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

The Bible does not treat truth as a flat field where every doctrine lies on the same level and carries the same weight. It treats truth like a living structure: there is a foundation, there is a house built upon it, and there is furniture within the house. To confuse these is not a small mistake. If we treat furniture as a foundation, we turn Christianity into a nervous system of rules and refinements. If we treat the foundation as furniture, we dissolve Christianity into mist and sentiment.

The apostolic gospel begins with an immovable center: Jesus Christ, and Him crucified and risen. Around this center, the Scriptures themselves arrange truth in an order—some things are “of first importance,” some are “weightier matters,” some are the “foundation,” and some belong to growth, order, and wisdom. The Bible itself forces us to admit this hierarchy, whether we are comfortable with it or not.

History shows what happens when this ordering is lost. Some rebuild the foundation every week, living in a perpetual cycle of spiritual restarting—always repenting, always re-examining, always re-laying what God says should already be laid. Others, in the opposite error, treat everything as equally negotiable, until nothing is solid enough to bear weight. Both errors wound the church. One produces bondage and spiritual exhaustion. The other produces drift, confusion, and doctrinal anemia.

The writer of Hebrews speaks with surgical clarity: there is a foundation, and there is maturity—and God does not intend His people to spend their lives digging the same trench over and over again. He intends them to build.

This question, then—Which doctrines are more important?—is not academic. It governs peace of conscience. It governs church fellowship. It governs whether Christianity feels like a finished salvation or an endless probation.

The Old School Baptists were not system-builders, but they were deeply sensitive to this biblical ordering of truth. Gilbert Beebe insisted that the apostles’ doctrine is the immovable test of fellowship—and that nothing must be added to it or subtracted from it. Samuel Trott, with equal firmness, warned that while God has taught fixed truths, men are forever tempted to chain their own inferences and explanations to those truths and then demand that others receive them as if they were part of the gospel itself.

Both were fighting the same danger: turning scaffolding into structure, and opinions into pillars.

This work is not an attempt to minimize doctrine. It is an attempt to honor Scripture’s own map of doctrine—to distinguish the foundation from the building, the spine from the ribs, the sun from the planets. The goal is not to make the church smaller, but to make it sounder. Not to make believers careless, but to make them free—free to stand firmly where God has spoken firmly, and free to walk charitably where He has not.

If the church loses this sense of proportion, she either becomes a court of endless theological litigation—or a marketplace of religious opinions. If she keeps it, she remains what she was meant to be: a house built on Christ, resting, growing, and shining in its proper order.

Guillermo Santamaria

INTRODUCTION

The Bible treats truth like a solar system, not a flat spreadsheet: some doctrines are “first things,” others are real but downstream, and some are serious enough to break fellowship.

1) Paul distinguishes what is “of first importance.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 Paul says he delivered what is “of first importance”: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised. That’s a clear hierarchy: not everything is equally central.

2) Jesus speaks of “weightier matters.”

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus rebukes meticulous tithing while neglecting “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, faithfulness.” Same idea: not all items carry the same weight.

3) Scripture separates “foundation” from “superstructure.”

In 1 Corinthians 3:10–15, Paul describes Christ as the foundation and speaks of building on it with materials of varying quality. People can be genuinely on the foundation yet build poorly. That implies a core vs secondary structure.

Similarly, Hebrews 5:12–6:2 speaks of “milk” vs “solid food,” and lists “elementary” teachings—another kind of ordering.

4) Paul ranks issues by how they affect the gospel itself

• Some errors are damning distortions of the gospel (Galatians 1:6–9: “another gospel”).
• Some disagreements are serious but not “another gospel” (Romans 14: matters of conscience like food/days).

So the Bible distinguishes:

• Gospel essentials (deny them and you’ve left Christianity)
• Church-order essentials (may separate churches but not necessarily salvation)
• Wisdom/conscience matters (should not divide)

5) “Sound doctrine” still has priorities

Paul tells Titus to teach what “accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Still, he also tells Timothy to avoid “quarreling about words” that ruin hearers (2 Tim 2:14) and to focus on what produces love and godliness (1 Tim 1:5). That’s a priority system: not every controversy deserves equal oxygen.

A useful biblical rule of thumb: The more directly a doctrine governs who Christ is, what He accomplished, and how sinners are reconciled to God, the more central it is. The more a doctrine concerns applications, disputable practices, or inferences, the more carefully it should be held and the less it should be used as a club.

If you want, I can map this into an Old School Baptist “center vs boundary vs liberty” framework (gospel essentials, church-order boundaries, and liberty of conscience) using Beebe/Trott language.

OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT

Trott and Beebe would both answer your question with a very Old School instinct: yes, Scripture itself teaches doctrinal “weight,” but men constantly mess up the ranking—either by flattening everything into “all opinions,” or by smuggling private inferences in as if they were gospel foundations.

