing of the fatted calf; and the joy of the Father and his servants, has regard to the joy that is in heaven over the repentance of such a penitent (and thereupon baptized) sinner, which is greater than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Luke 15:7. Hence, when Theophilact compares the candidate for baptism to the prodigal son, in the manner shown above, it is evident enough, yea, as clear as midday, that he is treating of no other baptism than the baptism of adults, and this of such adults as manifest sorrow for their past sins. Page 572. Theophilact on John 8, says: “Since Christ came to take away the sins of the world, we can obtain remission of sins in no other way than, by means of baptism (however properly speaking 243the blood of Christ is the effective cause of the remission and taking away of sins), yet it is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized (aright); hence, the unbeliever must afterwards die in his sins, for he has not put off the old man, because he has not been baptized.” Though several things are said here, which confirm our preceding explanation of the words of Theophilact, we shall nevertheless notice only these words: “It is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized (aright);” for here certainly every baptism which is not received with faith is denied; hence, infant baptism cannot be admitted here, because it is without all faith, yea, it is utterly denied here. And thus, the words of Theophilact concerning baptism, are not only clear, but also Christian-like and apostolical. Page 572. Theophilact on 2 Cor. 3, says: “Even as silver, exposed to the sun, does itself emit rays, because the sun shines upon it; so also we, when we are purified in baptism, by the Holy Ghost, and illumined by his rays, emit a spiritual radiance, perceived only in the soul, and are changed into the same image, by the Spirit of the Lord, to our glory.” And, a little further on: “All believers are illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost, that their souls shine (or, emit radiance) thereby.” Again: “As we are all dead by one sinner, even so we are all made alive, and are risen through Christ, in baptism; and we justly recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh, that is, who leads the old, carnal life; but all who are regenerated by the Spirit, begin a new, spiritual life.” The words which Theophilact speaks from or on 2 Cor. 3, concerning the candidates, Paul speaks of believers; and the simile borrowed by the aforementioned writer from the silver, which, when the sun shines upon it, reflects his rays, which he applies to the candidates, who become illumined by the Holy Ghost, and reflect a spiritual radiance of virtues, confirms, in a good degree, that he is speaking of such candidates as can be illumined by the Holy Ghost, and live virtuously, to the honor of God, the edification of their neighbor, and to the salvation of their own souls. What he says after that, fully confirms our opinion, namely, that he is speaking of believing candidates; for, this he clearly expresses with these words: “All believers are illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost.” What he adds finally, tends in the same direction, for he says that, “As we are all dead by one sinner (Adam), even so we are all made alive and are risen, through Christ, in baptism.” Who does not see that this making alive and rising (in baptism) has respect to the renewing of the old life, according to the teaching of Paul (Rom. 6:4): “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” That this is his meaning, he indicates by the following words, when he calls those whom he has previously termed candidates, believers and regenerated persons, saying: “We justly recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh; but all who are regenerated (thus he calls the candidates or the baptized) by the Spirit, begin a new, spiritual life.” Page 573. Philophilact on 2 Tim. 1, says: “The Holy Ghost hovers over us at baptism; now, if we keep this Spirit, and do not drive him away by wicked works, he keeps us and what we have received from God; therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he, who has been given you, will also keep you.” It seems that in the days of Theophilact there was a failing among some of the candidates, or, at least, among the unbaptized Christians, that, instead of stirring up the grace of the Spirit of God, which had been given them (after baptism), and thereby increasing and proceeding in virtues, they decreased and retrograded, yea, fell into wicked works. 

