Baptismal Regeneration
and the Westminster Confession 28.6
S. Joel Garver
Introduction
In contemporary America, Reformed Protestantism, especially in its more conservative evangelical manifestation, often assumes that any and every notion of (what has been traditionally called) "baptismal regeneration" is in error. If one were to affirm that "baptism saves" (1 Peter 3:21) or refer to the sacrament as the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) or say, with Turretin, that baptism "bestows regeneration" one would likely be looked at rather askance and perhaps even taken to task for espousing obvious error.
For many Presbyterians, among the confessional texts that could be taken as evidence against such views and ways of speaking is the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), particularly 28.5 and 6, which read as follows:
5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance [of baptism], yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.On this point, we might well take the Confession to deny that baptism has anything to do with regeneration or, at the least, to deny that God actually regenerates by his Spirit through or in connection with baptism.
6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
The Question at Hand
But does the Confession, in fact, rule out any and every understanding of "baptismal regeneration," whether one calls it by that name or not (and certainly the theology in question could be expressed in other terms)? That is to say, does the WCF exclude views that see baptism as an ordinary means by which the Spirit conveys regenerating grace to believers, either in seed or root (in the case of infants) or more fully or by way of augmentation (in the case of adult converts)?
What I will argue in the following essay is that the Westminster Confession does not exclude any and every understanding of baptism as, in some sense, conferring regeneration.
While one could raise questions about the pastoral advisability of using the language of "baptismal regeneration," my focus here is upon the theology that lies behind such ways of speaking. Indeed, I will argue that the teaching of the WCF is crafted to allow just such views, which were, after all, relatively common place among English and Scots Reformed believers up to and including the time of the composition of the Confession, in keeping with their biblical theology, respect for the teaching of the church Fathers, and earlier Reformed theologians. I do understand and acknowledge that most Reformed believers today have a natural way in which they read WCF 28.6 and a particular notion of what falls under the term "baptismal regeneration," so that the Confession is naturally taken to deny such sacramental views.
But such a reading of the Confession is not the only way in which it may be rightly read, nor is the notion of "baptismal regeneration" supposed by such a reading the only one available in either Reformed theology or earlier Christian theology more widely. There were, in fact, a number of divines at the Westminster Assembly who would have taken both the Confession, and the sacramental theology contained within it, to permit Reformed views rather different from how many people popularly understand them today.
We can open up this question further by noting the opinion of a well-respected scholar of Reformation theology, David F. Wright (University of Edinburgh; a ruling elder in the Church of Scotland). He writes,
What then about the efficacy of baptism according to the Westminster Confession? Its central affirmation seems clear: "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost" (28.6). It is true that a variety of qualifications to this assertion are entered...But these qualifications serve in fact only to highlight the clarity of the core declaration, which is set forth as follows in the preceding chapter on sacraments in general:For many contemporary conservative Protestants D.F. Wright's analysis is, I suspect, an astounding assertion, not least for those Protestants who claim to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. And while Wright does overstate the point ("allows" or "permits" would be more accurate than "teaches," not to mention that "baptismal regeneration" is hardly a univocal notion), I believe it is still easily shown that a specifically reformational understanding of baptismal regeneration does fall within the bounds of the Confession, even if the Confession does not teach it as such, as if it were a required belief for all who subscribe to the confessional document.niether doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains...a promise of benefit to worthy receivers (27.3).The Westminster divines viewed baptism as the instrument and occasion of regeneration by the Spirit, of the remission of sins, of ingrafting into Christ (cf. 28.1). The Confession teaches baptismal regeneration. (from "Baptism at the Westminster Assembly" in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, volume 1, ed. by J. Ligon Duncan III, Mentor 2003:168-9)
Defining the Context
In order to assess these claims about the Westminster Confession's teaching on baptism, it might be useful to sketch here exactly what one might mean - and what one would not mean - in this context by linking baptism and regeneration or using associated terminology ("laver of regeneration," etc.).
First of all, a Reformed understanding would not affirm that each and every recipient of baptism is thereby regenerate, simply in virtue of having been baptized. Such a claim would be repugnant to the nature of the Gospel by which Christ is savingly offered and received only by faith. Therefore, those who, for instance, receive the sacrament in positive unbelief and who remain in that unbelief do not enjoy whatever saving grace is offered to them in the sacrament.1
Second, there is no notion here that the water of baptism or its application, in itself, produces the intended effects. Rather, as the Westminster Confession teaches, the grace of the sacrament "is not conferred by any power in them" nor does the efficacy of that grace "depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it." Rather, the whole efficacy of the sacraments in exhibiting and conferring grace depends "upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution" in which the promise of the Gospel is held out to all who receive the sacrament in faith (WCF 27.3).
It is this point regarding the nature of sacramental causality, among others, that distinguishes a Reformed understanding of baptism from that held by many versions of Roman Catholic teaching and, especially, those versions against which the Reformers were rightly reacting. We would be mistaken, however, to take that particular sort of Roman Catholic view of sacramental causality to be identical with the universal teaching of the Christian church that there is "one baptism for the remission of sins" or with the sacramental views of many of the church Fathers, confessional Lutheranism, reformational Anglicanism, or historic Methodism.2
Third, we should recognize that the term "regeneration" itself is not univocal within the Reformed dogmatics of the 16th and 17th centuries. While the term increasingly came to refer to that renewing act of the Holy Spirit by which a person was enabled to believe (that is, the immediate result of effectual calling), the term "regeneration" also continued to be used with reference to both [a] the "seed" or "root" of regeneration as experienced by infants, concomitant with the seed or root of faith, and prior to faith's actual exercise in response to effectual calling through the ministry of the Word (cf. WCF 10.1) and [b] the augmentation of regenerating grace by which an individual continues to experience "the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace" as a reappropriation of the regenerating grace already received (WLC 167).3
Of course, there are also other uses of the term "regeneration" within the Reformed tradition, including the event of baptism itself as an ecclesiastical transition in which the person baptized is admitted into the visible church as the kingdom and household of God and is sacramentally and conditionally cleansed from sin and engaged unto service to God.4 While such a use of the term "regeneration" is surely legitimate, both biblically and historically, I will set it aside at the moment given that it is somewhat more removed from the terminology of the Confession and thus, like the doctrine of "common grace" on which the WCF is silent, it cannot be seen to directly conflict with the Confession's teaching.