Beebe: “foundation” and “apostolic fellowship” are non-negotiable

Beebe is explicit that Christ is the one foundation and that the apostles “laid down the fundamental principles of the doctrine of Christ” (the “apostles’ doctrine”)—and that everything in church faith and practice must rest on that foundation, “no more, no less.”

But he’s also very clear that fellowship is not built on vibes; it is defined by continuing “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.” He treats that apostolic doctrine as the test/standard of church fellowship—reject it, and you’ve broken fellowship.

So Beebe’s “hierarchy” looks like this:

• Foundation: Christ and Him crucified (and the apostles’ doctrine built on that foundation)
• Church fidelity: continuing in apostolic doctrine/order (the rule of fellowship)
• Human add-ons: anything added to or diminished from apostolic foundation gets “fearful judgments” language

Trott: There are “fixed principles,” but don’t canonize your inferences

Trott is equally firm that not everything is mere opinion: there are “fixed principles” all God’s children are taught in their experience—truths they know as infallible.

His caution is surgical: we tend to attach extra ideas—“inferences, connecting points, explanations”—and then treat those as if they’re “inseparable parts of the system of salvation.” That’s how secondary notions get promoted into tests and the church starts fighting over what God never installed as a foundation.

Trott’s ideal posture is: contend for what you’re taught of God as truth, but when you speak of mere opinion, label it as opinion; don’t turn it into a chain that binds consciences.

Where they converge

• There is a center. Beebe calls it the apostolic foundation; Trott calls it fixed truths taught of God.
• Yes, some things properly function as tests of fellowship. Beebe ties that to the apostles’ doctrine; Trott refuses “anything goes” ecumenism while still warning against turning opinions into law.
• The great danger: confusing foundation truth with human constructions. Beebe warns against adding to/diminishing from the apostolic foundation; Trott warns against canonizing inferences.

So if you asked them, “Are some doctrines more central?” they’d say: Absolutely—Christ and the apostles’ doctrine are the spine. And then they’d immediately add: watch your hands—don’t turn your theological scaffolding into the foundation.

BEEBE’S AND TROTT’S WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT

We can document it cleanly from both Beebe and Trott.

Some doctrines are foundational/central (not all points are mere opinion). But churches must not elevate human inferences/opinions into binding tests beyond the apostolic foundation.

1) Beebe: “foundation/apostles’ doctrine” is the center, and it is the test of fellowship

A. The apostles laid down fundamental principles (“apostles’ doctrine”) — “No more, no less.”

Beebe explicitly calls the apostles’ teachings “the fundamental principles of the doctrine of Christ” and says they were commanded to teach what Christ commanded — “No more, no less!”

He then states that the Acts and epistles contain “the foundation of all gospel doctrine, and of all gospel practice,” and warns of “fearful judgments” for those who “add to, or diminish from” what the apostles laid down.

B. The “apostles’ doctrine” is the standard of church fellowship (“we have never asked for more, nor accepted less”)

Beebe roots fellowship in Acts 2:42 and then makes a very explicit Old School claim: continuing in the apostles’ doctrine was “established as the test or standard of fellowship,” and he says this is the only test known among Primitive Baptists — “We have never asked for more, nor accepted less than this.”

He even adds the corollary: the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship “cannot be separated… If we depart from the one, we cease to enjoy the other.”

So Beebe’s documented hierarchy is: apostolic foundation → governs doctrine and practice → functions as the rule of fellowship, with warnings against adding/diminishing.

2) Trott: There are “fixed principles,” but don’t canonize “inferences” as if they’re the system of salvation

A. Trott denies that all doctrine is mere opinion: there are “fixed principles” taught by God

Trott explicitly says that objecting to creeds/standards does not mean “all points of doctrine are mere matters of opinion,” and he affirms “fixed principles” that God’s children are taught in experience with “inward assurance” that they are “infallible truths.”

B. The danger: attaching “inferences…explanations” to those truths and treating them as inseparable from salvation

Trott then diagnoses the exact drift you’re concerned about: we “connect with these truths…certain ideas” received as “inferences, connecting points, explanations,” and then (because we think them true) we become “very tenacious” and want them set forth in declarations of faith — only later discovering we had “no higher authority” for them than respected men.

C. His proposed discipline: label opinions as opinions; contend only for what God has taught as truth

Trott says unity collapses when “opinions…govern us,” and urges that if we must mention opinions, we should mention them “only as opinions,” and “contend only for what we have been taught of God to know is truth.”

So Trott’s documented hierarchy is: fixed truths taught of God → opinions/inferences must not be chained onto them as if gospel essentials → keep opinions in their place.

