Presumptive Regeneration, or, the Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants

by Cornelius Burges

I think the general manner in which Burgess’ Westminster Assembly explained baptism, and its nature, ends the discussion immediately on presumptive regeneration, and that we should be for it, “That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our engrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal.” I think this is clear. Westminster made no distinction between professing Christians and infants. Baptism is baptism in the way Westminster explains it.

“There may be even in order of time a communicating of the Spirit of grace, as a principle of future newness of life, before any ordinary actual infusion of actual or habitual graces, by which a man, on his part, actually makes a declaration of it, by a thorough change of his heart and life, as a new man in Christ.” This is Burgess’ thesis.

Instead, Burgess will show that we baptize based on God’s promise, as well as the nature of baptism explained in the word of God. Infants are to be considered, or presumed, Christians in this light. Why are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians? Based on the command and promise of God, they are to be distinguished from the visible world, and are united with believers in the church, being federally holy before God and marked by the covenant signs of circumcision (as in the case of the patriarchs and Israelites looking for the Messiah) or of baptism (as in the case of the covenant of grace realized in Christ), (Genesis 3:15; Ezekiel 16:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:12; Ephesians 2:19; 3:15; Malachi 2:15; 1 Corinthians 7:14; Genesis 17:10; Leviticus 12:3; Ezekiel 36:25; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:39; 16:33). This is the substance of this present work.

Biblical sacramentalism rests objectively on the promises of God, “I will be a God to you…and your children after you.” Memorialism rests on nothing but the ability of the believer to think about what Christ accomplished on the cross. It does not rest on God. It rests on man’s ability to memorialize Christ’s work subjectively.

“That all elect infants, do, ordinarily, in baptism, receive the Spirit of Christ, to seize upon them for Christ, and to be in them as the root and first principle of regeneration, and future newness of life.”[15]

Initial (which we may also term seminal or potential life,) I call that which consists in participation of the Spirit of Christ, as the form of this spiritual life. It is the Spirit being the first principle of regeneration, by whom the first seed and its foundation is laid in a Christian.

Actual, I call that which consists properly in the very spiritual being itself actually produced in a Christian, by the Spirit bringing him forth a new man in Christ, in the ordinary course of regeneration of such as live to years.

This distinction laid as a ground, will of itself, bear us out in this conclusion, “There may be even in order of time a communicating of the Spirit of grace, as a principle of future newness of life, before any ordinary actual infusion of actual or habitual graces, by which a man, on his part, actually makes a declaration of it, by a thorough change of his heart and life, as a new man in Christ.”

“The first ordinary and certain means by which we, that descend of Christian parents, have any initial regeneration begun in us, and do ordinarily, receive and come to be ascertained of the Spirit of Christ, for this end, that he may produce in us future actual spiritual life, is the first ordinance of Christ that we partake of: in other words, baptism.”

That some infants may and do receive the Spirit to unite them to Christ, before baptism. The question here is only of the first certain reception of it, by external ordinary means applied.

“It is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants that are baptized, (unless in some extraordinary cases) 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 to this end.”

wherever I shall for brevity’s sake only say this much, that the elect do receive the Spirit in baptism; my purpose is to have it understood with all those conditions and limitations before expressed, in stating the point. So that it must always be in this way interpreted. viz., That it is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants that are baptized (unless in some extraordinary cases) ordinarily receive the Spirit from Christ 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.

Major. That which the Church in its public liturgy exhorts and requires us to pray for, when any infant presumed to be truly and indeed within the covenant of grace, is brought to baptism; and, that which it also teaches us to pronounce concerning that and every such infant, so soon as he is baptized, must necessarily be granted to be agreeable to the public doctrine of our Church touching all elect infants that are baptized, ordinarily.

Minor. But the public liturgy of our Church exhorts and requires us, at the baptizing of every infant presumed to have an interest in the covenant of grace, as being within God’s election,[32] to pray for the Spirit of regeneration to be given to him: and, so soon as he is baptized, to conclude that he is to be regenerated with the Holy Spirit; and accordingly to give thanks for this in prayer to God.