It is the case, then, that the wide consensus of Reformed dogmatics in the 16th and 17th centuries saw the sacrament of baptism as a regenerating ordinance insofar as [a] it granted regenerating grace in root and seed to (at least elect) infants in view of their future effectual calling and [b] it reconveyed and increased regenerating grace in those who already believe.5 Richard Muller describes the Reformed consensus in this way:
The purpose or goal and the effect of baptism are, immediately or proximately, the regeneration or renovation of the baptized...For infants the sacrament of baptism provides the ordinary or ordained means of regeneration and only secondarily functions as a seal of faith insofar as it is a seal of the foedus gratiae, or covenant of grace...For adults the sacrament of baptism provides principally a seal and a testimony of the grace already bestowed by the Word and, secondarily, an augmentation of the regenerating grace of God. ("baptismus" in Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Baker Academic 1996:56)This sort of teaching, then, is what D.F. Wright means when he claims (in an admittedly overstated point) that the Westminster Confession "teaches baptismal regeneration." The question that remains is whether he is correct in this assertion or whether, at least, such a view of baptism is within the bounds of the Confession as it would have been originally understood.
Interpretation and Explication
It strikes me such an interpretation of the Confession is prima facie plausible. The WCF does in fact assert that grace is "exhibited" and "conferred" in and by the sacraments through "the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution" (27.8). Likewise, the Westminster Larger Catechism states that sacraments are, in this way, "effectual means of salvation" (161) whereby, in the words of the Shorter Catechism "Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers" (92). The Standards, moreover, consistently teach that "regeneration by the Spirit" is among the benefits thus represented, sealed, exhibited, conferred, and applied.
The difficulty is with regard to the qualifications provided in connection with the basic teaching: that grace and salvation are not so inseparably connected to baptism that all who are baptized are without doubt regenerated or that no one may ever find salvation apart from the sacrament. Moreover, the idea that the grace of baptism is not absolutely tied to the moment of administration might be seen to strike at the regenerative efficacy of the sacrament.
Neither of these points, however, in whatever manner one takes them, necessarily undermines the claim that the Westminster Confession allows for views link baptism to the bestowal of regenerating grace. Indeed, no mainstream Christian tradition holding to views they term "baptismal regeneration" has ever held that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation or that baptism is so efficacious that unbelief cannot hinder its effects. How much more is this the case within the Reformed tradition in which the emphasis rests upon the necessity and sole instrumentality of faith.
Furthermore, it is standard Reformed teaching that Christ and the Spirit are truly present and offered in God's ordinances, even in the face of unbelief, so that unbelief does nothing to impair the nature of the sacrament in itself. Thus, Calvin insists that "the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of men, and that nothing is taken away from the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of men" (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:27). And so, he says with regard to the Supper, "Christ's body is presented to the wicked no less than to the good" so that unbelief does nothing to "impair or alter anything as to the nature of the sacrament." In the Institutes Calvin similarly says that "the flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God's elect believers" but that unbelievers reject the proffered gift (4.17.33).
This perspective is part of the Confession's teaching on the "sacramental union" between the sign and thing signified. Thus, when the Larger Catechism asks "What are the two parts of a sacrament," the answer given is: "The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified" (WLC 163). Likewise, the Confession states that "there is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified" (WCF 27.2). The sign and thing signified thus are held together "in the sacrament" and constitute the sacrament in their union. Thus, "sacrament," strictly speaking, encompasses both aspects in union, even if they are not be confused or identified.
While some later Reformed divines would take this to mean that a sacrament received in unbelief is not truly a sacrament at all, but some kind of false sacrament, within the larger context of Reformed dogmatics it is instead an affirmation of the presence of Christ in his sacraments, truly offered to all who receive, even if, through unbelief, the sacrament does not effect its primary intention. It is, after all, the "catholic visible church" to which "Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God...and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual" (WCF 25.3). Thus Christ, in the Spirit of regeneration, is present and offered in the sacrament of baptism, in order to convey regenerating grace unto all who receive the sacrament rightly.6
More, however, can be said with regard to the Confession through an analysis of its teaching. In that light, therefore, I offer the following as important considerations, working backward, more or less, from the end of WCF 28.6. Furthermore, note that in these considerations I will be taking "regeneration" in its several more transformative and subjective senses, as noted above.
[1] "The grace" that the WCF understands to be promised in baptism is the grace outlined in WCF 26.1 and includes, "solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church...a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up to God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." The Larger Catechism (Q. 165) also includes "adoption" and "resurrection unto everlasting life" in that grace, as well as "professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's."
