First, let us review the applicable article:
XVII. Of Baptism
Baptism
is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men
are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of
Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive
Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the for- giveness
of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are
visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by vir- tue
of prayer unto God.
The
Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most
agreeable with the institution of Christ.
Regeneration And Baptism
Church
Association Tract 193
John Charles Ryle
Bishop Of
Liverpool
1. What is Baptism?
It is a holy ordinance or
sacrament appointed by Christ, for the continual admission of new members into
His Church. Every Christian begins his Church membership by being solemnly
baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Baptism, also, is a sign of regeneration or new birth, and has a most wholesome
effect, as the Twenty-fifth Article says, in those who receive it worthily.
Moreover, St. Paul says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ." (Gal. iii. 27.)
2. Do all baptized persons receive inward spiritual benefit from the
outward ordinance of baptism with water?
Most certainly not, to all
appearance. Myriads are outwardly
baptized every year, who, from the font to the coffin, and from their births to
their deaths, never give the slightest evidence that they have grace in their
hearts, or have received any inward spiritual benefit at their baptism. They
live and die apparently without knowledge, faith, repentance, obedience to God,
or meetness for heaven. In fact, notwithstanding their baptism, they exhibit no
more Christianity in their lives and haracters than many heathens.
Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus,
Ananias and Sapphira, and others mentioned in Scripture, were baptized but
certainly not regenerate.
3. What is regeneration?
It is that complete change of
heart and character which the Holy Spirit works in a person when he becomes a
real Christian. The Church Catechism calls it "a death unto sin, and a new
birth unto righteousness." It is the same thing as being "born
again," or "born of God," or "born of the Spirit."
"Except a man be born
again" means "except a man be regenerate." "If any man be
in Christ, he is a new creature;" that is, he is "born again, or
regenerate." (John iii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 17.)
4. What are the marks and evidences of regeneration?
They are laid down for us so
clearly and plainly in the First Epistle of St. John, that he who runs may read
them. It is written there, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit
sin," "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God," —"Every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him,"
—"Every one that loveth is born of God," —"Whatsoever is born of
God overcometh the world," —"He that is begotten of God keepeth
himself." (1 John iii. 9; 1 John v. 1; 1 John ii. 29; 1 John iv. 7; 1 John
v. 4; 1 John v. 18.) If plain English words have any meaning, these texts mean
that he who has these marks is "born again" or
"regenerate," and he who has them not is not regenerate.
5. Have all regenerate persons these marks of regeneration in the same
degree of depth, strength, clearness, and distinctness?
Most certainly not. There is
a wide difference between the highest and lowest measure of grace possessed by
those who are "born again." There are real and true Christians who
are only "babes" in spiritual attainments, and there are others who
are "strong," and vigorous, and able to do great things for Christ.
(1 John ii. 12-14.) The Scripture speaks of little faith and great faith, of
little strength and great strength. One thing only is certain, —every
regenerate person has more or less the marks of regeneration, and he who has
none of them is not born again. (Matt. xiv. 31, xv. 28; Rev. iii. 8; Rom. xv.
1.)
6. But are not all baptized persons regenerate, and does not
regeneration always accompany baptism?
Certainly not. Myriads of
baptized persons have not a single scriptural mark of regeneration about them,
and never had in their lives. They know nothing whatever of "a death unto
sin and a new birth unto righteousness." On the contrary, they too often
live in sin, and are enemies of all righteousness. To say that such persons are
"regenerate" on account of their baptism, is to say that which seems
flatly contrary to the First Epistle of St. John. The Church Catechism says
that baptism contains two parts, —the outward and visible sign, and the inward
and spiritual grace. But the Catechism nowhere says that the sign and the grace
always go together.
7. But does not the Baptismal Service of the Church Prayer Book say of
every baptized child, "this child is regenerate," and does it not
tell us to thank God that it hath "pleased Him to regenerate the
infant?" What can this mean? How can it be explained?
The Baptismal Service uses
these expressions in the charitable supposition that those who use the service,
and bring their children to be baptized, are really what they profess to be. As
Bishop Carleton says, "All this is the charity of the Church; and what
more can you make of it?"—As Bishop Downame says, "We are to distinguish
between the judgment of charity and the judgment of certainty."
