The ordo salutis

[Scott Bushey]

If the order of salvation is logical and not chronological and that most Christians believe most of the ordo happens simultaneously, i.e.' the spokes on a wheel that turn', when does the infant that is regenerated in the womb become converted (possess faith and repentance)?

 

[TheOldCourse]

The ordo does not happen simultaneously altogether since most lists include glorification--obviously something temporally separated from the others. The point is that it is a logical order so that the order does not necessarily imply a chronological relationship among all of its parts, not that there cannot ever be such a relationship between some of them.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen "conversion" included in an ordo salutis scheme. Most of the older divines I have read didn't distinguish it from the "effectual" aspect of effectual calling which would occur contemporaneously in the infant that is regenerated in the womb.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hi Chris,
Ok. For the sake of this conversation and clarity, I will use the terms, *faith and repentance*.
I edited the opening post.

 

[Scott Bushey]

For the record, I am studying Hodge and VanMastricht on the idea and they both use the term 'conversion'.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

This may be of help: The Ordo Salutis

 

[Edward]

If the order of salvation is logical and not chronological and that most Christians believe the ordo happens simultaneously,

I would agree that most Christians aren't confessional in their views. There is a reason it is called an 'order' and not an 'event'.

 

[TheOldCourse]

For the record, I am studying Hodge and VanMastricht on the idea and they both use the term 'conversion'.

Ok, I usually see conversion in older writers to refer to a change in internal orientation (connected to regeneration and effectual calling) rather than a change in external orientation (connected to profession and works of repentance) as it is used more commonly these days. See, for instance, Turretin or Brown of Haddington. Is that the way Van Mastricht is using it? In it's internal dimension it would certainly happen in the womb with regeneration.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yeas, PVM is using the term in it's narrowest sense to distinguish conversion from regeneration. It is in his most excellent book, 'A Treatise on Regeneration".

 

[Scott Bushey]

Essentially, this post was provoked on a conversation I was having the other day w/ Bruce. In the thread, the idea of a 'gap' came into play, i.e. a regenerate infant in the womb, who is later, under the preached word, converted. Is there such a thing as a gap; Is the ordo chronological or alway just logical. Most people who I have talked with do not like to think of the ordo as chronological in any way, shape or form as it predisposes one to a possible 'gap' in time between regeneration and conversion.

 

[Scott Bushey]

it would certainly happen in the womb with regeneration.

Are you referring to 'seed faith'?

 

[Edward]

a regenerate infant in the womb, who is later, under the preached word, converted.

Are the folks you are talking to confusing election and regeneration? Or are they just speculating about the unknown?

 

[TheOldCourse]

Are you referring to 'seed faith'?

I'm referring to an internal conversion. Turretin makes the distinction, as always, clear:

"As conversion can be considered under a twofold relation, either as habitual or as actual, so both God and man certainly concur, but in such a way that in both the glory of the whole action ought be ascribed entirely to God alone. Habitual or passive conversion takes place by the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, actual or active conversion takes place by the exercise of these good habits by which the acts of faith and repentance are both given by God and elicited from man. Through the former, man is renovated and converted by God. Through the latter, man, renovated and converted by God, turns himself to God and performs acts. The former is more properly called regeneration because it is like a new birth by which the man is reformed after the image of his Creator. The latter, however, is called conversion because it includes the operation of man himself. Now although in the order of time, they can scarcely be distinguished in adults (in whom the action of God converting man is never without the action of man turning himself to God), still in the order of nature and causality the habitual ought to precede the actual and the action of God the action of man." Institutes 15.4.13

Many of the older writers use "conversion" in what Turretin calls the habitual sense rather than active sense, so that must be born in mind. His comment about adults in particular is interesting, but he doesn't elaborate as far as I can see. That we're willing to ascribe a "seed-like" faith to infants makes me willing to ascribe a "seed-like" active conversion as well since faith is the principle act of that conversion.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Are the folks you are talking to confusing election and regeneration? Or are they just speculating about the unknown?