[2] If we examine what the Westminster Standards teach with regard to what the grace of baptism includes, we encounter several, rather different effects. Some of these effects are indeed tied to the moment of baptism, for instance, solemn admission into the visible church, engagement to be the Lord's, and various aspects of sacramental "sealing" whether absolute or conditional. Others of these effects may be subsequent to baptism and may be expected to wax and wane during the course of one's life, as is the case with walking in newness of life or growing up into the assurace of pardon. And some of these effects are definitely future, even if title to them is, in some sense, granted in baptism, which is evidently the case with resurrection unto everlasting life.
[3] Thus, when the Confession speaks of those to whom "that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time," it is making room for at least two factors; and it is my contention that those factors together suffice for an adequate interpretation of WCF (whatever else we might take it to say or imply): [a] that the grace exhibited and conferred by baptism extends to the whole of one's life and [b] that the offered grace is not enjoyed by all recipients or in the same way by all those who are baptized.
With regard to [a], we may note that the grace exhibited and conferred by baptism is such that it pertains not only to the moment of baptism itself, but also to the whole subsequent life of the Christian and thus is enjoyed, as the WCF says, "in [God's] appointed time." This understanding of the "appointed time" is indicated also by a couple of other considerations.
First, within the context of the Westminster Standards themselves we have the teaching of the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 167 with regard to "improving one's baptism." The Catechism states:
The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long...by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of [baptism], and of the end for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavouring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.This perspective upon the perpetual efficacy of the grace of baptism, continuing to confer its benefits in God's appointed time, is underscored and confirmed by the wider context of other Reformed confessions and teaching.
Thus, the much earlier Belgic Confession (1561) states, "baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives" (Article 34). Likewise, in the words of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), "baptism once received continues for all of life, and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption" (Chapter 20). More immediately, the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God explains that the "inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered" but rather "that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life."
With regard to [b], we may note that the grace exhibited and conferred by baptism is not enjoyed to same the degree by all recipients since while all who are baptized are, for instance, solemnly admitted into the visible church and engaged to be the Lord's, not all who are baptized go on, for instance, to walk in newness of life or to improve their baptism or to be resurrected unto everlasting life. Moreover, while God's promises are sealed absolutely in baptism in terms of their offer, they are only sealed sacramentally and conditionally with regard to their effects. Thus the effects of baptism vary according the faith of the recipient of baptism and Reformed theology would ultimately assert that such a variation in effects is, as the WCF states, "according to the counsel of God's own will."
We may also add, at this point, that from one important perspective, those to whom "that grace belongeth unto" in baptism are those described in WCF 28.4, which states that "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." This establishes that the grace of baptism, in some sense, belongs to those individuals, at least in terms of its offer and sealing unto them.
[4] The Confession, therefore, makes no explicit statement regarding how the grace of "regeneration" in particular is or is not related to the moment of administration, nor does it explain what precisely the grace of "regeneration" consists in with respect to baptism (e.g., whether it might include the "seed" or "root" of regeneration or the "increase" of regenerating grace). Nor is it explicit regarding which recipients of baptism do or do not enjoy that grace (e.g., all elect infants). Thus someone holding to the Confession as his or her doctrinal standard is certainly free to hold to several sorts of fairly strong views of baptism's regenerational efficacy, so long as they remain in keeping with the broader consensus of Reformed divines, as described above.
As far as the teaching of the WCF is concerned, it may well be, for instance, that elect covenant infants who receive baptism (as those to whom "that grace belongeth unto") enjoy the grace of regeneration at the time of administration (as God's "appointed time"), at least in its seed and root and even if that grace must later come to fruition in effectual calling through the word, the exercise of actual faith, and then be lived out and improved. Just such a position was held by a wide array of 17th century English Reformed theologians, including several who were members of the Westminster Assembly or, in some cases, served on the committee that framed the chapter on baptism (e.g., Cornelius Burgess, Anthony Tuckney, Stephen Marshall, Daniel Featly).
Likewise, it is well within the bounds of the WCF to hold that the grace of regeneration is signified and sealed, exhibited and conferred in the sacrament of baptism, so that a baptized adult convert can be assured of his regeneration by looking to God's promise in faith as that is held out to him in baptism and, moreover, can receive a greater measure of regenerating grace through baptism by faith in order that he might continue to put sin to death and live in newness of life.
[5] Thus, the basic affirmation of WCF 28.6 is not to be lost in the qualifications, that is to say, the basic teaching of the Confession is that by baptism "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit" since baptism is (in the words of Larger Catechism Q. 161) "an effectual means of salvation." We should also note that in the Standards the term "exhibited" has the meaning it bore in its 17th century context (emerging from the Latin root), which is "conveyed" or "applied" rather than merely "shown" or "displayed" (as we tend to use it in contemporary English).
[6] As further confirmation of this basic perspective we can also consider the confessional teaching that we find in WCF 28:5: "...grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
The clear implication here is twofold. First, that while regeneration and salvation are not inseparably annexed unto baptism, as if they were not ever available by other means, they are ordinarily so annexed and, in this sense, we can say that baptism is ordinarily necessary for regeneration and salvation.7 Second, in light of God's promise in the sacraments and under the conditions ordinarily expected as the proper context for baptism (e.g., profession of faith by at least one parent), the Confession thereby authorizes us to trust God's promise and thus consider all who are baptized to be regenerate (apart from clear evidence to the contrary), that ordinarily those who are so baptized are regenerate, but that sometimes such judgments of charity are mistaken (and so open to doubt) and, in those cases, the baptized remain unregenerate.8
The WCF is silent regarding just what those cases are (though they become evident through persistent unbelief) and certainly there is little room to doubt the promises of God to our covenant children. Given the wording of the Confession, the incidence of baptism that does not regenerate must be taken to be reasonably uncommon, at least apart from obvious cases of hypocrisy, superstition, or religious externalism, such as that of Simon Magus. Otherwise the judgment of charity that the baptized are regenerate would not only be open to doubt, but would also be simply improbable or mostly wrong. Thus, within the context of a community of faith, those bound by the Confession are free to take the incidence of baptism that does not regenerate as encompassing a fairly narrow range of cases, should they be so convinced that this is what Scripture teaches.