This, Theophilact opposed, warning them to be careful not to drive the good Spirit of God away from them by wicked works, seeing he will not dwell in a malicious soul, nor in a body that is subject unto sin. Wisdom of Sol. 1:4. Secondly, he admonishes them affectionately and consolingly, to keep the gift of the Holy Ghost (after baptism), pointing out also, the means by which this could be done, namely, by avoiding wicked works, and using diligence, that is, such diligence by which the worship of God and the common edification could be promoted. The consolation which he, for such, adds to his admonition, is expressed in these words: “Therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he will also keep you.” But, what fruit his warning, and consoling admonition had on those persons, is not stated there; hence we will take our leave, and proceed to other writings which he has left. Same page as above. Theophilact on John 3, says: “It is not enough for the preservation of purity, to be baptized; but one must also use great diligence, that the image of the sonship of God, which is represented in baptism, is kept unspotted. There are many who have received, in baptism, the grace of adoption as children of God, but who, through negligence, have not remained children of God unto the end. Here he greatly laments the apostasy of the children of God, namely, of those who, having been baptized, and having received the grace of adoption as children of God, but through negligence had apostatized so that they, as he calls it, had not remained children of God. Certainly, this was a sad matter; but notwithstanding we rejoice that in those times people were baptized upon faith (as has been shown above), that they might receive the grace of adoption as children of God; and that there were yet persons (as appears from Theophilact) who taught this doctrine and reproved the opposing abuses; to which, has been our sole aim. Page 575. Theophilact (on 1 Tim. 6, where the apostle says: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses”), writes: “This profession takes place at the instruction of those who are to be baptized; and we profess by it that we will forsake Satan, and pitch our tent with Christ, that we may fully adhere to him How could any one speak more clearly and truly of baptism according to the institution of Christ and the practice of the apostles? He says here, that the good profession of which Paul writes (1 Tim. 6:12), took place at the instruction of those who were to be baptized; by which he indicates that in his time the candidates were not only instructed at and before baptism, namely, in the Christian faith, but that they were also required to make a profession of what they believed, which consisted (as can be gleaned not only from Theophilact, but also from other writers of that time) of two parts: firstly, in the confession of faith in God and in his Son Jesus Christ; and secondly, in the renunciation of Satan, the world, the flesh, and all its lusts. 

Same page as above. Theophilact on Mark 1, says: “All who came to be baptized by John, were delivered through repentance from the bond of their souls, if they believed on Christ.” He says of those who came to John’s baptism, that they were delivered through repentance from the bond of their souls (that is, from sin), if they believed on Christ; by which he indicates that two things were required of those candidates, in order that they might be delivered from sin; 1. repentance; 2. faith in Christ. Which things, since he adduces them for the instruction of his cotemporaries, were also required of the candidates of his time, namely, that they had to repent and believe on Christ. For, to what purpose should he otherwise, by way of instruction, have adduced them? Page 581. D. J. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 3, on Heb. 6), quotes from Theophilact: “When you were to be baptized, you repented of dead works, that is, rejected the works of Satan.” In Lib. 5, cap. 37, Vicecomes expresses the opinion, that in the time of Theophilact the holy Supper was still administered to the baptized, after baptism. Whether we cast our eyes upon the words of Theophilact, or upon those of Vicecomes, we see that both tend in the same direction. As regards the words of Theophilact, he informs us concerning the candidates of his time, that they, before baptism, or, at least, when they were about to be baptized, repented of dead works, which, as every one knows, can only be done by adults, and not at all by infants; for, one that is to desist from dead works, and repent, must first have committed dead works; this is incontrovertible. As to the words of Vicecomes, they confirm the foregoing; for, if the holy Supper was then administered to the baptized after baptism; which Supper, as is taught in 1 Cor. 11:27, had to be received with proper examination, and qualification, as, according to history, was then still done, it follows that the baptism of infants could not have been maintained among those who practiced this, seeing infants are unfit for such examination and qualification, and, consequently, also unfit to become partakers of the holy Supper, which Vicecomes also notices; for, referring, in the same place, to some among the Romanists, he says: “But when the baptism of infants was introduced, they [the infants] did not understand the virtue of the heavenly food, the church abolished this custom (namely, of administering the Supper to the baptized), that this holy sacrament might not be dishonored thereby.” 