We're discussing special cases of infants who are not just elect but actually regenerated while unborn, such as appears of John the Baptist and, perhaps, of elect infants who die before birth (though some believe them to be regenerated at death rather than in life within the womb).

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'm referring to an internal conversion. Turretin makes the distinction, as always, clear:

Many of the older writers use "conversion" in what Turretin calls the habitual sense rather than active sense so that must be born in mind.

I understand. Many, as well use the term 'regeneration' to refer to the whole of the ordo, i.e. the complete process, which makes it difficult at times, especially in discussions dealing with this subject matter.

His comment about adults in particular is interesting, but he doesn't elaborate as far as I can see.

This is why most people believe the order happens simultaneously. Most adults already have much of the typical information onboard by the time they are sitting under the external call. Some process faster, others don't.

That we're willing to ascribe a "seed-like" faith to infants makes me willing to ascribe a "seed-like" active conversion as well since faith is the principle act of that conversion.

Can a baby have more than habitual faith? Seed (f)aith is called SF for a reason? I don't struggle with seed conversion either as one would most likely agree that w/ (F)aith, conversion follows. Although, as Hodge says:

1. From the very nature of faith. It includes the conviction of the truth of its object. It is an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true or trustworthy, but the mind can affirm nothing of that of which it knows nothing.

2. The Bible everywhere teaches that without knowledge there can be no faith.

3. Such is the intimate connection between faith and knowledge, that in the Scriptures the one term is often used for the other. To know Christ, is to believe upon Him. To know the truth, is intelligently and believingly to apprehend and appropriate it. Conversion is effected by knowledge.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Peter VanMastricht defines regeneration:

Regeneration conveys that power into the soul by which the person who is to be saved is enabled to receive the offer. Conversion puts forth the power received into actual exercise so that the soul actually receives the offered benefits".

PVM continues when he says,

Regeneration confers the spiritual life in the first act only. The Spiritual life is bestowed by regeneration only in the first act (or principle), not in the second acts (or operation) understood either as habits or exercises. For as natural generation a man receives neither the habits nor acts of reasoning, speaking, writing but only the power, which under proper circumstances, in due time, comes forth in act, so also, in regeneration, there is not bestowed upon the elect any faith, hope, love, repentance, etc., either as to habit or act, but the power only as yet of performing these exercises is bestowed, by which the regenerate person does not actually believe or repent, but is only capacitated thereto".

Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see, as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God (john 3:5). This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise. So that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin. This appears more clear than the light of the sun in the instances of those who are regenerated in their mothers' womb or at their baptism, as Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), and Timothy (2 Tim 3:15), who nevertheless did not, till they reached the age of discretion, perform the actual exercises of faith or repentance. So that regeneration, in which the spiritual life is bestowed in the first act or principle only, differs from conversion, by which this principle of life is brought into actual exercise, not only in order of nature, but sometimes also in order of time. However, we mean not to deny here that it may be (and often is) the case that a sanctification of the Spirit, in a general sense comprehending vocation, regeneration, conversion, and sanctification properly so called, is effected at one and the same time. This seems to have been the case with the thief on the cross, converted by Christ in his last moments (Luke 23:40-44). We only mean that they may be separated as in time, and that oftentimes this is actually the case.

John brine, a Particular Baptist says:

Regeneration precedes and may be considered as foundation and spring of conversion and sanctification. For that is the principle from which both arise grace, as a principle of spiritual acts, is first communicated, and from that proceed all acts of a holy spiritual nature, both internal and external. Neither of the latter can be, until the first is wrought. And when that is effected, both the latter certainly follow. In the first, we are merely passive, in conversion and sanctification, we are active.

 

[Edward]

We're discussing special cases of infants who are not just elect but actually regenerated while unborn, such as appears of John the Baptist and, perhaps, of elect infants who die before birth (though some believe them to be regenerated at death rather than in life within the womb).