8. But is this explanation of the language of the Baptismal Service
honest, natural, and just? Is it the real meaning which ought to be put on the
words?
It is the only meaning which
is consistent with the whole spirit of the Prayer Book. From first to last the
Prayer Book charitably assumes that all who use it are real, thorough
Christians. This is the only sense in which the Burial Service can be
interpreted, or the Service for Adult Baptism, or for the Churching of Women.
This is the only sense in which we can teach children the Church Catechism. We
bid them say, "The Holy Ghost sanctifieth me and all the elect people of
God." Yet no man in his senses would say that all children who say the
Catechism are really "sanctified" or really "elect,"
because they use these words. On the contrary, large numbers of children never
show the slightest evidence of sanctification or election.
9. But ought we not to believe that all who use Christ's ordinances
receive a blessing as a matter of course?
Certainly not. The benefit of
Christ's ordinances depends entirely on the spirit and manner in which they are
used. The Scripture expressly says that a man may receive the Lord's Supper,
"unworthily," and eat and drink "to his own condemnation."
The Articles of the Church of England declare that in such only as receive
sacraments "rightly, worthily, and with faith," they have a wholesome
effect and operation. The famous Hooker teaches that "all receive not the
grace of God which receive the sacraments of His grace." To maintain that
every child who is baptized with water is at once regenerated and born again,
appears to turn the sacrament of baptism into a mere form, and to contradict
both Scripture and Articles.
10. But do not all infants receive baptism worthily, since they offer
no obstacle to the grace of baptism? and are they not consequently all
regenerated, as a matter of course, the moment they are baptized?
Certainly not. No infant is
of itself worthy to receive grace, because, as the Catechism says, it is
"born in sin and a child of wrath." It can only be received into the
Church and baptized on the faith and profession of its parents or sponsors. No
true missionary thinks of baptizing heathen children without friends or
sponsors. The Church Catechism asks the question, "Why are Infants
baptized?" But it does not give as an answer, "Because they offer no
obstacle to grace," —but "because they promise repentance and faith
by their sureties." Let us always remember that an infant has no title to
baptism but the profession of its sureties. Surely when these sureties know
nothing of repentance or faith, or of what they are promising, common sense
points out that the infant is not likely to get much inward benefit from the
sacrament. In plain words, if parents or sponsors bring an infant to baptism in
utter ignorance, without faith or prayer or knowledge, it is monstrous to
suppose that this infant must, nevertheless, receive regeneration. At this rate
it would matter nothing in what way sacraments are used, whether with ignorance
or with knowledge, and it would signify nothing whether those who use them were
godly or ungodly. The children of believing and of unbelieving parents would
receive precisely the same benefit from baptism. Such a conclusion seems
unreasonable and absurd.
11. But does not St. Paul say in his Epistles that Christians are
"buried with Christ in baptism;" and that baptized persons have
"put on Christ"? (Gal. iii. 27; Col. ii. 12.)
No doubt St. Paul says so.
But the persons of whom he said this, in all human probability, were not
baptized in infancy, but when they were grown up, and in days too when faith
and baptism were so closely connected that the moment a man believed he confessed
his faith publicly by baptism. But there is not a single passage in the New
Testament which describes at length the effect of baptism on an infant, nor a
single text which says that all infants are born again, or regenerated, or
buried with Christ in baptism. As Canon Mozley says, "Scripture nowhere
asserts, either explicitly or implicitly, the regeneration of infants in
baptism." (Mozley's Baptismal Controversy, p. 34.) Beside this, we are
expressly told that Simon the sorcerer, after his baptism, had "no
part" in Christ, and his "heart was not right in the sight of
God." Simon, therefore, could not have been regenerated, or born again in
baptism. (Acts viii. 21.)
12. But does not St. Peter say, "Baptism doth also save us?"
and if it saves us, must it not also regenerate us? (1 Pet. iii. 21.)
No doubt St. Peter says so.
But those who quote this text should not stop at the words "save us,"
but read carefully on to the end of the sentence. They will then see that St.
Peter distinctly fences and guards his statement by saying that the baptism
which "saves" is not the mere outward application of water to the
body, but the baptism which is accompanied by the "answer of a good
conscience toward God." Moreover, it is a curious fact that St. Peter, who
uses the expression "baptism saves," is the very same apostle who
told Simon after baptism that he was "in the bond of iniquity," and
his "heart was not right in the sight of God." (Acts viii. 21.)