From this it is quite evident, that at that time, not only some who had separated from the Roman church, but even some who belonged to the Roman church (perhaps, whole churches of the Romanists), still had the custom of administering the holy Supper to all that had been baptized, and this with all proper devotion; so that in those churches, it seems, nothing was known, even as late as that time, of infant baptism, or, at least, that it was not observed there, until the Pope, or some council ordained otherwise; for this is clearly expressed in the words: “But when the baptism of infants was introduced, the church abolished this custom.” Touching what is adduced (B. H., p. 308, from D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 37), concerning the infant Supper, as though it might have obtained in the time of Theophilact, it is refuted by the writer himself, in said passage; for he explains it as having reference to the Supper of believing, baptized Christians, saying, that it was administered to the baptized till infant baptism came into vogue, and that it was then (because infants were unfit for it) abolished. In regard to this, the writer who records it, has the following words to the shame of those who did so: “Cannot these foolish saints,” says he “for the same reason, also abolish infant baptism, which is not a less, but, on account of the effectual regeneration, a greater sacrament, than the Supper?” B. H., page 308. He means to say: If the Supper, which it was customary to administer to believers after baptism, was abolished, when infant baptism came into vogue, because infants have not the ability to worthily prepare themselves for the Supper; how great a folly is it, then, that infant baptism was not also abolished for the same reason; seeing that not less, but more, is required for baptism than for the Supper, namely, an effectual regeneration? For which reason also baptism is a greater sacrament than the Supper. Certainly, this was a forcible argument in refutation of those who, having introduced infant baptism, had therefore abolished the Supper which used to be administered after baptism; and who considered infants better qualified for baptism than for the Supper. About A. D. 980.—Bapt. Hist., pages 578, 579. Vicecomes quotes from Simon Metaphrastes, lib. 1, cap. 5, the following occurrence: “That Theridates, with his wife and the chief persons of the land were baptized in the river Euphrates.” Page 580. “Greg. Martyr enjoined upon Theridates and those who desired to be baptized, a fast of thirty days, then instructed them one after another, and thereupon baptized them in the Euphrates.” From Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 6. D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 14), relates how Namesius, came to the water, towards evening, descended into it, and was baptized, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From Metaphr., in vita Steph. In lib. 3, cap. 3, he writes, how Olympius, with his wife, Exuperia, and his only son, Theodulus, in the night came to Sympronius, fell down at his 245feet, and said: “We have recently learned to know the power of Christ, that he is truly God. We therefore pray thee, to see that we receive baptism, in the name of Christ, whom thou preachest.” Sympronius answered them: “If you repent with your whole heart, God will be so gracious as to receive you as penitents.” 

Then said Olympius: “This we will immediately do.” From Metaphr., in vita Steph. B. H., page 579, num. 10. Page 580, num. 14. “This same Olympius, when he desired to become a Christian, was bidden to break the idols with his own hands, to melt the gold and silver of which they were made, with fire, and to gather the poor, and distribute it among them. This, the writer says, Olympius faithfully did.” D. Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 13. Note.—Page 851, it is related of Placidus, his wife Trajana, and his two sons, how they went to the teacher, etc.; and how the latter instructed and eventually baptized them; changed their names; administered the Supper to them; wished everything good to them, and said: “Depart! the true peace of Christ go with you.” From Metaphr., according to Vicecom., lib. 5, cap. 45. Still other similar examples, which it would take too long to recount, are adduced in said place, and elsewhere, in the History of Baptism. The persons mentioned in all these examples, those who were baptized as well as those who baptized, we pass by without commenting on them; our object here being simply to show that said Simon Metaphrastes, who is stated to have lived and written about this time, described the foregoing matters as good and praiseworthy examples of the believing, baptized Christians, and left them to posterity, for instruction. About A. D. 1000.—Or at the close of the tenth century, there is noticed in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, Fulbertus Carnotanses, who compares the descending in baptism to the burying of Christ in the earth, and the arising from baptism to the resurrection of Christ from the grave, or, properly speaking, to the awakening of Christ to life.148 His own words can be found, translated into German, page 581, from Fulbert. Carnot. in Epist. ad Adcodatum. Herewith we conclude our account of baptism in the tenth century, and proceed to the pious martyrs who suffered in those days for the name of Jesus Christ.

van Braght, Thieleman J.. THE BLOODY THEATER OR MARTYRS MIRROR (pp. 844-863). Welsh Tract Publications. Kindle Edition. 

Predestination does not cause events (Bartley) Santamaria

 

 

[These are the attempts of men to answer human logic with human logic – ed]

GEORGE M. BEEBE SON OF ELDER BEEBE And The Civil War (Santamaria)

  

[IT should be made clear that this is a historical article and does not indicate any point of view on this long-ago fought-over issue – ed]

 

G. Beebe = George Monroe Beebe (1836–1927), widely identified as Elder Gilbert Beebe’s son, though one state write-up gives different parents (notes below). Here’s the compact, no-nonsense profile.

