Hi John. Welcome to PB. I suspect that the PDF file of the Burges work you reference has been posted on that site without permission of the owner, Proquest (owners of Early English Books Online). It is clearly theirs as it has the old Bell and Howel authorship in the about file information. The terms of use of EEBO is as follows:
All that to say, I wouldn't make it available elsewhere without the permission of Proquest.

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I'm no ECF scholar, but didn't Augustine's view of baptism change over the time of his life?

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

Where do you see that?

__________________
John
Member, RPCNA
Atlanta, GA

Go to "File" > "Document Properties" > "Description". I also checked the copy at EEBO and the title page matches exactly including the number in heavy script.

John,
What is your source on this? C. Burges was on the special committee to do a first draft of a confession; but this work was later divided between the three grand committees and the second grand committee were assigned the chapter on Baptism and they were responsible for wording changes upon debate and any recommitting (at least on my quick look at Mitchell & Struthers I did not see any subsequent special committee assigned the work). Dr. Burges was on the first grand committee.

onemaster,

1. You need to update your Signature per the board requirements.
2. I would not presume to be so "smug" about what is and isn't denied according the the Confessions here. I don't play games, flaming Scots aside, with people who come into this board and presume to correct the group about the real Confessional understanding. I frankly found your statement that the Confessions teach Baptismal Regeneration to be quite facile.
3. The Reformed Confessions universally confess a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. They also clearly affirm that the grace conferred is not tied to the actual announcement of the Promise during its administration:
In other words, the grace that is promised in the sign may be conferred at a later time. The Sacrament itself has complete efficacy in this case, however, because the Minister does not confer grace in the administration of the Sacrament but announces the promise of God.

Frankly, you initial statement reveals somewhat Baptistic thinking in conflating the sign with the thing signified even for the elect. The Confessions do not teach that, for the Elect, regeneration is annexed to Baptism. That the Promise is announced during Baptism makes the sign and thing signified inexorably joined in terms of the relationship between Promise and fulfilment but that does not make Baptism the instrument of regeneration.

This relationship between the sign (Promise) and thing signified (actual union with Christ) can be seen from the Heidelberg:
Finally, thank you to Wayne Wylie for pointing out, correctly, the early use of the term regeneration that later theologians distinguished in more detail. You cannot merely port your language into Calvin. You have to read his definitions much more carefully before you conclude that he taught Baptismal Regeneration.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think you are correct. He was on the first committee. I'm trying to track down where I read that he was convener of the other committee. Hmmm....

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."

I was careful to do that before my first post.

Sorry. I didn't mean to be smug.

Or, the point may be that the regeneration first initiated in baptism continues for the entirety of the Christian life. That's what Burgess clearly taught. And he apparently though he had the backing of other divines (John Calvin included) and the other reformed confessions of his time.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just say that then? It says no such thing. Rather, the wording implies the opposite when it says that grace and salvation are not inseparably annex unto baptism. Annexed unto--yes; Inseparably annexed unto--no. In other words, God has appointed baptism as his ordinary instrument of initial regeneration, but he himself is not tied to it but free to work how and when he pleases.

It matters not what Burgess thought or taught as an individual even if I grant your point (which I do not). We don't form Reformed theology by quoting our favorite authors in a "quote mash" to form our favorite Reformed brew, re-define the Confessions according to our scheme, and then announce to the rest: "You guys are not really Reformed...."

It says precisely what I said. Are you really having trouble reading the sentence? Let me make it more explicit:
The Sacrament of Baptism is not the instrument of regeneration. It says no such thing. It says it is a sign thereof and is related to it as sign is to the thing signified. The efficacy of Baptism is found in the Promise of God, which always "Yes" and "Amen".

Consider, carefully, how you proceed. I'm really not interested in your re-definitions of the Confession. Your response will determine your continued participation on this board. You've received adequate correctives to your faulty views in this thread, though it is quite apparent that you have a fairly ensconced view prior to coming here. You have very clearly stated that which the Confessions deny and try to re-define them to suit your view. I don't allow this sort of game playing here.

One of the major points of Burgess' book, which you are free to read for yourself, was that his doctrine was the doctrine of the Church of England, other Reformed Divines (including Calvin, Bucer, etc.), and the other reformed churches. It was not his private opinion, but was considered thoroughly orthodox by other Calvinists at the time (not to mention the Church Fathers).

Are you saying that the confession teaches that baptism is a bare sign that does not confer the grace signified?

You have this exactly backwards. The not tying of grace to baptism is to allow for the Biblical view that grace can come apart from baptism, not that baptism can bring some kind of grace that is not for the elect. That is the whole point of the phrase:

"to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto"

The grace that is "offered, really exhibited, and conferred" is only for the elect, namely, those to whom that grace belongs.

I'm really tired of folks trying to mix magic in with the water, and then claiming to be the ones who are really Reformed or Westminsterian. Rev. Winzer's post above hits the nail on the head solidly.