3) The shared Old School conclusion (documented)

• Beebe: The apostles’ doctrine is the foundation, and the church must not add to or subtract from it.
• Trott: There are fixed truths, but beware turning inferences into “parts…of the system of salvation.”

Put bluntly (and very much in their spirit): hold the spine as spine, don’t staple scaffolding to the spine and call it the skeleton.

HEBREWS 6.1-2

Hebrews 6:1–2 is basically a built-in doctrine hierarchy chart—and it lines up almost perfectly with the Beebe/Trott instinct: there are foundational truths, and then there are things built on them; don’t confuse the two.

1) Hebrews 6 explicitly distinguishes “foundation” from “maturity.”

The writer says, “leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on unto perfection [maturity], not laying a foundation…” (Heb 6:1) again. That is an explicit biblical claim that:

• some teachings are foundational (first principles),
• and believers should build beyond them (maturity),
• but you don’t keep rebuilding the foundation as if Christianity is a perpetual restart.

That supports Trott’s idea that there are “fixed principles” God’s children know as truth (not everything is opinion), and it supports Beebe’s foundation/fellowship emphasis.

2) Hebrews 6:1–2 lists “elementary doctrines”—and they’re big, not trivial

The “foundation” items are:

• repentance from dead works
• faith toward God
• instructions about washings (baptisms)
• laying on of hands
• resurrection of the dead
• eternal judgment

These aren’t “minor” topics. They’re category-defining basics—what you might call the grammar of Christian proclamation and church life.

So the passage teaches: even major doctrines can be “elementary” in the sense of being the starting layer. That’s important: “elementary” doesn’t mean unimportant; it means foundational and assumed.

3) How it checks Puritan drift (and why Old School people love it)

Puritan piety can sometimes get stuck “laying again” the foundation—especially around repentance and assurance—so that Christian living becomes perpetual re-digging: Have I repented enough? Have I confessed enough? Am I sincere enough?

Hebrews 6 serves as a warning against living as if you must continually restart the first course. The writer’s push is: don’t endlessly circle “repentance from dead works” as your treadmill—press on to maturity.

That harmonizes with Beebe/Trott’s allergy to making repentance/confession into the hinge of peace.

4) How does it check Old School excess, too

Hebrews 6 also prevents a “doctrine doesn’t matter” attitude. The author assumes a body of definite teaching that can be called “foundation.” That is exactly what Beebe means when he treats apostolic doctrine as the standard of fellowship, and what Trott means by “fixed principles.”

So it’s not “all opinions.” It’s “there’s a foundation—build on it.”

5) The big interaction with your earlier question: “Which doctrines are most central?”

Hebrews 6 implies a priority order:

• Core categories (repentance/faith/resurrection/judgment, etc.) are foundational.
• Christians aren’t meant to remain forever at the level of re-laying those basics.
• Maturity involves a deeper grasp of Christ (Hebrews immediately goes on into priesthood, intercession, oath, covenant, etc.).

So Hebrews 6 supports this Beebe/Trott-style rule: Treat foundational apostolic truths as non-negotiable; refuse to make later deductions and “connecting points” into new foundations.

If you want, I can connect Hebrews 6:1–2 to Trott’s “fixed principles vs inferences” in a tight paragraph with quotes from Trott, and then show how Hebrews itself models that (foundation → priesthood → better covenant).

Here’s the clean intersection, with Trott documented, and Hebrews 6:1–2 used the way the epistle itself intends.

1) Hebrews 6:1–2 gives you the category “foundation” (not “everything is equal”)

Hebrews doesn’t just imply priorities; it names a foundation and lists what belongs to it: “repentance… faith… baptisms… laying on of hands… resurrection… eternal judgment.” That is Scripture teaching: some doctrines are foundational strata on which other teaching is built.

That matches Trott’s insistence that rejecting man-made standards does not mean “all points of doctrine are mere matters of opinion,” because there really are “fixed principles” taught of God as “infallible truths.”

2) Trott’s warning is basically Hebrews 6’s anti-counterfeit move

Hebrews 6 says: don’t “lay again” a foundation over and over — press forward into maturity. Trott diagnoses one of the main ways people rebuild foundations wrongly: they take real truths, then glue on “inferences, connecting points, explanations,” treat them as “inseparable parts of the system of salvation,” and insist they be codified in declarations of faith — even when they have “no higher authority” than respected teachers.

So Hebrews 6 protects the church from:

• turning Christianity into perpetual “starter class” (always re-laying),
• and from turning “maturity talk” into new foundations made of human logic.

Trott’s line about not receiving “revealed truth” merely by “drawing inferences from the major and minor propositions of the logicians” is the same instinct: plain Scriptural proof for articles of faith—not system-building that masquerades as revelation.