---

Origins & training. Born Oct 28, 1836, New Vernon, NY; schooled at Walkill Academy; Albany Law School, 1857. Admitted to the bar the same year. (Fact Monster)

• Bleeding Kansas → acting governor. Moved to Kansas Territory in 1858; territorial council member (1858–59). Appointed territorial secretary (1859); served as acting governor twice during the secession winter: Sept 11–Nov 26, 1860, and Dec 17, 1860–Feb 9, 1861—he urged neutrality as statehood loomed. (ksgenweb.org)
• Law, newspapers, and Congress. Practiced law in Missouri and Nevada; back in NY, he edited the Republican Watchman (Monticello) from 1866. In NY politics, he served in the State Assembly (1873–74), then won two terms to the U.S. House (NY-14, 1875–79), chairing Expenditures in the Navy and serving on Mines & Mining. (Fact Monster)
• Later posts. Delegate to Democratic National Conventions (1876, 1880, 1892); judge on the NY State Court of Claims (1883–1900); retired to Ellenville (1892), died Mar 1, 1927; buried at Woodlawn Cemetery (New Windsor/Newburgh). (Fact Monster)
• Marriage. Married Cornelia Bennett Foster at St. Joseph, Missouri, June 12, 1861 (some summaries list a later Jessie Beebe; the Kansas Historical Society cites Cornelia for the 1861 marriage). (Kansas Historical Society)

About the father–son link (the tiny wrinkle)

• Many references explicitly refer to him as the son of Elder Gilbert Beebe of New Vernon, the editor of Signs of the Times, a publication of the Old School/Primitive Baptist movement. (Wikipedia)
• Kansapedia (Kansas Historical Society) lists his parents as George and Lydia (Wiles) Beebe, which conflicts with those accounts. It’s a lone outlier against multiple political biographies, but worth flagging. (Kansas Historical Society)

If you’re exploring Beebe père vs. fils as a thematic contrast, the arc almost writes itself: the father became the ink-and-pulpit voice of Primitive Baptist anti-institutionalism; the son took that native verbal force to the rough theater of territorial politics and later Congress—editing papers, steering committees, and trying (at least in 1860–61 Kansas) to tamp down the fuse. The family lived where doctrine meets power, and both men wielded words like chisels.

How did G. Beebe react to the Civil War?

Beebe publicly styled himself a Union man—constitution-first, anti-sectional, and fiercely Democratic—while defending slavery and blasting Republican “fanaticism.”

• In his 1860 tract against Helper, Beebe says the Republic’s greatness rests on “the bond of union… the Constitution,” and warns that trampling it will shatter the Union into warring confederacies ruled by armies and strongmen.
• He literally cheers the Union on—quoting “Sail on, Union, strong and great!”—and argues peace requires letting each state manage its “domestic affairs” (i.e., slavery) under the federal compact.
• He pitches his newspaper, the Banner of Liberty, as standing “by the Constitution and the Union,” framing his pamphlet as a National Democratic campaign document—i.e., pro-Union but anti-Republican.
• When accused of Southern bias, he counters that he’ll “never prove traitor” to any section of the Union, casting himself as a patriotic mediator while still defending the South’s social system.

So, Unionist—but of the 1860 Democratic, “keep the constitutional compromises” variety. He opposed abolitionist politics as sectarian and incendiary, yet rooted his appeal in preserving the Union as a constitutional order.

The Banner of Liberty Paper

Here’s the gist of Beebe’s Banner of Liberty—in his own 1860 pitch:

• What it was. A weekly quarto newspaper edited and published by Gilbert J. Beebe in Middletown, New York, carrying a full synopsis of each week’s doings in Congress plus news, literary pieces, miscellany, and humor.
• How he positioned it. Beebe trumpeted it as “standing by the Constitution and the Union”—explicitly National Democratic in tone and mission, especially for the 1860 campaign.
• Reach (as he claimed). By his account, in 1856 it had a larger circulation than any other Democratic paper in the U.S., and second only to the New-York Tribune among all political papers. (That’s Beebe’s boast, but it shows the ambition.)
• Business model. He lists subscription bundles and bulk rates (single copies, sets of five, eleven, thirty, etc.), treating the paper as a campaign organ to be spread by the bundle.
• Context. In the same pamphlet, he rallies readers to preserve the Union under the Constitution—then segues to promoting the Banner as the tool to do that work. It’s journalism welded to party organizing.

He wrote a booklet against Helper's Impending Crisis[1].