I would suggest that the "observers" in this thread look at that, and ignore OneMaster's typical sacramentalistic gymnastics.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Baptism only confers grace to the elect. Period. End of story. It does not confer some kind of half-way, "initial" "temporary" or other kind of grace. It actually conveys condemnation for the non-elect.

Fred, where have I ever said that baptism confers grace to anyone but the elect? That is entirely something that you imagined. I happen to agree with what Rev. Winzer's said as well.

I think that Rev. Winzer's comments about the views of the ECFs on baptism, in pointing out that they adopted the sacramental language of the NT, is an accurate description of them. It is certainly true that they did, as the Reformed after them, hold to the sacramental union of the sign and the reality. I'm not convinced from my reading of many of their works, not only from the Eerdmans set, the FC set, and the ACW set, but from many of their exegetical commentaries, that it could be successfully argued that they did not believe in baptismal regeneration, though I appreciate the expressed sentiment by Rev. Winzer otherwise. I think their language often goes beyond that of the sacramental language of the NT. Far too often they linked baptism with justification itself, something never affirmed in the NT. Their instances of affirming this latter sentiment (justification by baptism) are simply myriad in number. And the general consent was that it was absolutely necessary for salvation.

I have found the treatment of E. Brooks Holifield's The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 helpful to the subject of the preceding discussions, so I thought that I would post some of his comments in his attempt to understand Calvin, the Puritans, and Burges and Ward in context. Though both Samuel Ward and Cornelius Burges held to forms of baptismal regeneration, their views differed from one another. Burges, as it has already been noted, believed that the efficacy of baptism applied only to elect infants and that its effects was lasting, while Ward believed that baptism conveyed to infants a grace that was "provisional and only of temporary effect." Another difference was that Samuel Ward believed baptism to be the means for the ablution of original guilt (read original sin) in infants.

E. Brooks Holifield: Nevertheless, Calvin had difficulty integrating baptism into his theology. He did not join Luther in seeking the Word “in” the water and instructed his readers to look beyond “the visible element.” He repeatedly cautioned that baptism was of benefit only to the elect; he repudiated emergency baptism; and he denied that the sacrament was necessary for salvation. In fact, Calvin emphasized so strongly the freedom of God in election that secondary means of salvation were superfluous. The ground of election was hidden in the Divine Will: we must “always at last return to the sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in Him.” Calvin frequently wrote as though that detracted in no way from the sacrament, but elsewhere he acknowledged that he was not prepared to “bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols.” Many received the sign, but the Spirit was bestowed on none but the elect. Since the sacrament had no efficacy without the Spirit, the reality of baptism, Calvin acknowledged, would be “found only in a few.” E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 16.

E. Brooks Holifield: The tension emerged clearly in Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism. Since faith was necessary for the perfection of baptism, and since infants could not demonstrate faith—only the elect among them would ever persevere in it—why baptize infants at all? In the 1536 edition of the Institutes Calvin joined Luther in attributing some kind of faith to infants, but he dropped that idea after 1539. He supported infant baptism by various appeals to Scripture, noting the apostolic practice of baptizing families and Jesus’ command that infants be brought to him. But Calvin’s main argument for infant baptism was based on the covenant motif, which first became prominent in his sacramental theology in the 1538 edition of the Geneva Catechism....But though baptism “engrafted” children into the visible church, it did not actually place them within the covenant. It simply testified that they had been “born directly into the inheritance of the covenant.” Since the inheritance was ultimately destined only for the elect, how could one say the testimony was reliable? Calvin confessed that many children of faithful Christians would “thrust themselves out of the holy progeny through their unbelief.” So even if infants were, as Calvin often argued, baptized for future repentance and faith, the sacrament itself offered no assurance that a child would in fact believe. E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 16-17.

E. Brooks Holifield: In adopting Calvin’s baptismal doctrine, however, the Puritans also inherited the characteristic Reformed ambivalence about external sacraments. Salvation, after all, rested ultimately on the unconditioned election of a Deity who was “Father and the God of all the elect, and only the elect.” The ministers criticized any suggestion that the sacrament conferred saving grace, or removed the stain of original sin, or justified the baptized infant, just as they denied that baptism was necessary for salvation. E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 46.

E. Brooks Holifield: The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. “Initial grace” was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval gratia prima, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between “seminal grace” and the scholastic notion of infused habits. Burges and Ward carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man’s spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and Burges and Ward accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When Ward first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not “sett that controversy on foot,” and when Burges published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but “clamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure.” E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.

E. Brooks Holifield: Most Puritan theologians believed that baptism did not seal an absolute covenant of grace, since that would entail either the regeneration of all who were baptized or the restriction of baptism to the elect. They distinguished a conditional and an absolute covenant, and administered a baptism that was efficacious only on the condition of future faith. E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 92.

DTK

__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
David T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

After all I just wrote on the subject of the Promise of God in the Sacrament, I must assume you are being purposefully obstinate and pugilistic to ask this question.

Farewell.