3) How Beebe fits the same Hebrews 6 logic

Beebe argues that what Christ and the apostles delivered is “the fundamental principles of the doctrine of Christ” and that the Acts/Epistles contain “the foundation of all gospel doctrine and…practice,” with warnings against “add[ing] to, or diminishing from” that foundation.

And in the creed/standard debate, he says the church’s measuring reed is the Bible itself — not written “interpretations” that multiply confusion.

A tight “professorial” synthesis sentence you can reuse

Hebrews 6:1–2 teaches a doctrinal foundation (repentance/faith/resurrection/judgment, etc.) that must not be endlessly re-laid; Trott affirms such “fixed principles” while warning that churches often smuggle “inferences…explanations” into the “system of salvation” as if they were foundation-truth, and Beebe likewise insists the apostolic deposit is the true foundation and rejects adding human interpretations as binding standards.

That’s Hebrews 6 functioning like a theological level: foundation stays foundation; growth is real; counterfeit foundations are forbidden.

HOW DID BEEBE AND TROTT VIEW THE LAYING OF HANDS IN HEBREWS 6?

They’d both treat “laying on of hands” in Hebrews 6:1–2 as real biblical business—but not as a thing to turn into a church-splitting obsession.

Beebe

Beebe reads Hebrews 6 in its big argument: the saints are urged to leave the shadows of the old covenant and go on to “perfection” in the gospel kingdom—“not laying the foundation again… of… laying on of hands…” (Heb 6:1–2). He explicitly frames that list as part of the inspired writer’s push away from repeated old-covenant foundations toward the one sufficient foundation in Christ’s finished offering.

But Beebe is not anti–laying on of hands in practice. When asked directly about Old School Baptist ordinations, he says the general custom is prayer and elders laying hands on the candidate; and he answers the objection (“we can’t impart the gifts of the Holy Ghost with empty hands”) by saying the scriptural use often wasn’t to convey gifts but to set apart brethren to the work the Holy Ghost had called them to—an “apostolic custom” he believes the churches have as example.

So Beebe’s instinct: Hebrews 6 keeps you from “re-laying” foundations as if Christ’s work must be repeated—yet apostolic order (including laying on hands in ordination) is a fitting, sober formality when it’s understood as recognition/setting apart, not magical transmission.

Trott

Trott wrote at length on the exact topic (“THE LAYING ON OF HANDS”). He says plainly that anything established by apostolic example as gospel order must not be treated as indifferent, and we shouldn’t be careless about understanding or practicing it according to the pattern.

At the same time, he’s surprisingly pastoral about controversy: he notes brethren are divided, and that the difference over laying on of hands (whether in receiving members or setting apart to office) had not been sufficient ground for separation in feeling or church fellowship.

Trott also pushes back on the idea that laying on of hands was only an apostolic prerogative to confer gifts; he proposes to examine “the use or design” of it in Scripture and argues the “gifts” logic doesn’t settle the question the way some claimed.

So Trott’s instinct: pursue a scriptural understanding seriously, don’t shrug at apostolic order—but don’t weaponize the point.

Bottom line

If you asked them, “What do you do with ‘laying on of hands’ in Hebrews 6:2?” they’d basically say:

• It’s in the Bible, so it matters. (Don’t call the apostolic order “optional.”)
• But Hebrews 6 is not inviting you to rebuild rituals as if Christ’s foundation is incomplete.
• And it’s not a good hill to die on for breaking fellowship among honest brethren.

Beebe and Trott would both read Hebrews 6:1–2 (“…the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands…”) as part of the writer’s list of “first lessons/rudiments”—not a list of “high doctrines” that define the core of the gospel.

Beebe’s angle: he explicitly treats the whole cluster (repentance from dead works, faith toward God, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection, eternal judgment) as “elements” that had already been set forth in the types of the law and the predictions of the prophets—real, meaningful instruction, but still “ABC” material compared to the perfection found in Christ’s finished priesthood and once-for-all offering. In other words, Beebe would resist turning Hebrews 6:2 into a lever for making “laying on of hands” a church-shattering test of orthodoxy—because the whole point of the passage is to move from shadow to substance.

At the same time, Beebe is not hostile to the practice in its proper place. On ordination, he describes the common Old School practice of prayer with elders laying hands on the candidate, while also noting some brethren objected because they couldn’t “impart gifts.” Beebe’s own conviction lands in favor of the formality, arguing that the apostolic pattern often used laying on of hands not to transmit gifts, but to set apart brethren to a work the Holy Ghost had already called them to.

Trott’s angle: Trott treats “laying on of hands” as a question of gospel order worth careful, Scripture-anchored discussion—not as a casual “indifferent thing,” yet also not a sufficient ground for breaking fellowship. That’s a very Trott-ish combination: “we shouldn’t be careless,” but “we also shouldn’t atomize the church over it.”