Topic	Helper’s[2] claim (as presented/quoted in Beebe)	Beebe’s counterargument
Political role of the book	Republicans mass-circulated the “Helper Book” as a campaign text; many members endorsed it.	The book is incendiary; the House resolution says endorsers are unfit for the Speakership.
Big economic thesis	“Free” states outperform “slave” states across output/wealth; even hay outweighs Southern staples.	Hay is a local input (winter feed) priced at niche markets—can’t be compared to export staples; the claim is a category error.
Livestock vs. “hay wealth”	Northern hay implies superior real output.	Using Helper’s own census tables, livestock/slaughtered stock shows South ≈ North, undercutting the hay brag.
Per-capita production	Northern totals prove the free-labor advantage.	Adjust for population and climate/crop mix: per white capita, the South compares favorably.
Exports & surplus	Northern industry proves superior surplus creation. (Ch. VIII omnibus tables)	National export surplus is driven by Southern staples; sectional split favors Southern ports in Beebe’s cited year.
Abolishing slavery (mechanics)	Lays out steps to end slavery (Ch. II heading & program).	Constitutional math (e.g., Three-Fifths Clause) makes the scheme a non-starter; without it the seat distribution flips.
Founders’ voices	Deploys Washington/Jefferson/Madison et al. as anti-slavery ammunition (Ch. III–IV headings).	“Garbling”: quotes torn from context; founders favored Union/constitutional order, not Helper’s program.
“Testimony of the nations”	European moral authority supports abolition. (Ch. V)	England, etc., has its own poverty/misery; not oracles for American policy.
Churches & Bible	Churches and Scripture witness against slavery (Ch. VI–VII headings).	Beebe waves off Ch. VII as “common-place bluster” and proof-texts NT passages to defend masters/servants.
Cities & commerce	South needs a great emporium; city growth = progress. (Ch. IX)	Cites Jefferson—“cities are sores”—and argues Northern cities concentrate vice and misery.
Character & credibility	—	Long personal attack: quotes Sen. Asa Biggs on alleged theft/name change; cites Helper’s earlier Land of Gold passages to paint hypocrisy.

How did George Beebe feel about Lincoln?

George M. Beebe—Kansas territorial secretary/acting governor and later a New York Democratic congressman—sat on the opposite side of Lincoln’s politics. He worked to keep slavery legal in Kansas and aligned himself with the Buchanan-era Democratic wing that opposed the emerging Republican program.

Receipts, not vibes:

• In June 1860, Beebe wrote Jefferson Davis, insisting he’d “fought in favor of slavery and remain[ed] committed to the cause.” That’s as clear a marker of anti-Lincoln alignment as you’ll find.
• As a Kansas legislator, he filed a minority report against an antislavery bill; as acting governor (Jan. 1861), he urged repealing the law abolishing slavery and even argued for admitting Kansas to the Union as a slave state.

So if Lincoln was the North Star for Republicans, Beebe’s compass pointed the other way. Nothing in his record suggests affection for Lincoln or his war aims; rather, his writings and official messages put him squarely among the Democratic critics of Lincoln’s antislavery and wartime policies. (For biographical context: he was the son of Primitive Baptist elder Gilbert Beebe and later served two terms in Congress as a Democrat.)

---

[1] Hinton Rowan Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South (1857/59): it’s an antislavery polemic that argues—using a blizzard of stats—that slavery was an economic deadweight on the South, especially for non-slaveholding whites. Even its chapter map signals the thesis: a head-to-head “comparison between the free and slave states,” with output, wealth, and productivity tables meant to prove that free labor beats enslaved labor.

The book detonated. A pro-slavery pamphlet by Gilbert J. Beebe—A Review and Refutation of Helper’s “Impending Crisis”—framed Helper’s work as “incendiary,” and the U.S. House actually debated a resolution saying no member who endorsed the book (or its compendium) was fit to be Speaker. That wording appears in the record Beebe reproduces. Southern critics went further, claiming Helper’s text encouraged enslaved people to murder their masters—a tendentious reading, but it shows the level of panic and propaganda in late-1850s politics.

Beebe also cataloged Republican endorsements—dozens of congressmen and public figures backed the wide circulation of a cheap compendium—while quoting William H. Seward’s blurb praising the book’s data and logic. Those lists and the Seward line help explain why the “Helper Book” controversy dominated the 1859-60 speakership fight.

Net-net: Helper tried to beat slavery with balance sheets rather than sermons; his opponents answered with character assassination, biblical defenses of slavery, and parliamentary roadblocks. That clash—numbers vs. hierarchy—was a microcosm of the Union’s fracture. Want to keep digging? I can map Helper’s main economic claims against modern data, or chart the “Helper circular” and its role in the 1859 Speaker brawl to show how a book became a political tripwire.

