The Meaning of “Regeneration” [Commentary on Browne: Article XXVII (1)]

The question of whether infant baptism is a legitimate practice cannot be adequately engaged here without far exceeding the proper limits of a project such as this. Readers may therefore consult Browne’s treatment and rest assured that, as the Article says, infant baptism is “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”[1] With the propriety of infant baptism established, two further questions arise, to be considered in this commentary and the next: 1) What does it mean for infants to receive the “sign of Regeneration,” and 2) On what grounds is this regeneration efficacious?

The term “regeneration” has been contested, as Browne observes at the beginning of his discussion:

On the one side, men, perceiving that in Scripture the new birth of the Spirit is closely coupled with new birth by water, and that the ancient Church ever identified baptism with regeneration, have unhesitatingly taught that regeneration is the grace of baptism, never separated from it, but when the recipient places a bar against it by impenitence. On the other side, it has been observed, that the grace of regeneration is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness; that it extends to an entire renewal of the moral nature of man, restoring him to the image of Him who created him; that no such change as this can be attributed to the washing with water; that such a change can only result from the influences of God’s Spirit, subduing the perverse will, and bringing the whole man into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and that, as a matter of fact and experience, the vast majority of the baptized never have undergone, and never do undergo, a change so momentous and unmistakable.[2]

Put more concisely, some have taught that “regeneration” means “simply incorporated into Christ,” while others have argued that regeneration “includes the conversion or turning of the will to God and the personal acceptance of Christ.”[3] Those who speak of regeneration in the former sense, as Browne does, generally emphasize that to say all baptized persons (including infants) are regenerate is to make a judgment on their spiritual, rather than moral, status:

Undoubtedly, baptism guarantees a spiritual change in the condition of the recipient. But we must not confound a spiritual change in the condition of the soul, with a moral change of the disposition and tempers. It is a great spiritual change to be received into Christ’s Church, to be counted as a child of God, to obtain remission of sins, and to have the aid and presence of the Spirit of God. But a moral change can only be the result of the soul’s profiting by the spiritual change.[4]

These three benefits of baptism—“an assurance of pardon for sins, of adoption into the Church, and of aid from the Spirit”—are said by Browne to “warrant the term, ‘Baptismal Regeneration.’” That said, the above excerpt should make apparent that advocates for baptismal regeneration do not think all who are baptized are automatically saved[5]—as Browne notes, the baptized enjoy the “pardon of sins” and “the aid of the Spirit of God,” but they come to “everlasting life” only if the latter is “not forfeited” by them. Moreover,

The absence of practical results, and of anything like practical spiritual life in many of the baptized, is not to be accounted for merely and solely by the theory that such have early fallen away from grace and from a state of holiness once effected; for from the first they may never have yielded to the gracious workings of the Spirit, and so real practical holiness may never have been produced.[6]

In short, a belief in baptismal regeneration and the teaching that the regenerate can fall away from grace tend to go together, albeit not invariably.[7] Meanwhile, those who define “regeneration” so as to include moral conversion or renovation typically deny that “spiritual regeneration always accompanies the outward administering of this ordinance, or in other words, that baptism and regeneration are one and the same thing.” Indeed, it has been said the doctrine is “downright popery, and utterly at variance with the doctrines of the Church of England.”[8]

This diversity of opinion on the meaning of regeneration—and, by extension, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration—has long persisted in the Anglican tradition. Those of a high-church inclination have at times sought to enforce as normative the belief in baptismal regeneration, as in the famous case of George Gorham in the mid-nineteenth century. Gorham, an English priest, was denied a vicarage on the grounds that his views of baptism were unsound, but a court ultimately reversed this decision. Even though the case has no legal force in much of the Anglican world, it nevertheless has perhaps dampened the impulse to dictate, which has given way to a general recognition that the Articles and Prayer Book allow for some variety of views:

The matter is frequently spoken of as if the Church of England must of necessity have laid down, and had in fact laid down, a certain definite precise view upon this subject, and peremptorily enjoined it upon all her ministers for their acceptance and belief. In my humble apprehension such a notion is entirely opposed to fact, and also to the well- known principles upon which our Reformers were guided in drawing up the Formularies of our Church. As our Reformers have not bound us to one precise human system of theology, so they have not, in my belief, tied us to one precise view of the subject.[9]

In a similar vein, and in his usual fashion, Browne holds out hope that “if both parties understood either their own or their opponents’ principles better, they would find many more points of contact, and many fewer grounds of disagreement than at present.” This should serve as a caution against being overly dogmatic on the subject, provided certain boundaries are observed.

Notes

  1. For a fuller defense of infant baptism, see M. F. Sadler, The Second Adam and the New Birth (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004).
  2. See also Christopher Bethell, A General View of the Doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1845), 3–12, 139–75, and T. P. Boultbee, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871), 229–36.
  3. E. J. Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 2nd ed. (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1925), 471.
  4. See also Boultbee, Exposition, 230–31; B. J. Kidd, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their History and Explanation (London: Rivington’s, 1899), 222–23; and Francis J. Hall, Anglican Dogmatics: Francis J. Hall’s Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, ed. John A. Porter, Bk. IX, The Sacraments (Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Press, 2021), 429n3, 435.
  5. See James Clark, “Book Review: ‘The Second Adam and the New Birth,’” The North American Anglican, 17 August 2022, https://northamanglican.com/book-review-the-second-adam-and-the-new-birth/.
  6. See also Boultbee, Exposition, 230–31, and Hall, Anglican Dogmatics, 429n3.
  7. See James Clark, “Final Perseverance and the Thirty-nine Articles [Commentary on Browne: Article XVI (2)],” The North American Anglican, 12 September 2023, https://northamanglican.com/final-perseverance-and-the-thirty-nine-articles-commentary-on-browne-article-xvi-2/.
  8. H. C. O’Donnoghue, A Familiar and Practical Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (London: Taylor and Hessey, 1816), 228. See also O’Donnoghue, Exposition, 229, and F. E. Middleton, Lambeth and Trent: A Brief Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Chas. J. Thynne, 1900), 170–76.
  9. William Goode, The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants, 2nd ed. (London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1850), 1–2. Laudable as the sentiment expressed here is, it should be noted that Goode appears to consider the understanding of baptismal regeneration held by Browne and others as beyond the pale, “utterly unsanctioned by our Church” (19). Boultbee, on the other hand, states that this view and related variants are “universally held to be fairly within the limits allowed by the English Church” (Exposition, 231).

James Clark

James Clark is the author of The Witness of Beauty and Other Essays, and the Book Review Editor at The North American Anglican. His writing has appeared in Cranmer Theological Journal, Journal of Classical Theology, and American Reformer, as well as other publications.


'The Meaning of “Regeneration” [Commentary on Browne: Article XXVII (1)]' has 1 comment

  1. January 18, 2025 @ 2:15 pm Petros

    While I won’t disagree with the distinction between a spiritual and moral change, I will disagree with the two being separate in principle. Being born of God clearly results in moral change (1 John 3:9). However, when it comes to infants obviously it will take time for the moral change to become evident as they grow from infancy to adolescence . The idea that an adult can be considered regenerate and yet not display a moral conversion is to use the term regenerate in manner that different from what i see in scripture.

    Reply


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

(c) 2025 North American Anglican

×