And on Hebrews 6:2 specifically, Trott remarks (while discussing a pamphlet) that the author tries to prove Hebrews 6:2 refers to laying on of hands under the law rather than under the gospel—and Trott adds that he assumes no judicious advocate of the practice even disputes that point. So Trott isn’t using Hebrews 6:2 as the proof-text that forces a specific gospel-ordinance practice on churches; he’s willing to place that phrase in Hebrews 6 among the “elementary” matters tied to the Jewish instructional framework—while still arguing that other New Testament patterns of laying on hands (especially in setting apart servants) deserve sober attention.

So, if you asked them, “How do you feel about laying on of hands in Hebrews 6:2?” you’d get something like:

• Beebe: “It’s one of the elementary items taught in the shadow-school; don’t rebuild Judaism out of it—but yes, there’s an apostolic, orderly use of laying on hands in setting apart elders.”
• Trott: “Don’t treat gospel order as indifferent, but don’t fracture fellowship over it; and Hebrews 6:2 itself isn’t the cudgel—its ‘laying on of hands’ is commonly understood as belonging to the legal/elementary side of the discussion.”

For hands laid on baptized believers (not ordination), Trott is the goldmine here, because he explicitly discusses “laying on of hands… in receiving persons into church relation” as one of the debated “bearings” of the practice.

Trott: Yes, some did it at reception, but don’t treat it like a magic Holy Ghost dispenser

Trott says brethren differed “whether in receiving persons into church relation or in setting apart to office,” and he refuses to make that difference a fellowship-breaking issue.

Then he goes after the common rationale that made the rite feel almost sacramental—as if the apostles had the Spirit “in their hands.” He argues that this view is wrongheaded, using Acts 8 (Samaria) and Acts 19 (Ephesus):

• In Acts 8, Trott says Peter and John did not think they could “confer the Holy Ghost.” They prayed; then they laid hands, and the Spirit came. He says it’s more consistent to see the hands laid on them as setting them apart to walk together in church relation—in plain speech, “to constitute them into a church”—and the Holy Ghost came to sanction/confirm the act, not because the apostles “transmitted” Him.
• In Acts 19, after correct baptism, Trott says Paul laid hands on them, which “constituted them into a church,” and again the Spirit came, wording that “guards us” against imagining Paul bestowed the Spirit.

So Trott’s view in your question:

If hands were laid on newly baptized believers at reception, it should be understood as an orderly, ecclesial act (recognition/constitution into church relation), not a “confirmation” rite that pumps grace into them.

Beebe: he’s very cautious about adding extra “ritual” to the reception of baptized believers

Beebe doesn’t talk (in the snippets we have open) about laying hands on newly baptized members as a required or even recommended reception-rite. What he does say, very pointedly, is that formal rites like the “right hand of fellowship” are not essential by New Testament “precept or example,” and that fellowship is properly expressed by the church’s unanimous vote and recognition—after baptism, since baptism is the indispensable prerequisite to membership.

That tells you where Beebe would land on “hands on baptized believers” as a standing ritual: he’d be skeptical of making it a necessary step, because he’s already wary of making even the “hand of fellowship” a rule-bound ceremony.

Bottom line

• Trott: laying on hands connected with baptized believers can be understood as a church-order act (reception/constitution), but it must not be treated as a Spirit-conveying “confirmation.”
• Beebe: reception is by church judgment + baptism; he resists adding formal reception rituals as “essential,” so he would not like turning “laying on of hands” into a required post-baptism rite.

On the “laying on of hands” after baptism (or upon baptized believers coming into church relation), Trott and Beebe both treat it as a question of gospel order worth studying—but not as a “make-or-break” term of communion.

Trott actually has a full Signs series titled “THE LAYING ON OF HANDS” (1835), written because brethren differed “whether in receiving persons into church relation or in setting apart to office,” yet (he notes) this difference had not been treated as sufficient cause for breaking fellowship. He insists that if something is truly established by apostolic example, it shouldn’t be shrugged off as “indifferent,” so he tries to “compare our different views with the scriptures.”

Trott’s core caution: “hands” don’t confer the Spirit

Trott pushes back hard against the idea that men “have the power to communicate the Holy Ghost” by laying on hands—he treats that as basically Simon Magus thinking dressed up in church clothes.

Then (and this is the key to your question) he offers a non-magical way to read the Acts passages:

• In Acts 8, Peter and John pray for the disciples to receive the Spirit, then lay hands on them; Trott argues it’s more consistent to see the laying on of hands as setting them apart to walk together in church relation (in his words, “to constitute them into a church”), with the Spirit’s coming as God’s sanction—not as something the apostles mechanically “dispensed.”
• He links the same basic logic to Acts 19.