So it is academic speculation on a matter upon which the scriptures are silent; and it is not clear that such a situation has ever existed?

 

[Scott Bushey]

So it is academic speculation on a matter upon which the scriptures are silent; and it is not clear that such a situation has ever existed?

Well, the scriptures are not silent on the issue. Consider Jeremiah, John the Baptist and Timothy. The question being posed is when did these regenerate children ever receive (F)aith and (R)epentance in relation to the order.

Can a man be saved outside of the external call? Can a man be saved outside of an assent to biblical facts? Can a man repent unless he know of his sin, etc.?

The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb (those elect individuals dying) at times and others even at the baptismal font. The sacraments are not empty rites. It is God's prerogative. So when you weigh out scripture and the confession of our fathers, it is clear that this idea or the study of it, not preposterous.

 

[timfost]

Might justification as in "justifying faith" be a helpful concept in the conversation? If a) babies who die in infancy can be saved according to our confessions, and b) regeneration itself does not justify, wouldn't justifying faith then be necessary for their salvation? If seed faith is a (small) measure of faith, I assume this is justifying faith. If not, how are Christ's merits applied to an infant who dies in infancy apart from justifying faith?

(For the record, John Brine was an advocate of eternal justification, if I remember correctly.)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Might justification as in "justifying faith" be a helpful concept in the conversation? If a) babies who die in infancy can be saved according to our confessions, and b) regeneration itself does not justify, wouldn't justifying faith then be necessary for their salvation?

Yes-for the infant dying in infancy, alone.

If seed faith is a (small) measure of faith

I wouldn't call it (F)aith per se, but (f)aith. in my opinion, this seed faith is dormant until the time when the person has the external call delivered and received, and the person ascends to biblical facts, i.e. one needs to have a basis for their faith and repentance. See Rom 10:14-17

I assume this is justifying faith.

See my previous statement

If not, how are Christ's merits applied to an infant who dies in infancy apart from justifying faith?

The infant dying in infancy and the mentally incapable, are handled differently as the internal and external call of God is given via the HS alone, whereas a infant decreed to live a fruitful life must have the external call issued via the preacher. Rom's 10:14-17

(For the record, John Brine was an advocate of eternal justification, if I remember correctly.)

I wasn't aware and I don't know that his position of EJ rails against or advocates for his statement. VanMastricht cites Brine. Hence, I am not too worried about him.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

2Pet.1:5-9

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind,"
​

We begin teaching our children right away, like a gardener watches his seed bed, then his seedlings, and tends them. We look for growth and we expect growth; we nurture development, we discipline, and we retard ill effects. As parents, we don't know how much of their response is natural trust (e.g. what they feel when eating what is set before them), and what part is spiritual; but surely we have a duty to trust the God of promise and his appointed means.

But, from the above text we see that the mature convert is expected to add to his own faith the godly exercises that follow. And in the case of the Christian child, the parent (like a gardener with his seedlings) prompts and promotes as falls within his power the addition of those godly exercises in the life of his child.

We do not spend ALL our energy on correcting faults (you're a bad sinner) and cross-talk (believe in Jesus' death); and once we have what we think is conversion, then we start working on godliness. At least, I hope we don't. We begin our work expecting to see faith (with repentance) and godliness flourish, coming along in an organic package that develops and unfolds; while we, monitoring and tending, respond to the need of the hour.

"Presumptive regeneration" ends up (apparently) too often in presuming on the Spirit and the means. Equating the idea of "seed faith" planting with regeneration leads (as I argued in the previous thread) to minimizing or eliminating the indispensability of active faith to the maintenance of regeneration, that is spiritual life.

I don't mind disagreeing with PVM (quoted above) who extrapolates from the infant examples, thereby validating the general theory "that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin." He says, in effect, there is a "gap" for infants; thus here may also be a "gap" in the case of the mature. Did this "true regeneration" happen entirely separate from any means? How much time can a man exist as an "unbelieving regenerate" before the idea becomes absurd?