[2] Links to both:

·        Beebe, A Review and Refutation of Helper’s “Impending Crisis” (1860)
Your uploaded PDF: sandbox:/mnt/data/Beebe The Impedning Crisis.pdf
(Public catalog record for the pamphlet: (National Library of Australia Catalogue))

·        Helper, The Impending Crisis of the South (1857)
Project Gutenberg (read/download): https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36055 (Project Gutenberg)
Library of Congress scan: https://www.loc.gov/item/01004197/ (The Library of Congress).

THE CHURCH OF GOD OBSCURED AND RENDERED ALMOST INVISIBLE IN SOME PLACES, AND WHAT HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF IT FROM ANCIENT TIMES.

As the moon, notwithstanding her substance and body never perish, is not always seen in her full light by the human eye, either, because she sinks beneath the horizon,

OF THE STABILITY, DURABILITY, AND VISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHURCH OF GOD.

That this church, from the beginning to the time of David, was always visible, discernible, and distinguished from other nations, is clear and manifest, and, as far as we know, not doubted by anybody. There remains, then, only to be proven that the same after the time of David has always been discernible, according to the preceding manner, and will continue to be so to the end.

 To show this, the song of David of the city or church of God, Ps. 46:3,4, serves an excellent purpose. “Though the sea rage and roll, so that through its tempest the mountains fall in, Selah! The city of God shall nevertheless remain glad with her fountains, where the holy tabernacles of the Almighty are.” This passage, beginning with the preceding verse, reads as follows according to the original text: “Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof, Selah. There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.”3Who is there so ill versed in the word of God, as to suppose that he is to understand by the words city of God and the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High, etc., the city of Jerusalem in the land of Palestine, and the temple which was built in that city? for this city and the temple which was in it, were laid waste and totally demolished and destroyed, first by the Chaldeans, in the time of Jeremiah, and subsequently by the Romans, who conquered the land of Canaan and Jerusalem; so that, according to the prophecy of Christ, not one stone was left upon another. We must, therefore, understand this as relating to the church of God, which is called, in holy Scripture, the city of God. Heb. 12:22; for of the same it is said that God is in the midst of her, and that, therefore, she shall not be moved, etc., as shall appear more fully from the following testimonies, Isaiah 2:2: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountains36 of the Lord’s house shall be established . . . and all nations shall flow unto it.” It is beyond dispute that here, by the words the Lord’s house, we are to understand the church of the Lord, unless there be one who holds, with the Jews, that it must be understood as having reference to the house of stone, which, in former time, Solomon built, to the honor of God, on Mount Moriah; which house is now in ruins, but was to be rebuilt. But this cannot be expected, for the prophet Daniel, with respect to this desolation, says clearly that it shall be poured upon the desolate, even until the consummation (that is, the end of the world). Dan. 9:27 compared with Matt. 24:15.

No small proof of this is furnished by the fact that about forty years after the ascension of Christ, this very house was destroyed, demolished and burned by Titus Vespasian, and has not yet been rebuilt, though about sixteen hundred years have elapsed since; and, on account of the continual quarrels of the Palestinean and other eastern rulers, it is, viewing it from a human standpoint, not likely that it will ever be done.

Since it is true, then, that by the words “the house of the Lord,” we must understand the church of the Lord, there follows also what is said in connection with it, namely: that the same shall be firmly, i. e. invincibly, established on the mountain, that is, Christ, the immovable foundation.

Besides the adduced prophecy, Isaiah 2:2, showing the firmness and immovability of the house (or the church) of God, which is founded upon the mountain of the Lord—Christ Jesus—the same prophet treating of the durability, glory and divine dignity of this church, under the type of the New Jerusalem, produces various commendatory testimonies for this purpose, saying among other things, chap. 60, verse 11: “Thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night.”

This is a simile drawn from a peaceful city which has neither fear nor care that enemies will attack her, and, therefore, leaves her gates open by night as well as by day, for the accommodation of the citizens, and the messengers and strangers who are traveling in the night. Thus, he would say, will it also be with the future church of Jesus Christ?

Then, in verse 14, speaking of the enemies of the church of God, and of those who had slandered her, he says: They “shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.”

When a city has become so great that even her deadly enemies who had purposed to lay waste and destroy her, come bending their knees, and, as begging for favor, bow down before her, as is shown here of the enemies of the city and church of God; there is no probability that such city will easily be conquered, laid waste, or subjugated. So it is, in a spiritual sense, with the city and church of Jesus Christ; for it is this to which this prophecy has reference.

Immediately after, in the 15th verse, the prophet declares that God will make this city or church an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.