[7] In light of these observations, we can again consider the initial statement in WCF 28.6 that baptism's efficacy is "not tied to that moment of administration." Whatever else this may imply on some understandings of the Confession, it should primarily be understood as an affirmation of the relevancy and effectiveness of baptism to the whole Christian life and not just its inception, which also entails that the regenerating grace offered in baptism may, in some cases, await a later time until it becomes savingly effectual.9 It cannot be construed as a denial or ruling out of the kinds of baptismal views that have been outlined above, in keeping with the Reformed tradition.
Historical Context
As representatives of the views of at least some of those associated with the Westminster Assembly, we can consider the published positions of Thomas Blake, Cornelius Burgess, and Samuel Ward, regarding the relationship between baptism and regeneration:
[a] Thomas Blake was an English Presbyterian and member of a Westminster Assembly committee that studied the issue of baptism in preparation for drawing up the Confession. According to Blake, those descended from Christian parents are entitled to the sacrament of baptism by which they enter into "church-priviledges," privileges that Blake took to be "of grace" and to include a "promise of the Spirit" (see his Infants Baptisme, Freed from Antichristianisme, London 1645:28). As Blake writes elsewhere, the promise of the Spirit is "on condition of their Baptisme. The means are to be used in reference to the end: Baptisme is the means, receiving the Holy Ghost is the end." Thus, in the use of baptism, we are "to expect the gift of the Spirit" (The Birth-Priviledge or Covenant-Holinesse, London 1644:15-16)
These church privileges and promise of the Spirit, in turn, serve as a means by which an individual may be carried "on towards conversion" and thereby experience "saving grace" (Covenant Sealed: A Treatise of the Sacraments of Both Covenants, London 1655). With regard to the infants of believers, while "a covenant-holiness" is "unquestionable," an "inherent-qualitative holiness" is nevertheless "hopeful" (Birth-Priviledge 20). Thus, the grace offered in baptism can be expected to issue in conversion and regeneration in due time. And so Blake's theology of baptism likewise undergirds his theology of covenant nurture and the judgment of charity. He writes:
...the seed of believers, thus by birth-right-privilege baptized, have a large and full right to all the ordinances of God and privileges of the Church appertaining to members, as they shall be capable of their use, wheresoever by the providence of God they are cast.Such a view, as Blake notes, is rooted in the expectation that covenant infants enjoy the seed of faith even in infancy. Responding to a Baptist interlocutor, he writes:
The consequence is evident: They now visibly belong to Christ, they through him are dedicated to God, they have therefore title to all his visible ordinances. They are now of the household of God and of the citizens of the saints orderly admitted. Scripture knows no other admission than Baptism, no church-covenants intervening. They have right to all the immunities of this house, to all the privileges of this city of God. There is some time after baptism in infancy before they have the capacity to be hearers, but as soon as they can hear to profit, so soon they must be received, not as strangers, but as children, not as infidels, but as Christians.
Let the parents of such seed now see what education is expected. Breeding must answer birth and descent. A Christian is of the noblest birth. The Apostle calls upon parents to bring up their children "in nurture and admonition of the Lord." God may call on them thus to bring up his children, in nature theirs, in covenant God's. Every Christian parent hath a child of God committed to his care and tuition.
...For themselves it is much to be able with the Psalmist to say, "Thou art he that took me out of the womb. Thou didest make me to hope when I was upon my mother's breast. I was cast upon thee from the womb; thou art my God from my mother's belly." Thus puts upon confidence in prayer (as an argument drawn from long continued acquaintance) as there follows, "Be not far from me, for trouble is near." Such have timely knowledge of God, sucking in somewhat of him while they suck milk from the breasts.
..Whereas you say, "there can be no such thing as seminal faith in infants, because the first seed of faith is illumination, of which infants are not capable." I answer, though the first seed of faith wrought by the ordinances of the word in a ministerial way were "illumination," yet it follows not that it is so where there is an immediate work only, as in infants, neither is illumination in an ordinary way the first seed, but the Spirit from whence illumination flows. Yourself even now said, "that elect infants belong to Christ in respect of mystical union." If you know the principle of that union, then you know this principle or seed of faith, the same principle which unites, in its season produceth the act of faith in a subject capable. (Birth-Priviledge)It is this seed of faith that, with the promise of the Spirit and grace conferred in baptism, that allows us to expect that actual regeneration will follow when baptized children are brought up in the nuture of the Lord. In light of these general considerations, Blake's views affirm that baptism is, in his words, a "converting ordinance" and thereby affirms a kind of "baptismal regeneration."
[b] The Puritan Anglican, Cornelius Burgess, wrote a book called The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants (Oxford, 1629). He would later be instrumental in convening and serving as a delegate to the Westminster Assembly, in fact, serving on the commission that drafted the Confession's chapter on baptism. Concerning baptism, Burgess writes, "There is no ordinance set up by Christ in his church, more useful and comfortable unto a Christian, throughout the whole course of his militant condition, than sacred baptism, the laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (1).