And indeed, it is absurd to say that the grace of that sacrament cannot be attained by infants without actual faith in them, when as it is clear that one part of its inward grace is the Spirit, the worker of faith. Now, no man sound in mind in his wits will say that no person can first receive the Spirit, but by the hand of actual faith, without the Spirit to work it in him?[41]He must therefore first be a partaker of the Spirit of faith to beget faith in him. This Spirit, then, he may receive in baptism, without actual faith to take him in.

Dr. Ames affirms, that, “they are as capable of baptism, in respect of the chief use of it, as persons of years;” who shall deny them the inward grace? Do we not know that in God’s account, the sacrament of circumcision was not accounted circumcision when it was only outward in the flesh, and not inward also in the heart? “For, he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God,” (Romans 2). Circumcision we know, was a, “seal of the righteousness which is by faith,” (Romans 4:11).

Can the outward sign save them; or make them more certain or more capable of salvation than they were before, so long as they remain void of faith? Would it not be as good to defer their baptism until they are of years; as to offer them to baptism in infancy, which does them no more good, than it does to a reprobate, until their actual conversion? To say that baptism admits them to the outward means, is to say nothing to the actual purpose. For, ask these men, what is it that makes a person capable of the inward grace of baptism. They will answer; faith. But how is this faith worked in them? By preaching of the word they say. Well, admit this, may an infant unbaptized not come to hear the word read or preached?

Therefore infants do not need baptism merely for their admission to the outward means of faith and conversion, for as much as they may participate of the word without baptism, and the word being, according to these men the only outward ordinary means of begetting faith. If Anabaptists might as freely show themselves here among us, as they do in other countries, this doctrine of baptismal grace would be better entertained by such as now impugn it without consideration of this sequel.

True, you will say; “but that was because they repented.” I deny that; for however, if they had not repented, they had not received the Holy Spirit. Yet their repentance was not the cause of their receiving the Spirit in baptism, but, Christ’s own institution and promise to accompany his own ordinance with the inward grace. Otherwise, why did they need to be baptized? For if repentance would certainly fetch the Spirit; baptism in that respect should be superfluous. It cannot honestly be denied that those very persons had received the Spirit in some measure before baptism. How else could they have repented? If then they did not receive the Spirit first, on their repentance, but before it, this seems a truth impregnable, that infants who cannot actually repent, do not ordinarily receive the Spirit in baptism, for lack of repentance?

Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death,” (Romans 6:3-4). What is this to infants? Some may say, “Yes,” Saint Augustine says,[83] “it does pertain even to infants also, when it is said we are buried with him by baptism into death.” And learned Danaeus, commenting on that passage of Augustine, defends him in it, if it is restrained to the elect, and understood only of initial regeneration.

“Why does not the Apostle simply say that, by one Spirit we are made one spiritual body: but rather in this way, we are baptized into one body? Certainly that he might show that a man is then incorporated into the Church in the beginning of his conversion and regeneration; at what time Christ communicating his Spirit to him, makes him a member of the invisible Church, as the Minister in the administration of baptism admits and engrafts him into the body of the Church visible.”[93]

In a word, I will conclude this matter in the very terms of Calvin before quoted, “Infants are baptized to future repentance and faith; which graces although they are not yet formed in them; yet, by the secret operation of the Spirit the seeds of them both lie hid within them.”[98]

Lastly, do but consider one more plain place, it is in Galatians 4:6, “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” He does not say, because they had received the sacrament of baptism, which yet they had done; nor yet, because they did believe, which to no doubt many of them did, but, “because ye are sons.” Now this sonship did not depend on the sacrament, or any ordinance of Christ; no nor yet on their faith and inward grace; but on the eternal decree of God’s free election.

