Church History

Appendix Concerning Baptism | Second London Baptist Confession (1689)

Kirk E. Miller

The following is the original appendix attached to the Second London Confession of Faith.

While their confession systematically detailed their core doctrines, the signatories recognized that their position on baptism, specifically believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism), was a notable departure from their fellow Reformed Protestants with whom they otherwise shared a common theology. Thus, they concluded it necessary to provide an apology (defense or explanation) of this particular theological position.

It’s well worth reading to understand how early Particular Baptists reasoned for credobaptism.

Below I provide its original text with only slight revisions to modernize certain spellings, capitalizations, and punctuation along with occasional clarifying brackets. I have also placed quotation marks around all scripture quotations, as best as I was able to detect them, and supplied the Scripture references in brackets. Scripture references in parenthesis as original, which I have corrected on some cases where the reference was quite obviously incorrect.

Whosoever reads and impartially considers what we have in our foregoing confession declared may readily perceive that we do not only concur with all other true Christians on the Word of God (revealed in the Scriptures of truth) as the foundation and rule of our faith and worship, but that we have also industriously endeavored to manifest that, in the fundamental articles of Christianity, we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed our belief in the same words which have on the like occasion been spoken by other societies of Christians before us.

This we have done that those who are desirous to know the principles of religion which we hold and practice may take an estimate from ourselves (who jointly concur in this work) and may not be misguided, either by undue reports or by the ignorance or errors of particular persons, who, going under the same name with ourselves, may give an occasion of scandalizing the truth we profess.

And although we do differ from our brethren who are paedobaptists in the subject and administration of baptism, and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification and discharge of those duties and services which we owe unto God, and in His fear to each other, yet we would not be from here misconstrued as if the discharge of our own consciences herein did any way disoblige or alienate our affections or conversation [i.e. conduct] from any others that fear the Lord; but that we may and do, as we have opportunity, participate in the labors of those whom God has endowed with abilities above ourselves, and qualified and called to the ministry of the Word, earnestly desiring to approve ourselves to be such as follow after peace with holiness; and therefore we always keep that blessed irenicum, or healing word of the Apostle before our eyes: “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:15–16).

Continue reading →

“To the Judicious and Impartial Reader” | Epistolary Preface to the Second London Baptist Confession (1689)

Kirk E. Miller

The following is the prefatory letter to the Second London Baptist Confession. In it, the signatories of the confession explain that, despite their distinctive belief in believer’s baptism, Particular Baptists (as we have come to call them) stand in agreement with the Protestant Reformed doctrine of their Presbyterian and Congregationalist brothers and sisters. Its irenic tone reflects a desire to distance themselves from radical sectarian movements, claim their rightful place among Reformed Protestants, and present a unified front with them amidst persecution. Thus, this preface functions to explain some of the main reasons for the construction and adoption of this confession.

It’s important to note that the Second London Baptist Confession is based on the Presbyterians’ Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Congregationalists’ Savoy Declaration (1658), the Savoy itself being based on the Westminster. The Congregationalists (or Independents) and Baptists made their changes mostly to reflect their distinct ecclesiologies.

This letter is sometimes called “To the Judicious and Impartial Reader” or just “Courteous Reader.” Below I provide its original text with only slight revisions to modernize certain spellings, capitalizations, and punctuation along with occasional clarifying brackets.

Courteous Reader,

It is now many years since diverse of us (with other sober Christians then living and walking in the way of the Lord that we profess) did conceive ourselves to be under a necessity of publishing a confession of our faith, for the information and satisfaction of those that did not thoroughly understand what our principles were, or had entertained prejudices against our profession, by reason of the strange representation of them by some men of note, who had taken very wrong measures and accordingly led others into misapprehensions of us and them; and this was first put forth about the year 1643 in the name of seven congregations then gathered in London, since which time diverse impressions [i.e., printings] thereof have been dispersed abroad and our end proposed in good measure answered, inasmuch as many (and some of those men eminent both for piety and learning) were thereby satisfied that we were no way guilty of those heterodoxies and fundamental errors which had too frequently been charged upon us without ground or occasion given on our part. And forasmuch as that confession is not now commonly to be had, and also that many others have since embraced the same truth which is owned therein, it was judged necessary by us to join together in giving a testimony to the world of our firm adhering to those wholesome principles, by the publication of this which is now in your hand.

Continue reading →

40 Quotes from The Pastoral Rule by Gregory the Great

Kirk E. Miller

Gregory the Great wrote The Pastoral Rule to provide guidance for “spiritual directors” (clergy) on the responsibilities and tasks of pastoring. It is widely considered one of the best works of pastoral theology.

He breaks his work into four parts.

  1. He addresses the qualifications of those who would obtain pastoral authority.
  2. He provides directions on the proper life and work of the pastor.
  3. He offers specific guidance and insight on how to pastor particular types of people given their unique temperaments, struggles, characteristics, and circumstances.
  4. He closes with an exhortation to humility in pastoral ministry.

He sets out to write his book, among other reasons, “to express my opinion of the severity of their weight [i.e., the burdens of pastoral care] so that he who is free of these burdens might not recklessly pursue them and he who has already attained them might tremble for having done so.”1 At the close of his book, he says, “I have tried to show what the qualities of a spiritual director ought to be.”2

The following are some of my favorite quotes from the work, organized loosely by subject matter.3

1. The dangers of the pastoral authority

“No one does more harm in the Church than he who has the title or rank of holiness and acts perversely. … [B]ecause such a sinner is honored by the dignity of his rank, his offenses spread considerably by way of example. And yet everyone who is unworthy would flee from such a great burden of guilt if, with the attentive ear of the heart, he pondered the saying of the Truth: ‘He that scandalizes one of these little ones who believes in me, it would be better for him that a millstone was hung around his neck and that he was cast into the depth of the sea.’ … Whoever, therefore, gives off the appearance of sanctity but destroys another by his words or example, it would be better for him that his earthly acts, demonstrated by worldly habits, would bind him to death than for his sacred office to be a source for the imitation of vice in another. Indeed, his punishment in hell would be less terrible if he fell alone.” (32)

“[Jesus] chose instead the penalty of a shameful death so that his [followers] might also learn to flee the applause of the world, to fear not its terrors, to value adversity for the sake of truth, and to decline prosperity fearfully. This final concern [i.e. prosperity] often corrupts the heart through pride, while adversities purge it through suffering. In the one, the soul becomes conceited; while in the other (even if the soul is occasionally conceited), it humbles itself. In the one, the man forgets who he is; while in the other, he is recalled, even unwillingly, to know what he is. … For commonly in the school of adversity, the heart is subdued by discipline; but if one rises to a position of spiritual authority, the heart is immediately altered by a state of elation that accompanies the experience of glory.” (33)

Continue reading →

Baptist Ecclesiology as Continued Reform, an Extension of the Reformation

Kirk E. Miller

Hercules Collins’ An Orthodox Catechism is a Baptist adaptation of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism. In his, preface, Collins compares the theological development by these early Baptists to the reforms under Joshua, Hezekiah, and Ezra and Nehemiah, as they went back to scripture to recover “true worship” as prescribed by God. Collins specifically mentions that these Particular Baptists agree with the other “orthodox divines” in the “fundamental principles.” They simply differ on some things about “church-constitution” (ecclesiology). In other words, Collins sees the Baptists as providing further reformation (like Joshua, Hezekiah, Ezra, Nehemiah) specifically in the realm of ecclesiology (“church-constitution,” “the true form of God’s house”). In other words, early Baptists saw themselves as simply continuing in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation, extending Reformation principles to ecclesiology.

I will quote the entirety of his explanation:

Continue reading →