While Burgess did not go as far as some Puritans in teaching that baptism conferred a temporary and provisional justification and regeneration to all baptized infants, in other respects he shared some common emphases with those who saw baptism as marking an official entrance into that covenant to which infants of professing Christian parents had a right by birth (the Westminster Standards leave ambiguous the precise relation of such infants to the covenant, cf. Larger Catechism Q. 166). In particular, Burgess maintained that for elect infants the effects of baptism were not merely sacramental and conditional, nor were they wholly postponed until some future time. As Burgess states, "...I deny not future actual efficacy of baptism after the act of administration, but I only plead for some efficacy when it is administered" (112).
In the case of elect infants, Burgess wished to maintain that baptism effectually conferred a "seed" or "first priniciple" of regeneration which would later come to full actualization, "bringing...forth a new man in Christ," enabling him "actually to believe." Thus he writes,
Elect infants do ordinarily receive the Spirit in baptism, as the first efficient principle of future actual regeneration...It is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants that are baptized...do, ordinarily receive, from Christ, the Spirit in baptism, for their first solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation, in God's good time, if they live to years of discretion, and enjoy the other ordinary means of grace appointed of God to this end. (14-15)In light of these views Burgess likewise maintains a strong doctrine of the judgment of charity with regard to our baptized children. He writes:
Our church excludes none from participation of the inward grace of the sacrament; but knowing for certain that all the elect do partake of it, and not knowing at all that this or that particular infant is not elected, suffers not any of her children to speak or judge of any particular infant that he doth not receive the inward grace; no more than she permits him to say that such a particular is not elected. For "who hath known the mind of the Lord?" and, "who are thou that judgest another man’s servant?" Howbeit, our church knows very well, that in respect of election, they are not all Israel that are of Israel; and that of those many that be called but a few be chosen. But who those be, she will not determine, yet thus much she doth determine, that any particular infant rightly baptized is to be taken and held in the judgment of charity for a member of the true invisible elected, sanctified church of Christ, and that he is regenerated.Burgess's view, though different from that of Blake, can likewise truly be called - as he himself expresses it in the title of his book - a doctrine of "baptismal regeneration."
[c] Samuel Ward was a student of the Puritan William Perkins, served as a Calvinist delegate to the Synod of Dort, and taught at Cambridge University, which he later was called to represent at the Westminster Assembly. Though he was unable to fulfill this calling, his views had been published prior to the Assembly and represent a certain important thread of 17th century Reformed thought, with no indications that his views were considered out of the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, even if they were not in the majority (though his views were shared by other moderate Calvinists such as Richard Hooker, John Davenant, and Thomas Bedford). Ward's views are preserved most fully in De Baptismatis Infantalis... (London, 1698 [1653]), but also in a letter James Ussher in which he writes, "howsoever the Scripture sparingly speak of the effect of baptism in infants, yet there are general grounds, from the nature of the sacraments, which may serve to inform and direct our judgments herein" ("Letter CLXX" in The Whole Work of Most Rev. James Ussher (Dublin 1864), volume 15, pages 502-508).
Ward notes that some Reformed divines see the sacraments as merely obsignatory so that "the ablution of infants from original sin, is only conditional and expectative, of which they have no benefit, till they believe and repent." Ward, however, believes this would turn the sacraments into "nuda et inefficia signa." Instead he emphasizes that Reformed dogmatics has held that God "offers and exhibits grace" in his sacraments: "God doth offer and exhibit grace promised in the sacrament; then we exercise our faith in relying upon God, promising, offering, and exhibiting on his part; and so according to the tenure of the covenant, receive the grace promised and then sacraments in the second place do assure us of the grace received." As a sign and seal of grace, then, baptism confers what it signifies and conveys what it seals. And so, while Ward held that baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, he did teach that it was "the ordinary means for the ablution of original guilt in infants." Otherwise, Ward suggested, baptized infants, dying in infancy, would have no benefit by baptism and the necessity of baptizing infants is undermined.
Nevertheless, not all who receive remission of original sin in baptism persevere in faith. Ward himself wrote that, even among those baptized as infants, the "non-elect never come to be justified by a true and lively faith, nor ever are by that bond mystically united to Christ as their seed, nor attain unto true repentance." What temporary benefits, then, can baptism be said to grant to the non-elect? Ward held that while the baptism of infants remitted their liablility to the guilt of original sin, they could still be condemned in virtue of actual sins they would later commit. Furthermore, baptismal justification was temporary and provisional, providing a kind of regeneration fitted to the nature and condition of a child, consisting in the remission of original sin and therefore representing a break with the old Adam and a sacramental identification with Christ. If, as an adult, a baptized infant failed to experience regeneration more fully, his baptismal justification would not suffice to save him. He writes to Ussher, "I doubt not but the doctrine of perseverance may sufficiently be cleared, though we grant that all infants baptized be freed from original guilt." Since the remission of original sin does not entail the subjective transformation of infant through actual operations of the Spirit infusing new habits, the later apostasy of such an individual does not strike at Dort's teaching on the perseverance of the saints.
Ward's view is clearly a version of what can be called "baptismal regeneration," even if "regeneration" here is not understood, in the first instance, as a matter of subjective transformation. Moreover, I see no evidence that such a view would be excluded by the Westminster Standards.
Given the known views of these important 17th century Reformed theologians associated with the Westminster Assembly and held in high regard in their own day, I believe that my interpretation of the ambiguities of the Confession's 28.6 is well within the bounds of what the Confession was intended to permit. This interpretation is further supported and evidenced by the wider patterns of 17th century Reformed dogmatics and the overall trajectories of Reformed sacramental theology as outlined above and in the notes to this essay.
Thus one can subscribe to the Wesminster Confession of Faith and hold to understandings of baptism and its relation to regeneration as those were present within much of the Reformed tradition. Moreover, one would by no means be the first to do so, even if such views do not enjoy much currency in conservative Reformed circles today.