So: Trott can absolutely envision “laying on hands” connected to baptized believers as an ecclesial act (reception/constitution/order), while refusing the idea that it’s a channel that men control.

Beebe: Practice differs; ordination commonly includes it; not about “imparting gifts.”

Beebe answers a direct question on this in his “ORDINATIONS” reply (1864). He says bluntly, there isn’t “perfect uniformity” among Old School Baptists in how they set apart elders/deacons.

He notes some objects specifically because we cannot “impart… the gifts of the Holy Ghost,” and they fear the act could imply that. But Beebe’s own convictions favor the formalities (sermon, prayer, laying on of hands, charge, right hand of fellowship), arguing there are “many cases” where laying on of hands was not to convey Spirit-gifts, but “simply to set apart brethren to the work whereunto the Holy Ghost had called them.”

How Hebrews 6:1–2 fits into their instincts

Beebe explicitly quotes Hebrews 6’s “foundation” list—repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection, etc.—as part of the apostle’s push to leave old-covenant shadows and go on to the “perfection” found in Christ and the new covenant. He doesn’t treat “foundation” as “optional,” but he also frames everything in Hebrews 6 under the supremacy of Christ’s once-for-all work (so the meaning of these items must harmonize with Christ, not become little sacrificial mechanisms).

So what about laying on of hands on baptized believers?

Putting Trott + Beebe together:

• Possible meaning (Trott’s preferred line in Acts 8/19): a church-order action associated with believers being gathered/recognized in church relation—not a Spirit-distribution ritual.
• Certain meaning (Beebe’s emphasis): in ordination, it’s a solemn public recognition / setting apart, explicitly not an act that “imparts” the Spirit.
• Pastoral boundary (Trott): brethren differed on the practice “in receiving persons into church relation,” yet it wasn’t treated as grounds for schism.

In other words: if a church does lay hands on baptized believers as part of reception/constitution, Trott gives you a way to see it as order + blessing without superstition; if a church doesn’t, Beebe’s own admission about non-uniformity keeps that from being weaponized as a test of fellowship.

SO WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT DOCTRINES IN ORDER?

Here is a one-page “Rule of Fellowship” written in a consciously Beebe/Trott, Old-School spirit—Acts 2:42 as the spine, Hebrews 6 and 1 Corinthians 15 as the gravity wells, and Romans 14 as the guardrail.

A Rule of Fellowship According to the Apostolic Pattern

Principle.

The church of Jesus Christ is built upon one foundation—the Son and the apostolic testimony to Him (1 Cor 3:11; Heb 1:1–3; Acts 2:42). Therefore, not all doctrines carry equal weight. Some belong to the foundation; some govern church order; some belong to Christian liberty. Confusion here either dissolves the church into “anything goes” or turns private inferences into a new law.

I. The Gospel Foundation (Non-negotiable; Tier 1)

These are “of first importance” and define Christianity itself. Denial here is another gospel and breaks Christian fellowship.

• The living God and His Son — the triune God revealed in Christ (Matt 28:19; John 1:1–14; Heb 1:1–3).
• The gospel events — Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again (1 Cor 15:3–4; Rom 4:25).
• Salvation by grace, not works — justification is God’s gift, grounded in Christ alone (Rom 3:24–28; Gal 1:6–9; Eph 2:8–9; Titus 3:5–7).
• Christ’s sufficient atonement and present advocacy — one offering forever; He is our Propitiation and Advocate (Heb 10:10–14; 1 John 2:1–2).
• The authority of the apostolic Word — Scripture as the rule of faith (Acts 2:42; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:20–21).

Rule: These are the foundation. They are not to be added to, diluted, or replaced. Here, the church must be immovable (Gal 1:8–9).

II. The Order of the House (Necessary for church fellowship; Tier 2)

These do not define whether one is a Christian, but they do define whether churches can walk together in visible order.

• The church’s life — doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers, discipline (Acts 2:42; Matt 18:15–20; 1 Tim 3:15).
• The ordinances — baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt 28:19–20; Rom 6:3–4; 1 Cor 11:23–26).
• Qualified ministry and orderly service (1 Tim 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9; Eph 4:11–16).
• Holiness in membership — no protection for scandal; repentance evidenced as fruit, not price (1 Cor 5:11–13; Heb 12:14; Titus 2:11–14).

Rule: Churches must agree here to walk together. Disagreement here does not unchristianize a man, but it does prevent orderly communion.

III. The Realm of Liberty and Wisdom (Not tests of fellowship; Tier 3)

These are real questions, but Scripture forbids making them binding laws.

