This lengthy but insightful quotation on the historic meaning of “baptismal regeneration” and the problem with modern “refinements” is taken from Richard Whately’s 1857 tract on Baptism:
“In the baptismal Service,” says the late Mr Simeon, “we thank God for having regenerated the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from hence it appears that, in the opinion of our Reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized persons to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his soul after the divine image? Had they asserted any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this: so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look to God for that total change of heart and life which, long since their days, has begun to be expressed! by the term ‘regeneration.’ After thanking God for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray ‘that he being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin:’ and then, declaring the total change to be the necessary means of his obtaining salvation, we add, ‘so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom.’ Is there (I would ask) any person that can require more than this? Or does God in his word require more?
There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject, the term ‘regeneration’ and the thing. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures: in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which, however, is represented as attendant on it; and in the other place it has a totally distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. Now the term they use as the Scripture uses it, and the thing they require as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine experiencing all that modern divines have included in the term ‘regeneration:’ on the contrary, they do both there and in the liturgy insist upon a radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question is, not ‘Whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification,’ but whether God does always accompany the sign with the thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion, but it cannnot be positively decided in the negative, because we cannot know, or even judge respecting it, in any case whatever, except by the fruits that follow; and, therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered only as a doubtful point; and if he appeal, as he ought to do, to the holy Scripture, they certainly do in a very remarkable way accord with the expressions in our liturgy. St. Paul says, ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentile – whether we be bond or free – and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.’ And this he says of all the visible members of Christ’s body (I Cor. 12: 13, 27). And speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants, as well as adults, he says, ‘they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ,‘ (I Cor. 10: 1, 4). Yet, behold, in the very next verse he tells us that, ‘with many of them God was displeased and overthrew them in the wilderness.’ In another place he speaks yet more strongly still: ‘As many of you (says he) as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ.’ Here we see what is meant by the expression, ‘baptized into Christ;’ it is precisely the same expression as that before mentioned of the Israelites being ‘baptised unto Moses;’ the preposition, eis, is used in both places; it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism; and of them universally, does the Apostle say, ‘They have put on Christ.‘ Now, I ask, have not the persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal service equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?
“Again, St. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.‘ (Acts “: 38, 39). And in another place, ‘Baptism doth now save us.’ (I Pet. 3: 21). And speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who were unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, ‘He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.‘ (2 Pet. 1: 9). Does not this very strongly countenance the IDEA WHICH OUR REFORMERS ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS, AND THE REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL RITE? Perhaps it will be said that the inspired writers spake of persons who had been baptized at an adult age. But if they did so in some places, they certainly did not in others; and where they did not, they must be understood as comprehending all, whether infants or adults; and therefore the language of our liturgy, which is not a whit stronger that theirs, may be both subscribed and used without any just occasion of offence.
“Let me then speak the truth before God: though I am no Arminian, I do think the refinements of Calvin have done great harm in the Church: they have driven multitudes from the plain and popular way of speaking used by the inspired writers, and have made them unreasonably and unscripturally squeamish in their modes of expression; and I conceive that the less addicted any person is to systematic accuracy, the more he will accord with the inspired writers, and the more he will approve the views of our Reformers. I do not mean, however, to say that a slight alteration in two or three instances would not be an improvement, since it would take off a burden from many minds, and supersede the necessity of laboured explanations; but I do mean to say that there is not such objection to these expressions as to deter any conscientious person from giving his unfeigned assent and consent to the liturgy altogether, or from using the particular expressions which we have been endeavouring to explain.” – Works, vol. 2, p. 259.
TPC Pastor's Page 