Notes
1. This is not to deny, of course, that those who are baptized in unbelief receive "grace" in some sense. Surely the sacrament itself, as an admission in the society of the visible church, is a gracious act of God, even if the "grace" here is only what many in the Reformed tradition have referred to as "covenant common grace," which apart from a lively faith never bears fruit unto salvation (see the discussions of "covenant common grace" in Herman Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace, John Murray, "Common Grace," and Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology).
2. Lutherans, for instance, while quite explicitly holding to "baptismal regeneration," nevertheless reject the doctrine as it was held by many Reformation-era Roman Catholics (see, e.g., The Smalcald Articles, Article 5). Part of the difficulty within much of evangelical Protestantism is that the very concept of "baptismal regeneration" is misunderstood or misconstrued.
For instance, Charles Hodge, in his commentary on Ephesians, says that "baptismal regeneration" teaches at least three things. First, that there is an inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce its effects, particularly that of "inward spiritual renovation." Second, that these effects always attend baptism's right administration to those who don't resist it. And, third, that the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he (at least initially) communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all who remain unbaptized will perish.
This description of baptismal regeneration, however, is a misconstrual of what the church Fathers meant by the doctrine and even how the doctrine functioned for Reformation-era Roman Catholic theologians and apologists such as Bellarmine. This is so in three respects.
First, while such views of baptismal regeneration do generally hold that, in some sense, sacraments "cause grace," there was always more than one way of explaining that causation. Hodge's description sounds very much like that of Thomistic instrumental efficient causality, but it would cohere less well with the views of Bonaventure or Scotus, which were more occasionalist and tended to emphasize sacraments as moral causes of the grace the signify rather than any "inherent virtue" in the sacrament itself. As Turretin remarks, "the question here is not 'are sacraments efficacious?' since this is granted on both sides [Protestant and Roman Catholic]. The question is how they exert their efficacy" (Institutes, 8.19.6). Reformed views have generally held that sacraments instrumentally "work grace...morally and hyperphysically," rather than inherently and efficiently (cf. Turretin, 19.8.5).
Second, the language of "resistance" is perhaps overly strong. While some Roman Catholic advocates of baptismal regeneration maintain that the sacrament effects regeneration in all who do not offer an "obstacle" (obex) to the grace of the sacrament, receiving the sacrament in positive unbelief would certainly count as such an obstacle. Moreover, this indicates that "regeneration" here, as something posterior to faith in at least some cases, is distinct from certain Reformed understandings of "regeneration" as prior to faith (though, as notes above, Reformed use of "regeneration" is not univocal). Conversation among views must take account of these semantic differences.
Third, I am unaware of any advocate of baptismal regeneration, whether patristic, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran, who would hold that all who die unbaptized perish. The categories of "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire" have long been held within Western theology to affirm the salvation of those believers who, through no fault of their own, perish unbaptized. As many Reformed scholastics point out, there is no reason why such categories cannot be extended to include unbaptized covenant infants who die within the promises of God. (On the necessity of baptism in the Reformed tradition, see note 7, below.)
Further qualifications and distinctions can be made, but these should suffice in demonstrating that even the strongest and most objectionable versions of baptismal regeneration do not maintain what they are popularly understood to maintain, that is, that baptism somehow "automatically" regenerates the person baptized.
3. Some of these points can be illustrated by the trajectories of Reformed theology in the 17th century, that is, the years immediately preceding and including the Westminster Assembly.
With regard to the first sense of "regeneration," we are referring to the "seed," "root," or "principle" of regeneration in elect infants or "initial regeneration," whether in connection with baptism or prior to it. In this case, we may also speak of further "actual" regeneration, by which is meant either the calling of God effectually bringing the person to new life and faith and/or the ongoing process of spiritual renovation. This actual regeneration, then, is something that follows from those first beginnings of regeneration. While this sort of teaching was prevalent among the 16th century Reformers such as Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Junius, and others, it continued to be common in the 17th century as well. So, for instance, Cornelius Burgess writes, "Elect infants do ordinarily receive the Spirit in baptism, as the first efficient principle of future actual regeneration" (The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants 14-15). Similarly, Gijsbert Voetius writes of "the initial regeneration of the Holy Spirit - by which is impressed the beginning and seed of actual conversion or renovation, which is to follow in its own time" (Selected Theological Disputes). With regard to the second sense of "regeneration," understood with reference to sanctification and renewal, we read in John Craig's 1581 larger Catechism that the sacraments "offer Christ truly to all men" and baptism in particular offers "the remission of our sins and regeneration." The Catechism goes on to define regeneration in these terms:
Q: Wherein standeth our regeneration?Clearly such "regeneration" is a process, of a piece with what the Westminster Larger Catechism, in its question on improving our baptism, describes as "drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace" (167). Craig's Catechism was approved by the Church of Scotland and, in the abridged form of 1592, remained the primary catechetical tool of the Scottish church until the publication of the Westminster Catechisms some 50 years later.
A: In mortification and newness of life.
Similarly, the Puritan Thomas Taylor writes,
God in baptism not only offers and signifies, but truly exhibits grace, by which our sins are washed and we are renewed by the Holy Ghost. Therefore it is called the washing of the new birth, both because it seals up the washing away of sins in the blood of Christ (Acts 2:38), and also because it betokens another washing by the Spirit of Christ; and this is the sanctification of a sinner, imperfect in this life but to be perfected in the life to come.In this quotation and in the wider context Taylor evidently uses "new birth" to refer to a process of "sanctification of a sinner" in which he is "renewed by the Holy Ghost."