• Food, days, and similar practices (Rom 14:1–6; Col 2:16).
• How liberty is applied among brethren (1 Cor 8; 1 Cor 10:23–33).
• Secondary eschatological schemes (the core—resurrection and judgment—is Tier 1; John 5:28–29; Acts 17:31).

Rule: Here we bear with one another and refuse to bind consciences where God has not bound them.

IV. A Necessary Warning (Hebrews 6:1–2)

Scripture itself distinguishes foundation from what is built on it. We must not:

• endlessly re-lay foundations as if Christ’s work were never settled (Heb 6:1), or
• promote inferences and system-glue into new foundations (1 Cor 3:10–11).

V. The Spirit of the Whole (1 John 1:6–7; 2:1–2)

We walk in the light, not in denial; the blood of Christ is the cleansing ground; Christ is the Advocate. Fellowship rests on Christ’s finished work, not on the perfection of our explanations or performances.

In one sentence (pure Old-School instinct):

Hold the foundation immovably, keep the house in apostolic order, and refuse to turn scaffolding into load-bearing walls.

WHAT WERE THE OPINIONS OF BEEBE & TROTT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF ESCATAOLOGY

Beebe and Trott both cared about eschatology (they wrote on prophecy, “signs of the times,” the millennium, the Lord’s coming), but they were allergic to making millennial schemes into either (a) a human project or (b) a new test of fellowship.

Beebe: prophecy matters, but “millennium-talk” often becomes a tool of delusion and institution-building

Beebe explicitly treats the 19th-century “benevolent” machinery as promising “the speedy advent of their promised Millennium,” and he reads that optimism as a sign of antichristian delusion—so eschatology, for him, is not decorative: it diagnoses the age and exposes false hopes.

At the same time, Beebe’s big policing instinct is: don’t invent extra standards. He insists Old School Baptists “disavow all tests of Christian fellowship except those set up by Christ and his apostles,” and he warns against putting “more or less stress” on one part of apostolic doctrine than another as a fellowship test.

So: eschatology is important, but not a playground for adding man-made shibboleths.

Trott: eschatology is pastoral and sobering—never a “millennium engine.”

Trott treats end-times expectation as something that should loosen your grip on the world and steady you for affliction, not produce fanatic “end-of-the-world” behavior. He points to historical panics (monks/monastic flight; Millerites) as examples of being driven by terror and delusion.

Then he nails the practical point: you don’t “hasten” the day of God by “the devices of men for hastening on what they call the millennium.” That line is basically Trott’s whole eschatological posture in one sentence: prophecy is real, the coming is real, but human systems trying to manufacture the millennium are spiritual folly.

Their shared “doctrinal-weight” instinct (this matters for your question)

Trott admits there are truths “of the highest importance,” but he distinguishes those truths from human explanations/inferences that people try to staple onto the system and then demand as if they were the faith itself. He even says that although he views the doctrine of God’s triune being as “of the highest importance,” he would not therefore brand as infidels those who reject a particular Athanasian mode of explanation.

Apply that logic to eschatology, and you get the Old School vibe:

• The certainties (Christ’s coming, resurrection, judgment; the reality of antichrist opposition; the believer’s hope) matter deeply.
• The schemes (timeline mechanics, man-made “millennium” programs, speculative glue) are where pride and division breed.

Bottom line

Beebe and Trott treated eschatology as serious, sobering, and useful—especially for exposing the counterfeit “millennium optimism” of the benevolent empire and for strengthening patience and holiness. But they resisted turning millennial systems into either a human project or a fellowship-weapon.

The places where Trott explicitly distinguishes (1) fixed, vital truths from (2) inferences/connecting points/explanations, and then we can lay that right over millennial/eschatological disputes.

1) Trott’s “doctrinal-weight” principle: vital truths vs. human “connecting points”

Trott says churches may give summaries of what they believe Scripture teaches, but they must never treat human compositions as an unalterable standard.

Then he draws the knife-edge distinction:

• He denies that “all points of doctrine are mere matters of opinion” and affirms there are “fixed principles” that God’s children know as “infallible truths.”
• But he says we are prone to attach to those truths certain add-ons—“inferences, connecting points, explanations, &c.”—and then treat those add-ons as if they were “inseparable parts of the system of salvation.”
• And then comes the punchline: when we finally examine those “connecting points,” we may find we had “no higher authority” than that respected men had said so.

That is Trott’s theology of how controversies metastasize: someone’s “helpful” explanatory glue becomes a required plank.

2) Trott’s remedy: the “more sure word of prophecy”

After warning about those “connecting points,” Trott says the Spirit has given God’s children an infallible standard—“a more sure word of prophecy”—to which we do well to take heed.

So he’s explicitly tying doctrinal testing and controversy control to (a) Scripture, and (b) a sober submission to what Scripture actually says—rather than to our systems.