And, as though by this the durability and excellency of this city, well-beloved of God, were not yet sufficiently expressed, he adds these words, verse 19: “But the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.”

And, lastly, verse 21: “Thy people, O God, also shall be all righteousness: they shall inherit the land forever.” Here, no further explanation is required, since the text plainly and clearly expresses our meaning; and we will, therefore, let it suffice.

We then proceed to what Christ, the Son of God, himself testifies concerning this matter. Matt. 16:18: “Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Christ, in another place, speaking by parable of a man who built his house upon the sand, adds the explanation: that the same was a foolish man; because such a foundation, and, therefore, also the building which is founded upon it, cannot stand before the floods, rains, and storms, which beat against it.

On the other hand, he commends him as wise and prudent, who built his house upon a rock; since the same, being well-founded, can withstand all dangers.

But the foundation upon which the Lord speaks here, that he will build his church upon it, is much firmer than any material rock, for these must all pass away with time; but the foundation which is Christ himself, remains, shall remain, and shall never decay: for “the foundation of God standeth sure,” 2 Tim. 2:19.

Yet not only the foundation, but also the building of the church shall not decay, though in nature it is otherwise; for a house, church, or tower, resting on an immovable foundation, but being not sufficiently firm or strong in itself, finally decays, yea falls to the ground; but here it stands so that no opposing 23agencies, not even the devil himself, can prevail against it, which is evident from these words: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

In or under the gates councils were wont to be held, and the gates were the strength and power of the cities. Compare Zech. 8:16 with Ps. 147:13. Hence, by the words, “The gates of hell,” etc., we are to understand the council and power of the hellish fiend. Yet, according to the last-mentioned place of Scripture, these shall not prevail against the church of Christ;37 and, consequently, no other opposing agencies, for these are the most powerful and worst enemies.

We pass on to other Scripture testimony written for the same purpose. Matt. 28:20: “And, lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the consummation of the ages.” Nearly all translators, in order to follow therein the Dutch way of speaking, render the last words of this sentence: “unto the end of the world.” But we have, for good reasons, preserved the Greek mode of expression, inasmuch as it serves better and more clearly to the end we have in view. For we have found that, after the common translation, the words, “unto the end of the world,” have been misinterpreted, and stretched beyond their meaning, by some inexperienced persons, so that these expound that which has been spoken of the consummation of time, as referring to the end of locality; even as though Christ had not here promised his apostles, to remain with them till all time should have come to an end; but only until, for the promulgation of the Gospel, they should have traveled unto the uttermost parts of the earth, which, because it is not possible to travel farther by land, are called the end of the world.

This is a great error, for, according to his explanation, this promise would have belonged to the apostles alone, and been limited by their lifetime, since they traveled everywhere to preach, so that their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.38 Compare Mark 16:20 with Rom. 10:18.

But, in order that all true followers of Christ and his apostles, to the end of time, might comfort themselves with this promise, the Lord has expressly spoken of the consummation of the ages, and declared that so long (understand: spiritually) he will be with them.

We arrive now at the point we had in view from the beginning, and which we shall now present more plainly and fully. The Lord has certainly spoken here of the preaching of the holy Gospel, of faith, of baptism, and of the manner of establishing and building up his church, as it was his will that the same should be built up and maintained through all ages. After saying this, he gave the aforementioned promise.

It is settled, therefore, that the visible church of Jesus Christ (for this is the one in whom the preaching of the holy Gospel, faith, baptism, and whatever there is more besides, have place) shall exist through all time, even unto the consummation of the ages; for, otherwise, the promise, “Lo, I am with you all the days,” etc., can not be fulfilled in her.

Even as, besides preaching and faith, baptism shall continue in the church to the end of time, so also the holy supper. This appears from the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 11:26: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord’s death till he come.”

Thus, if mention is made here of the eating of the bread, the drinking of the cup, and the shewing forth of the Lord’s death, with the additional clause that this shall be observed, and continue, till the Lord come (that is, in the end of time, to judge the world), it follows: that there will be, throughout all ages to the end of the world, a church which will observe the external ordinances of Christ not only in respect to holy baptism, but also to the holy supper, and the shewing forth of the Lord’s death; unless it can be shown that the words, “till he come,” have another signification, such as we have never yet met with in any commentator, since the text is not only too clear, but also too conclusive.39 Compare this with Matt. 25:31; John 14:3; Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 14; Rev. 1:7; 22:12,20.