Likewise, Turretin says that the "Holy Spirit is repeatedly promised and given also to believers" and that this is "the progress and increase of regenerating grace" by which the Spirit acts “to promote and perfect the good work which began in them" (15.5.20). Thus believers experience the ongoing "actual mortification of the old and vivification of the new man" as part and parcel of regeneration itself (15.5.21). In this sense baptism can be said to bestow regeneration, for, say Turretin, baptism is not efficacious only when the water is upon us, but "through the whole course of life even up to death" (19.20.25) and into eternity where God acts "to abolish sin altogether in man...and to clothe him with perfect righteousness and immortality" (19.19.24).
And so, Turretin writes, "by baptism is sealed to us the remission not only of past and present, but also future sins" (19.20.12) so that the "promises of cleansing and blotting out sins" received in baptism are also "referred to sanctification," which occurs "gradually and successively" (19.20.26). The "death to sin" received in baptism not only refers to justification in which sin "is perfectly remitted and in no way imputed," but also to sanctification in which "sin dies or rather is mortified by degrees" (19.20.25). In both these ways then, "we are said...to die with Christ in baptism" so that through baptismal regeneration sins "are wholly removed as to guilt and gradually as to stain" (19.20.25, 27).
In both these senses, then - both with regard to regeneration's "seed" or "root" and with regard to its progress - baptism was seen by Reformed theologians to confer regeneration, to infants as well as those of riper years.
4. With regard to regeneration considered sacramentally and/or conditonally, some Reformed authors will also speak of an objective "baptismal regeneration" or a "sacramental and visible regeneration" or, sometimes (particularly among Reformed Anglicans), of an "ecclesiastical regeneration." In this case, "regeneration" refers not so much to a subjective transformation as to an objective status in which the offer and promise of salvation has been given and sealed to a person so that he is set apart and admitted to the visible church as one covenanted with God, enjoying all the privileges of Christ's kingdom, along with the common operations of the Spirit.
Thus the Scots theologian, John Forbes, writes of those who are "regenerated and holy through baptismal regeneration and sanctity," citing the sanctification of which Hebrews 10:29 speaks (Instructiones Historico-theologicae). Likewise, the Puritan, Richard Baxter, writes in these terms: "God hath chosen you out of the world to be members of his visible church, and given you the great privilege of early entrance into his holy covenant, and washed you in the laver of visible regeneration" (Compassionate Counsel to all Young Men, Chapter 5, Section 2). Francis Turretin, similarly, writes of all the baptized being, for instance, regenerate, sanctified, or cleansed from sin "conditionally and sacramentally," while only those who truly believe are cleansed "absolutely" (Institutes 17.1.22).
While the status of visible, sacramental regeneration is one that is objectively conferred, it also ought, through faith, to become one that is truly lived out, issuing in subjective regeneration. This, however, does not necessarily happen in every case, but only where a true and persevering faith is present, receiving what has been promised, offered, and sealed.
5. This sort of teaching is widespread throughout the Reformed tradition, even if theologians present it with varying nuances. One might begin by examing the views of the French theologian and Swiss Reformer, John Calvin. In his 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent Calvin writes,
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine. (Reply to the First Decree of the Fifth Session)Likewise, when the Lutheran Westphal asserted that Calvin denied baptism regeneration, Calvin replied, "Our supposed denial is a fiction of his own mind. Since I've already clearly asserted that men are regenerated by baptism just as they are by the word, I've done away with the impudence of the man and left nothing for his invective to strike at except his own shadow" ("Second Defense against Westphal").
Of course, there are various qualifications one must make with regard to these assertions, for instance, they are not directed toward instances of unbelieving and hypocritical reception of the sacraments. But Calvin’s basic teaching is clear: Christ and his benefits are offered to us and received in the believing reception of baptism. Moreover, baptism has an ongoing effect in terms of our dying to sin and living in newness of life, what Calvin calls here our "regeneration."
A few more quotations may be helpful. In his 1548 "Brief Summary of the Christian Doctrine and Religion Taught as Strasbourg," Martin Bucer writes, summarizing the teaching of the New Testament:
We confess and teach that holy baptism, when given and received according to the Lord's command, is in the case of adults and of children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away, are buried into the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, are incorporated into him and put him on for the death of their sins, for a new and godly life and the blessed resurrection, and through him become children and heirs of God.In his 1554 Common Places, Wolfgang Musculus writes:
We define baptism to be the sacrament of regeneration, purgation, initiation, sanctification, obsignation, and incorporation into Christ our Savior. For all of these are effected in the elect and faithful by the Spirit of Christ and of all these graces baptism is the sacrament, so that in it these are rightly said to be accomplished because truly and spiritually they are effected by the Spirit of Christ. ("Of Baptism," question 1, section 8)Many more quotations could be provided, but these several will suffice as foundational to the Reformed tradition and determining the trajectory for decades to follow.