3) Trott applies this instinct to eschatological mania: no “devices of men” to hasten the millennium

In a passage on “looking for and hasting unto the coming” (2 Pet 3 language), Trott says that does not mean trying to hasten the day “by practicing the devices of men for hastening on what they call the millennium.”

He ridicules end-times panic (tenth-century “world ending” monastic flight; Millerite wildness) as “strong delusions,” and then brings it home: holiness is shown in faithful duties, not in apocalyptic theatrics.

4) How this maps onto millennial disputes (Trott’s logic, stated plainly)

Trott’s framework implies:

• Essential: Christ’s return, resurrection, judgment—plain-scripture certainties.
• Often “connecting points”: timelines, identifications, “this equals that,” and elaborate prophetic chronologies—especially when people insist their chart is part of the system of salvation.
• Pastoral danger: schemes can be used to justify man-made activism (“hasten the millennium”) or to terrify consciences into counterfeit religion.

That’s why Trott can take prophecy seriously while warning that system-glue becomes a new creed.

5) One more “pressure test” example: Trott on Trinity (same method)

Trott says the doctrine of God existing as Three and One is “of the highest importance,” yet he refuses to anathematize brethren who don’t accept the Athanasian “modus” explanation as he thinks it should be expressed.

That is the same rule applied: the importance of the doctrine ≠ of infallibility of my favored explanation.

So what would Trott say about eschatology’s “importance”?

He’d say: it’s important enough to preach and heed—but dangerous enough that you must separate Scripture certainties from human connecting points, and refuse “devices of men” that claim to manufacture the millennium.

Yep. Here are Beebe’s parallel “pressure points” (and then a clean Beebe-vs-Trott comparison paragraph you can paste into your manuscript).

1) Beebe: “millennium optimism” is tied to man-made religious machinery

Beebe says the “humanly invented religious institutions” (falsely called benevolent) promised both “the evangelization of the world” and “the speedy advent of their promised Millennium”—and he reads that whole package as anti-christ ripening, not gospel progress.

He adds that as “fanaticism” increases, the world becomes fascinated with “spreading delusions.”

2) Beebe: religious “panics” and “revivals” as counterfeit millennium-dawnings

In his piece on “THE RELIGIOUS EXCITEMENT,” Beebe describes a “religious panic” being hailed by will-worshipers and Arminians “as the dawning of their long looked for millennium,” but he classifies it as “delusion and ranting fanaticism,” a “development of the man of sin.”

3) Beebe: the real “hastening” error—trying to “usher in” latter-day glory by effort

Beebe explicitly targets the idea: “we must usher in the latter day glory ourselves, and we must hasten the coming of the Lord by our efforts or he will never come.” That is basically the Beebe-version of Trott’s “devices of men” critique—same instinct, different phrasing.

4) Beebe: prophecy as warning to the household, not as a hobby or a lever

Beebe frames “watching the signs of the times” as seasonable warning to the church, so that saints may be “saved from the calamities or plagues” written against Babylon—not “to secure the eternal salvation of their souls,” which is “secure in Christ from everlasting.”

That’s crucial: for Beebe, eschatology is pastoral protection and discernment, not a method for getting people eternally saved, and not a way to build a religious industry.

5) Beebe: the “more sure word of prophecy” outranks frames and feelings

Beebe insists that not even our “frames or feelings…depressions or transporting joys” should be held as equal authenticity with “that more sure word of prophecy to which the saints shall do well that they take heed.” That is the doctrinal-control mechanism: prophecy and Scripture govern; enthusiasm doesn’t.

(Beebe vs. Trott)

Beebe and Trott both treat eschatology as serious, but not as a machine for manufacturing the future.

Beebe repeatedly attacks the “benevolent” institutional system for promising the evangelization of the world and “the speedy advent of their promised Millennium,” calling that optimism a mark of anti-Christian delusion rather than gospel power. He likewise rebukes the notion that churches must “usher in the latter day glory” and “hasten the coming of the Lord by our efforts,” insisting that prophecy functions as warning to God’s people (and preservation from Babylon’s plagues), not as a tool to secure eternal salvation or to sanctify religious excitement. Trott’s language mirrors the same instinct: he rejects “the devices of men for hastening on what they call the millennium,” and he treats apocalyptic panics as delusion, calling believers instead to live soberly, steadily, and unworldly in view of the coming day. In short, both men rank eschatology as spiritually weighty—because it exposes counterfeit religion and steadies suffering saints—while refusing to let speculative schemes, enthusiasm, or “effort religion” become either a new gospel or a new test of fellowship.

If you want to go one notch sharper, I can extract a couple more Beebe lines where he explicitly connects “signs” to anti-christ, “lying wonders,” and the falling away (which turns prophecy into a doctrinal diagnostic tool, not a timeline game).