13. But does not our Lord Jesus say to Nicodemus, "Except a man be
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"?
(John iii. 5.) Does not that prove that all who are baptized with water are
regenerate?
Certainly not. It proves
nothing of the kind. The utmost that can be made of this famous and often
quoted text is, that it shows the necessity of being "born of water and
the Spirit" if we would be saved. But it does not say that all who are
baptized, or "born of water," are at the same time "born of the
Spirit." It may prove that there is a connection sometimes between baptism
and regeneration, but it does not supply the slightest proof that an invariable
connection always exists.
14. But may it not be true that all baptized persons receive the grace
of regeneration in baptism, and that it remains within them like a dormant
seed, alive, though at present bearing no fruit?
Certainly not. The Apostle
St. John expressly forbids us to suppose that there can be such a thing as
dormant, or sleeping grace. He says, "Whosoever is born of God does not
commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born
of God." (1 John iii. 9.) This witness is true. When there can be light
which cannot be seen, and fire without heat, then, and not till then, there may
be grace that is dormant and inactive. The well-known words, "Stir up the
gift of God that is in thee" (2 Tim. i. 6), are far too often addressed to
the baptized, as if they referred to some gift received in baptism.
Yet common sense will tell
any one who refers to his Bible that these words were not used at all about
baptism, but about ordination. (1 Tim. iv. 14.)
15. But does not this view of regeneration, according to which many
baptized persons are not regenerate at all, and receive no benefit whatever
from their baptism, do great dishonour to one of Christ's sacraments, and tend
to bring it into contempt?
Not at all. The truth is
exactly the other way. To say that infant baptism confers grace mechanically,
as a chemical solution produces an effect on a photographic plate, and that if
water and certain words are used by a thoughtless, careless clergyman over the
child of thoughtless, ignorant parents, the child is at once born again, —to
say, furthermore, that an immense spiritual effect is produced by baptism when
no effect whatever can be seen, all this, to many thinking persons, seems
calculated to degrade baptism. It tends to make observers suppose that baptism
is useless, or that regeneration means nothing at all.
He that would do honour to
baptism should maintain that it is a high and holy ordinance, which, like every
ordinance appointed by Christ, ought not to be used without solemn reverence;
and that no blessing can be expected unless it is used with heart, and
knowledge, and faith, and prayer, and followed by godly training of the child
baptized. Above all, he should maintain that when baptism does good, the good
will be seen in the life and ways of the baptized. Those who do not feel
satisfied about this matter will do well to study attentively the strong
language which God uses about His own ordinances, when used formally and
carelessly, in the prophet Isaiah. (Isa. i. 11, 12.) What did the prophet mean
when he wrote these words: "To what purpose is the multitude of your
sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I delight not in the blood of bullocks or
of lambs." He evidently meant that God's own ordinances may be made
perfectly useless by man's misuse of them.
16. But may we not believe that regeneration means nothing more than a
change of state, and does not mean a moral and spiritual change at all? May we
not believe that it is a mere ecclesiastical word, signifying nothing more than
admission to a state of Church privilege? And may we not then say that every
person baptized is regenerated in baptism.
Of course we may say and
believe anything we please in a free country like England, and this idea of an
ecclesiastical regeneration cuts the knot of some difficulties, and has always
satisfied some minds. But it is an insuperable difficulty that the word
"regeneration" is never once used in this sense in the New Testament.
Moreover, the parallel expression "born of God," in St. John's First
Epistle, most certainly means a great deal more than being admitted into a
state of ecclesiastical privilege! To say, for instance, "Whosoever is
baptized doth not commit sin, —and overcometh the world," would be
ridiculous, because untrue. Moreover, the Church Catechism distinctly teaches
that the inward and spiritual grace in baptism is not a mere ecclesiastical
change, but "a, death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness."
Moreover, the Homily for Whitsunday expressly describes regeneration as an
inward and spiritual change. One thing is very certain, no plain reader of the
Bible ever seems to understand how a person can be "regenerate" and
yet not saved.
The poor and simple-minded
cannot take in the idea of ecclesiastical regeneration.