IN WHAT POINTS HAS THE CHURCH OF GOD ALWAYS CONTINUED THE SAME.

 [As in the following work a survey is given, to some degree, of the succession and establishment of the church, we find it expedient so that the same may not be misinterpreted, and because some of our good friends have requested and besought us (though we had intended to leave it as it was), to precede, by way of introduction, that which follows, by our exposition of the true and the false church, and of their respective good and evil succession and progress; also, to state the views we hold with the right of succession. We will, therefore, begin here, and, so as not to be tedious, endeavor to be as brief as possible.]

As there are two different people, two different congregations and churches, the one of God and from heaven, the other of Satan and from the earth; so there is also a different succession and progress belonging to each of them.

We shall first speak of the divine and heavenly church, and then of the last-mentioned one.

The divine and heavenly church, which is the separated holy flock and people of God, originated upon earth at the beginning of the world; has existed through all the ages up to the present time; and will continue to the end of the world.

OF THE DIVINE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH.

The state and divine service of this church have varied from the beginning according to the different periods in which it existed and flourished.

From Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, from Christ to the end of the world, God ordained, for each of these periods, different customs, as regards the external divine service of this church; also different signs, seals, and appurtenances; though it is, was and shall be, the same church, the same people, and also the same God whom they served, still serve, and shall serve unto the end.

Before Adam fell, divine service had no respect to Christ; he had not yet been presented to men as a means of salvation, much less as their only Prophet, Priest, and King, or as the only true way, entrance and door to heaven, through whom alone men can be saved; but their happiness depended on their obedience to the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen. 2:16,17.31

After the fall, divine service had respect altogether to Christ, Acts 4:12. Truly God promised his Son to men, represented him by types, and finally gave him to them. In the meantime, the fathers who were before the advent of Christ, hoped in him, longed for his coming, and ordered and founded all their divine services, whatever these, according to the time and the command of God, might be, on his only and eternal reconciliation. Compare Gen. 3:15; 22:18; 49:10,18 with John 5:46; 8:56; 1 Peter 1:10,11.

Touching the external mode of divine service, this was not uniform at all periods, but varied very much; for it seems that in the time from Adam to Noah, men followed the implanted light of nature, or, to speak properly, the engraven law of the conscience or the mind; observing no essential and express ceremonial commandments, excepting Abel’s offering, and the commandment that the sons of God, that is, the members of his church, should not marry the daughters of men, that is, those who were not members of the church of God; which was enjoined under a severe penalty. Compare Gen. 4:4 with Gen. 6:3.32

In the time from Noah to Abraham, there was added God’s command, not to eat blood, nor to shed human blood. At that time God made a covenant with Noah and every living creature, that he would destroy them no more by a flood; and he set the bow in the clouds as a sign of the covenant. Compare Gen 9:4,5 with verses 11,12,13.

In the time from Abraham to Moses, God instituted the circumcision among his people, which served for the purpose of distinguishing the descendants of Abraham, of whom the church of God consisted, from all other nations, and as a seal of the covenant which God had made with Abraham and his seed, in particular. See Gen. 17:10,11,12, compare with Rom. 4:11.

From the time of Moses to Christ, God gave, in addition to circumcision, many laws and commandments, too numerous to mention, which were to be observed by his people. These consisted in manifold sacrifices, oblations, purifications, etc., for the performance of which holy times were set apart, as 21the Passover, Pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, and fast days; together with sacred places, as the tabernacle of Moses, the temple of Solomon; Shiloh, Mizpah, Moriah, etc.; also holy persons, as prophets, priests, Levites, singers, and door-keepers. See Ex., Lev., Num., and Deut.

 

From the time of Christ to the end of the world, God, through Christ, has taken away the ceremonies of the Mosaic law as well as the signs by which it was sealed; and, to the acknowledgment of the grace of Christ, commended the observance of other ceremonies and signs, as baptism, supper, etc. These external commandments, together with faith and true penitence of life, which is the spiritual and moral virtue, the Lord has very strictly enjoined upon all members of the church of Christ. See Matt. 28:18–20; Mark 16:15,16, compared with 1 Cor. 11:2–28; also the entire epistles of the apostles, which treat of the fulfillment of the Mosaic ceremonial law, as Rom. 10:4; Gal, 4:10,11 and 5:1–4; Col. 2:16.

 

Having now briefly shown the diversity of the external divine service of the church of God, through all the times, it behooves us to state, on the other hand, in what points this church has always continued the same.