Gregory Nazianzen calls baptism, “That good thing which gives us initiation into Christ; which common benefit and foundation of new life we all receive from God.”[105] In his oration or homily touching on baptism, after a large and eloquent narration of the efficacy of baptism, he says that it has force even on infants also, and therefore would have them baptized on this ground, that he takes it for granted, that they also are, in some degree, sanctified even in baptism.

The great Athanasius, who, in his time was the chief, and in manner, the only professed champion when the truth had left her and (as Jerome complains) the whole world seemed to be turned to the heretic Arius. Athanasius, by the sentence of all divines, was a most approved doctor, as Vigilius[107] the Martyr describes him. He, in his Book of Questions dedicated to Antiochus, Question 2, propounds this question, “Whence may a man know plainly that he hath been baptized and received the Spirit in baptism, seeing he was but an infant when he was baptized?” The answer he gives to this, “As a woman with child by the springing of the babe in her womb, knows for certain that she hath conceived fruit: so the soul of a true Christian knows, not by the reports of his parents, but by the springings of his heart, (especially upon those solemn days in which baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are administered) and by the inward joys that then he conceives, that he received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized.”[108]

Basil, to that question, “How Christians are saved?” Gives this answer, “By being regenerated by the grace received at baptism.”[115] And a little after, “Baptism is unto me the beginning of life and the day of regeneration is the beginning of duties, in that respect.”[116] In another place, speaking of baptism, he says that it is, “the death of sin, the new birth of the soul,”[117]

Yet, well knowing that all are not indeed within the covenant, although born of parents that are members of the visible Church, they do not say universally that all infants are partakers of the grace of baptism, but indefinitely, that infants are partakers of it.

But Calvin directly affirms,[163] “Till by faith we lay hold upon the promise sealed in baptism, our baptism is not worth a rush unto us?” To this I have sufficiently answered more than once before; and particularly in chapter 4, in confirmation of the major proposition of my third argument: the sum of which is briefly this; The sacrament profits no man of years, without faith to apprehend the promise: nor can the elect themselves sensibly perceive the fruit and comfort of their baptism, in the ordinary course, until after they have obtained actual faith at their actual conversion. Nor does it follow that they did not have the Spirit in baptism, because they were not capable of so much as knowing the same at the time; much less, of believing; for so says the author,[164]

“So far is it said of us that we should teach that baptism effecteth nothing upon infants until they come to age; that on the contrary, we know that the effect of baptism, which is performed immediately by God himself, (sometimes) goes before the very celebration of baptism: therefore we say that, either then there is some effect in truth and indeed, when the sacrament is administered; or else there will never follow after any at all, that is, then our sins are truly remitted, and our adoption made sure to us: but all this, morally,” and not by virtue of any inherent force in the outward signs to convey those graces naturally to the receiver by virtue of the outward act performed in such manner as the virtue that is in a potion conveys itself necessarily to the expelling of corrupt humors out of that body into which it is received. This physical efficacy, as they term it, is a thing which both he and all sound divines professedly disclaim. To make an end with this author, he allows an efficacy, we see, and expounds himself to mean only a moral efficacy.

For we affirm that Christ does truly and presently give himself in his Sacraments. In baptism that we may put him on and in his Supper that we may eat him by faith and Spirit, and may have everlasting life by his cross and blood. And we say not, this is done slightly or coldly, but effectually and truly.”

when an infant is baptized: he plainly yields that in the baptism of infants that truly and indeed belong to God, Christ is truly and indeed put on, although they are not endowed with actual faith, which is required of persons grown to years of discretion.

Saint Chrysostom says, “In the sacrament of baptism we are made flesh of Christ’s flesh, and bone of his bones.” Saint Bernard says, Lavemur in sanguine eius, “Let us be washed in his blood.” Leo says: Christi sanguine rigaris quando in mortem ipsius baptizaris, “Thou art washed in the blood of Christ, when thou art baptized into his death.”

