'A change of state', not a 'change of nature': Charles Inglis on how the regeneration of Baptism is 'relative and federal'

I had occasion this week, in preparation for delivering a presentation on Charles Inglis, to re-read his 1768 work An Essay on Infant Baptism: In which the Right of Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism is Proved from Scripture. While not the focus of this work, Inglis did address the meaning of the references to regeneration in the Prayer Baptismal rite. He expounded what he clearly understood to be the settled, consistent, and uncontroversial view of Church of England divines - that the Sacrament of Baptism bestows that grace which brings us into the covenant of Jesus Christ, but it is not that grace which renovates, or regenerates, the heart. The latter is a "a progressive, internal Renovation of the Soul"; the former, in the words of the Prayer Book rite, "graft[s] into the body of Christ's Church". 

Three things are particularly significant with regards to Inglis' account of this "relative and federal" regeneration by Holy Baptism. Firstly, through quoting Calvin and Cranmer (that "illustrious Instrument in the Reformation") on the efficacy of Baptism, and by making explicit a shared rejection of Baptism bestowing the grace of a change of interior nature, Inglis presents this understanding as a unifying magisterial Protestant understanding. 

Secondly, Inglis here offers what we might regard as a middle way between the views of the two antagonists in the Gorham Controversy. Whereas Gorham denied that Baptism made infants - as stated in the Catechism - "the child of God", and Phillpott insisted that Baptism was "an effusion of the Holy Spirit towards the inward renewing of the heart", Inglis offers an alternative to both: we are truly incorporated into the New Covenant and the Church by Holy Baptism, but the renewal and renovation of the heart is not the work of this Sacrament. Against Gorham, Inglis states that our State is indeed truly changed by Baptism; against Philpott, he states that our interior Nature is not changed by this Sacrament.

Thirdly, this "relative and federal" regeneration Inglis sees set forth in the Restoration divine William Falker (d.1682), in his Libertas Ecclesiastica (1674). Mindful that Inglis was writing almost a century later, it is fitting that both these works, stretching from the beginning of 'the long 18th century' to its latter part, symbolise how this understanding of regeneration in Baptism was a settled, consistent view withing the Church of England during this era. When contrasted with the bitter, divisive debate surrounding the Gorham Controversy in Victorian Anglicanism, there surely is reason to appreciate and appropriate afresh the understanding of Holy Baptism expounded by Inglis.

There has been a controversy between some Protestants about the Nature of baptismal Regeneration - and the propriety of calling those regenerate who receive the Ordinance. I am no Way concerned in this Controversy, since both Parties, so far as I know, agree in the Explanation I give of Baptism. I should therefore pass it over intirely, were not the Examination of it necessary to throw Light on the Testimonies I shall hereafter produce from the primitive Writers in Favour of Infant Baptism; nor shall I meddle with it any farther than may serve to elucidate those Testimonies.

I apprehend this Controversy is rather about Words than Things - that it has arisen from annexing different Ideas to the same Words; and that both Parties, however warmly they may contend, mean in reality much the same Thing. This often happens to be the Case in literary Contests, and is one of the sore Evils that are to be seen under the Sun.

Nothing is more certain than that the primitive Christians by a well known Figure of putting the Effect for the Cause, or rather for the Means in this Case, called Baptism by the Name of Regeneration, and denominated those who were baptised, Regenerate. Of this we shall see some Instances hereafter. The Church of England, following in this, as in other Points, the Example of the Primitive Church, calls those who are baptised, regenerate.

To understand this the better, we should carefully distinguish between a Change of State with Respect to God, and a Change of Nature, to which the former leads. The one is relative and federal; the other is internal and moral. In Baptism we enter into Covenant with God, our State is changed; for those who were "by Nature born in Sin, and Children of Wrath, are hereby made Children of Grace" - that are brought into a State of Favour with God, and have the Pardon of their Sins sealed and confirmed. Thus Mr. Calvin, whom for several Reasons I chuse to quote here, says, "Baptism is the Sign of Initiation, by which we are taken into the Society of the Church, that being grafted into Christ, we might be accounted the Children of God". And a little after, he adds, "Baptism is as it were a signed Instrument, by which we have a Confirmation from God, that all our Sins are blotted out, erased and obliterated, that they will never come in his Sight, nor be remembered or imputed". Again he says, "It is not difficult to perceive now in what the two Signs", meaning Circumcision and Baptism, "were alike, and in which they differed. The Promise, in which we have shewed the Efficacy of the Signs consisted, is the same in both - namely, the paternal Favour of God, Remission of Sins, and Life eternal. Again, the Thing figured was also one and the same, namely, Regeneration".

A Change of Nature consists in a Renewal of the Heart by the divine Spirit. It is a progressive, internal Renovation of the Soul, whereby Sin is mortified, and teat Rectitude, or divine Image in which Man was first created, is in some Measure restored, being necessary to preprare us for Heaven ... 

The first of these, viz. A Change of State, by which we are brought into the Family of God, have a Covenant Relation to him, with the Pardon of our former Sins, is what I understand by Regeneration when applied to Baptism ... This also appears to be the Sense of the Church of England in her post-baptismal Offices and Catechism, and in that excellent Collect where we pray the Almighty that "We, being regenerate, and made his Children by Adoption and Grace, may be daily renewed by his holy Spirit". 

To recite the Sentiments of the several Divines of the Church of England who have taught this would be too tedious. It certainly was the Doctrine of our first Reformers; it appears not only from the Offices, Catechism, &c. in our Prayer Book, but also from their other Writings. Thus Archbishop Cranmer, who was an illustrious Instrument in the Reformation, and, under God, the Person who chiefly brought it about, says - "For this Cause, Christ ordained Baptism in Water, that as surely as we see, feel and touch Water with our Bodies, so assuredly ought we to believe when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be new born again spiritually, and washed from our Sins, and grafted in the Stock of Christ's own Body, so that as the Devil hath no Power against Christ, so hath he none against us, so as we remain grafted in that Stock".

Of those who wrote since, I shall mention but one, a Person who had thoroughly examined this Subject and whose great Penetration and Learning enabled him to form as just a Judgement of it, as any Person whatever. It is Mr. Falkner. Speaking on the Subject of baptismal Regeneration in Infants, he says - "But this Regeneration is mainly relative, so that being regenerated by Baptism, they are no longer the Children of Wrath, and under the Curse due to original Sin; but are brought into a new State, to be Members of the Body of Christ, and thereby Partakers of the Favour of God". He adds a little after, "Yet that Regeneration of an Infant in Baptism, whereby he is received into a State of Remission and Salvation, is very different from the Regeneration," i.e. Renovation, "of an adult Person, whereby his Soul and Life is moulded according to the Form of the Christian Doctrine, and brought into a Conformity to the Image of God". 

This last Change, or Renewal of our Nature, is that only which some understand by Regeneration, and hence the Controversy on this Subject. They justly deny that Regeneration in this Sense is attained by Baptism; which none that I know of among Protestants affirm or maintain; but a relative Change in our State, which they express by Regeneration.