Joseph Alleine and the phrase 'sacramentally regenerated'

[JP Wallace]

Reading Alleine's 'Sure Guide to Heaven' last week on vacation he uses the phrase or term 'sacramentally regenerated' as opposed to 'really and properly [regenerated]'.

He says the former applies to all who are baptised, whereas the latter happens when the person has effectual grace poured out on them. Here is the context.

"How many make a mistake here, deceiving and being deceived; dreaming that effectual grace is necessarily tied to the external administration of baptism, so that every baptized person is regenerated, not only sacramentally, but really and properly.' (Page 20 of Banner Puritan Paperback edition).

Now without doubt Allienes theology is Westminister orthodoxy, my interest is just in the phrase itself; sacramentally regenerated which is not one I have come across, or not that I have noticed anyway!

What do you understand by it? My guess is that having the sign applied, the person is thereby 'externally' set apart from the world and included in the covenant community, but I would be interested in your take on the phrase.

I'm not fishing for faults or errors, or making any points against covenant baptism, just desiring to understand what is meant here. Anyway, I suppose the same lessons and applications Alleine makes are applicable to baptism on profession of faith as well.

Thanks

 

[rbcbob]

 

[PaulMc]

It's interesting that you brought this up as I just came across that phrase in Matthew Henry on 'Christ's Favour to Little Children' :

'Many are sacramentally regenerated, and born again of water, by which they have been partakers of the Christian name who yet, are never really regenerated and born again of the Spirit (John 3:5), but live and die destitute of the nature of Christians'.

It seems that they are simply using it as an equivalent of saying that they have received the outward sacrament but not the inward equivalent (or the thing signified).

 

[MarieP]

Isn't his idea similar to that of the author of Hebrews in chapter 6? "4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." (It would be interesting to find out if Alleine took a non-hypothetical view of the passage)

 

[JP Wallace]

Thus far the RB's are agreed on what Alleine means, I think all the above explanations are correct. However I'd still be interested to find out if there is something else meant - am I correct in thinking it's not an overly common phrase, certainly in modern discourse, and if not why not? I actually think it's quite a useful idea.

 

[Pergamum]

Wow, I've never noticed that in Alleine before.

 

[Jack K]

Thus far the RB's are agreed on what Alleine means

Well, I've never heard the phrase before (I'm not as well-read as are many others here), but the quote from Matthew Henry seems to explain it in a way that credo-baptists and paedo-baptists here could both agree with. Although the phrase sounds at first to indicate some sort of baptismal regeneration, Henry is clear that this is not what he means by it. Good Presbyterians will agree.

I wouldn't use that phrase, though. It's too easily misunderstood.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

Thus far the RB's are agreed on what Alleine means

Well, I've never heard the phrase before (I'm not as well-read as are many others here), but the quote from Matthew Henry seems to explain it in a way that credo-baptists and paedo-baptists here could both agree with. Although the phrase sounds at first to indicate some sort of baptismal regeneration, Henry is clear that this is not what he means by it. Good Presbyterians will agree.

I wouldn't use that phrase, though. It's too easily misunderstood.

completely agree, Jack.

 

[JP Wallace]

Although the phrase sounds at first to indicate some sort of baptismal regeneration, Henry is clear that this is not what he means by it. Good Presbyterians will agree.

Yes Jack that why I found the phrase so interesting - both men quoted are making it very, very clear that they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, indeed that is there main point, and yet they use this phrase which to my mind is not that common.

I guess I always think of regeneration as always and only being effectual, and never had a category for thinking about it sacramentally or indeed in any other way.

 

[Peairtach]

Well regeneration is the reality of which baptism is the symbol. There is a sacramental union between the two which means that the one can be spoken of in terms of the other. So Alleine's phrase sounds confusing, to me, as if there are actually two kinds of regeneration of which baptism is a symbol.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (I Pet 3:21)

Chapter 28 Of the Sacraments II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

 

[JP Wallace]

Yes I think that's right Richard - I think really both men are really just saying that all have the sign of regeneration but not all have the reality - but then again, I'm sure they could have said that! I guess I was just curious as to whether there was some historical use of the phrase in that era or something.

 

[Pilgrim]

I am, of course, tempted to go off on a Baptist diatribe here but I'll refrain.

I think this is the kind of wording and usage of the term regeneration in older writers (roughly pre-Great Awakening I suppose) that has been the subject of much of the wrangling in the FV debates among paedobaptists when discussing what happens with baptism or how "covenant children" should be viewed. It seems that older Reformed writers did not necessarily (or always) use the term regeneration with the full force of "born again" that many of us tend to think of today when using that term. That's why this language seems confusing at best to many of us today. But these quotes from Alleine and perhaps especially Henry are instructive in showing the different usages of the term.

 

[MarieP]

So Alleine's phrase sounds confusing, to me, as if there are actually two kinds of regeneration of which baptism is a symbol.

Perhaps he saw that the Bible speaks of two kinds of "faith" and two kinds of "disciples" and so spoke of two kinds of "regeneration." He just didn't use any scare marks.

 

[Wayne]

Searches like this can sometimes be successfully pursued over on the advanced search feature under Google Books.
The advanced search engine also allows you to specify the date range of the search. So, you could search for uses of the phrase "sacramental regeneration" between 1500 and 1800, for instance.

(that was how I found the presumed origin of the TULIP acrostic several years ago :
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/origin-tulip-acrostic-wasnt-boettner-66524/
and http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/muller-calvin-calvinist-55042/#post711521)

However, in this case, that phrase didn't show up much. There were a few instances that appeared to be connected with English non-conformity (i.e., Reformed Baptists), but other than than, I didn't see anything.

The obvious limitation of the search is that only works already digitized are being searched. All other works are excluded.

 

[MarieP]

I think this is the kind of wording and usage of the term regeneration in older writers (roughly pre-Great Awakening I suppose) that has been the subject of much of the wrangling in the FV debates among paedobaptists when discussing what happens with baptism or how "covenant children" should be viewed. It seems that older Reformed writers did not necessarily (or always) use the term regeneration with the full force of "born again" that many of us tend to think of today when using that term. That's why this language seems confusing at best to many of us today. But these quotes from Alleine and perhaps especially Henry are instructive in showing the different usages of the term.

The FV wrangling came to my mind as well!

 

[Peairtach]

Marie

Perhaps he saw that the Bible speaks of two kinds of "faith" and two kinds of "disciples" and so spoke of two kinds of "regeneration." He just didn't use any scare marks.

The Bible speaks of two kinds of faith and two kinds of disciples but not two kinds of regeneration.

E.g.

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:13)

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.(John 6:66)

Maybe that is what you are saying (?)

Matthew Henry

'Many are sacramentally regenerated, and born again of water, by which they have been partakers of the Christian name who yet, are never really regenerated and born again of the Spirit (John 3:5), but live and die destitute of the nature of Christians'.

This sounds as if it refers to

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

 

[JP Wallace]

Not to resurrect this topic but just to add to the list of resources mentioning the phrase 'sacramentally regenerate' for those who may search for it in the future. I just came across the phrase in Richard Baxter's 'Christian Directory' Chapter 1 - directions to the unconverted. His use fits in with the above discussion.