A case can be made that the ECFs adopted the sacramental language of the NT Scriptures and didn't teach baptismal regeneration per se. As Lane has pointed out, the Reformed also adopt the same sacramental language where they refer to the sign accompanied by the thing signified. From a believer's point of view it is an undisputed fact that "baptism doth also now save us," 1 Pet. 3:21; but then it is immediately clarified that this baptism does not consist in the bare application of water. It is only the water representing the resurrection of Christ (objectively) and bringing forth the answer of a good conscience (subjectively) that saves us.

On the subject of Cornelius Burges, please note the title of his book -- the regeneration of ELECT infants. As one reads the work it becomes transparent that he has a specific regeneration in mind which is not the full regeneration implied in being born again by the incorruptible seed, that this is the Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and therefore not infallibly tied to the moment of baptism, and that this deposit of regeneration only applies to the case of the elect.

Burges' concern was to show that infant baptism is not a mere ritual without any significance until the individual comes to faith. Personally I think it is dangerous to speak of the efficacy of baptism in anything other than objective terms, and I much prefer the position of those theologians who speak of subjective benefit only being applied to the case of those whose baptism is looked upon from the perspective of faith (William Cunningham and James Bannerman are especially helpful in this regard). But as far as Burges' printed opinion is concerned, it falls within the spectrum of reformed orthodoxy because it does not tie the efficacy of baptism to the moment of administration, it refers only to the beginnings of regeneration, and connects baptismal efficacy to the work of the Holy Spirit in the elect alone.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."