6. This understanding of "sacramental union" is the common understanding of sacraments among Reformed divines in the 16th and 17th centuries and the basis for those aspects of the sacraments that are sealed "absolutely" to all recipients as well as those aspects that are sealed only "conditionally." Thus the Westminster divine Stephen Marshall, in his second sermon on infant baptism presented to Parliament and the Assembly, said the following regarding the nature of the sacramental seal:
I say therefore, that in every Sacrament, the truth of the Covenant in itself, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea, and Amen; Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Father, and so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptism, according to the rule which God hath given to his Church, to administer that Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and that whoever partakes of Christ, shall partake of all these saving promises; this is sealed absolutely in Baptism.A decade earlier, the English Puritan divine, Daniel Rogers, published his monumental and influential work, A Treatise of the Two Sacraments of the Gospel. Regarding the sacramental union between the "sign" and the "thing signified." he said,
But as to the second, which is interesse meum, or the receiver's interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally. In this particular, all Sacraments are but signa conditionalis, conditional seals, sealing the spiritual part of the Covenant to the receiver, upon condition that he perform the spiritual condition of the Covenant. Thus our divines used to answer the Papists, thus Doctor Ames answers Bellarmine, when Bellarmine, disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are signs and seals, alleges then they are falsely applied oftentimes. He answers to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditional Seals, and therefore not seals to us but upon condition. (A Defence of Infant Baptism)
...although the grace of Christ must neither be equated nor tied to a dumb creature, yet he hath freely yielded to unite himself with his creature, so oft as he pleaseth to use it for the good of his own and for his glory; and, that to this end, we might learn to adore him in all such ordinances by which he draws near to us for our comfort and to set a mark of honor and esteem even upon those mean things which his wisdom hath devised for the release of our dullness, deadness of heart, and infidelity. (72)The sacramental union, by which Christ through the word and Spirit takes up and uses water in the sacrament of baptism, is seen by Rogers as a useful doctrine, by which God teaches us to honor the ordinary material means by which he shares with us the benefits of Christ's mediation. He writes that part of the use of baptism is for God
...to teach us where he hath cast honour upon uncomely parts, yea, united himself for the gracing of a meet help to further us to himself, there to account reverently of his ordinances and not commonly: that which God hath not thought common, beware we of thinking so. Hath he taken water and joined it with a kind of equal necessity with himself in this kind of conveyance? Hath he said, "He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved"? And, "Except a man be born again of water, etc."? And shall not we fasten both our eyes upon Christ and water? Christ sacramental, in and by water? Better with it for our ease and help, than without it? Shall not he who despiteth water (appointed to such an inseparable holy end) despise the ordainer of water? Shall we take his name in vain, by slighting that by which he makes himself and the power of his Word and Spirit manifest to beget the soul to him, and be holden guiltless? (72-73)This kind of teaching is what forms the backdrop to the doctrine of the Westminster Confession on the matter of "sacramental union."
7. The Reformed tradition has generally maintained the ordinary necessity of baptism for salvation, but not the absolute necessity. Thus Calvin writes in response to the Council of Trent,
We, too, acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary - that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.This basic perspective was carried forward in the Reformed tradition by various divines. Two examples will suffice, one a Scots Presbyterian and the other an English Presbyterian. Robert Rollock writes in his sermon on Titus 3 that can be found in his Select Works,
The outward washing in baptism is not to be looked to lightly, the pouring on of the water is but any base sign to look to; rather it is the instrument that God takes in his hand and whereby he applies to us the inward washing of the Holy Spirit; Col 2:12; Rom 6:4; he ascribes our regeneration to baptism. We by baptism are buried with Christ, risen with Christ, and if this means be contemned, there shall be no regeneration. If any man treats lightly this baptism, I affirm there shall be no renewing inwardly by the Holy Spirit; and if he be not renewed, he shall never be saved, for without regeneration, no salvation.Similarly, Nathaniel Stephens writes in his 1651 work, A Precept for the Baptism of Infants Out of the New Testament,
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16.16). In these words no man doubteth but the Lord Christ doth point to the outward baptism by water and in a sort he doth say that this baptism is necessary to salvation. How then are the words to be expounded? We must take them in this sense, that faith is more absolutely necessary to salvation, yet in a sort it is true, that baptism is necessary as the outward means. Why else would our Saviour say, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?While Turretin and others provide more detailed and nuanced defenses of the point, the ordinary necessity of baptism for salvation - as a necessity of precept, not a necessity sine qua non - is the continual teaching of the Reformed tradition.
8. Reformed theologians generally believed that the baptism of a child entitled the church to make a judgment of charity, regarding the child to be in reality everything that was signified in baptism sacramentally. One should note, moreover, that the "judgment of charity" is not, as it is sometimes understood, a kind of begrudging admission that, after all, we can hope that maybe our baptized children have Christ's benefits. Rather, it is a loving hope and judgment, founded on the covenant promises of God, that what God has signified in baptism is true indeed.
Thus the Puritan divine George Downame writes, "We are to distinguish between the judgment of charity and the judgment of certainty. For although in general we know not that every one that is baptized is justified or shall be saved, yet, when we come to speak of particulars, we are to judge of them that are baptized that they are regenerated and justified, and that they shall be saved, until they shall discover themselves not to be such."
Along similar lines, George Carleton, head of the British delegation to the Synod of Dort writes, "All that receive baptism are called the children of God, regenerate, justified, for to us they must be taken for such in charity until they show themselves other."
One should also note that the judgment of charity does not stand in any tension with the need to call covenant children to repentance and faith. The whole Christian life is one of repentance and faith from beginning to end and it is in such repentance and faith that we must persevere if we are to be saved. Thus, from within the judgment of charity, the covenant promises of God to our children, and the trust that the Spirit is at work in their lives, Reformed theologians have maintained a hopeful expectation that the faith and regeneration covenant children enjoy in seed and root in connection with God's promises and baptism will grow into actual faith and conversion in due time. See the further comments of Blake and Burgess, above.
9. It can be noted in this context that the church Fathers, medieval theologians, and others likewise recognized, in the context of baptismal regeneration, that the effects of regenerating grace would not always appear immediately, so that, for instance, those who receive the sacrament in unbelief will not subjectively experience that grace until a later point, only in connection with their coming to faith, if such occurs.