And if Saint Augustine is not mistaken, he tells us that even,[197] “Infants were reckoned among the faithful.” There is never any question among the Fathers in any age of the Church, but that elect infants received remission of sin, in baptism; and by consequent, regeneration, for as much as these two are inseparable. All this, that reverend Jewel, very well knows; yet is not afraid to subscribe to their doctrine.

Then he approves a speech of Augustine more consonant to the truth, affirming that,[201] “Infants have faith of their own, because they have baptism which is the sacrament of faith;” for he says; quemadmodum sacramentum corporis Christi, secundum quendam modum, corpus Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. As the sacrament of Christ’s body (not verily and indeed, but) after a certain manner of speech, is Christ’s body. So baptism is faith, because it is, “the sacrament of faith.”

For of baptism in particular, he thus speaks,[207] “Baptism is our regeneration or new birth, by which we are born anew in Christ, and are made the sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven, it is the sacrament of the remission of sins, and of that washing which we have in the blood of Christ.” And a little after, among other places of Holy Scripture by him alleged, for proof hereof, he brings that of our Savior in John 3, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;” and then adds, “for this cause are infants baptized, because they are born in sin, and cannot become spiritual, but by this new birth of the water and the Spirit. They are heirs of the promise; the covenant of God’s favor is made unto them.”

But yet well knowing that it is otherwise with us that were baptized in our infancy, he presently remembers a place of Saint Augustine touching on the baptism of infants,[211] Ad hoc baptisma valet, “To this availeth baptism, that men being baptized may be incorporated into Christ and made his members.”“ Now this must necessarily be meant of such as are baptized in infancy, or else it were directly contrary to his own assertion immediately preceding, in which he says that some are, “incorporated by faith,” and that, “incorporation is assured them afterwards in baptism:” and then produces this of Augustine, which affirms us by baptism, “to be incorporated into Jesus Christ.”

Therefore, (we say) express faith is required in all of years, but in infants, only faith begun or in his first principle or root, namely the Holy Spirit, with which they are endowed, and from whom faith and other graces, in due time, do flow and issue forth. For infants are purged by the Spirit, seeing they are in the Church, and of the Church. Christ sanctified His Church, purging it in the laver of water through the Word. If then they belong to the Church, they are adorned with the Spirit; if they are received up into heaven, they are then purged by the Spirit.”

elect infants do ordinarily receive from Christ, in baptism, the Spirit of regeneration, as the soul and first principle of spiritual life, for the first solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation, in God’s good time.

But the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures does not observe this nicely of words. For sometimes we shall find regeneration, put for sanctification expressed by obedience to Christ and His Gospel, or else for the beginning of glory, and not for the first infusion of grace only. So this is true in Matthew 19:28.

For, in the case of infants dying in infancy, the Spirit can, and (no doubt) does actually regenerate them, without the preached Word. How else should they enter into the kingdom of heaven? In what manner the Spirit does regenerate such, is to us unknown. Nor will I take upon me to determine that which the Scripture is silent in. They that deny all actual regeneration until the Word comes, without exception of such as dying in infancy, do conclude all infants dying before they are able to make use of the Word, to be damned. This is a damnable conclusion not to be endured in the tongue or pen of any sober Christian.

think it can be understood of nothing else but the inward grace signified by the outward washing; in other words, the blood and Spirit of Christ given to a Christian in his baptism, as a seal and pledge and demonstrative evidence both of the remission of his sins by the blood of Christ, and also of regeneration by the Spirit of Christ, whereby the conscience is purged from dead works, and sanctified that a man does now answer and make good his promise and vow in baptism.

Therefore it cannot reasonably be denied that, forasmuch as the Spirit may and sometimes does lie hid in persons actually regenerate, for a long time together not showing itself apparently in opposition against great and scandalous sins, it is not impossible for the Spirit to be in an infant elected from the time of his baptism until his actual conversion without any such manifest opposition against sin, as may give the person in whom He is, any ground to believe that the dominion of sin is taken away from out of his soul. So much, in answer to the major.