Now we know that some men seem to fight and struggle against the convicting work of the Spirit, before they give in. I think of a man upon the operating table, the doctors working frantically applying every means of life-support and resuscitation to animate him. There may be a time when a man is "hovering" (as it were) between spiritual life and death. The power of God has been given, and there is a struggle of sorts within the man, whether to believe and repent, and be born again.

But the notion that God gives actual (non-potential) spiritual life to his elect long ages before they live, destroys the metaphor. We've salvaged a theory for explaining the mystery of new-birth, at the expense of the very biblical imagery we were given for the purpose.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Bruce,
Hodge seems to put a lot of emphasis on knowledge which as well, would fit into this idea:

The Bible makes eternal life to consist in knowledge; sinfulness is blindness, or darkness; the transition from a state of sin to a state of holiness is a translation from darkness into light; men are said to be renewed unto knowledge, i.e., knowledge is the effect of regeneration; conversion is said to be effected by the revelation of Christ; the rejection of Him as the Son of God and Saviour of men is referred to the fact that the eyes of those who believe not are blinded by the god of this world. These Scriptural representations prove much. They prove that knowledge is essential to all holy exercises; that truth, as the object of knowledge, is of vital importance, and that error is always evil and often fatal; and that the effects of regeneration, so far as they reveal themselves in our consciousness, consist largely in the spiritual apprehension or discernment of divine things. These representations also prove that in the order of nature, knowledge, or spiritual discernment, is antecedent and causative relatively to all holy exercises of the feelings or affections. It is the spiritual apprehension of the truth that awakens love, faith, and delight; and not love that produces spiritual discernment. It was the vision Paul had of the divine glory of Christ that made him instantly and forever his worshipper and servant. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that regeneration consists exclusively in illumination, or that the cognitive faculties are exclusively the subject of the renewing power of the Spirit. It is the soul as such that is spiritually dead; and it is to the soul that a new principle of life controlling all its exercises, whether of the intellect, the sensibility, the conscience, or the will is imparted.

This new life, therefore, manifests itself in new views of God, of Christ, of sin, of holiness, of the world, of the gospel, and of the life to come; in short, of all those truths which God has revealed as necessary to salvation. This spiritual illumination is so important and so necessary and such an immediate effect of regeneration, that spiritual knowledge is not only represented in the Bible as the end of regeneration (Col. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:4), but the whole of conversion (which is the effect of regeneration) is summed up in knowledge. Paul describes his conversion as consisting in Christ’s being revealed to Him (Gal. 1:16); and the Scriptures make all religion, and even eternal life, to be a form of knowledge. Paul renounced everything for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ (Phil. 3:8), and our Lord says that the knowledge of Himself and of the Father is eternal life.

While, therefore, the objects of faith as revealed in the Bible, are not truths of the reason, i.e., which the human reason can discover, or comprehend, or demonstrate, they are, nevertheless, perfectly consistent with reason.

Faith is not a blind, irrational conviction. In order to believe, we must know what we believe, and the grounds on which our faith rests

While admitting that the truths of revelation are to be received upon the authority of God; that human reason can neither comprehend nor prove them; that a man must be converted and become as a little child before he can truly receive the doctrines of the Bible; and admitting, moreover, that these doctrines are irreconcilable with every system of philosophy, ever framed by those who refuse to be taught of God, or who were ignorant of his Word, yet it is ever to be maintained that those doctrines are unassailable; that no created intellect can prove them to be impossible or irrational.

*In the above quote, I believe Hodge is using the term conversion here to refer to 'regeneration'.

A sixth question, included under the head of the relation of faith to knowledge is, whether knowledge is essential to faith? That is, whether a truth must be known in order to be believed? This Protestants affirm and Romanists deny.

therefore, knowledge, or the intelligent apprehension of the meaning of what is proposed, is essential to faith.

It follows from what has been said, or rather is included in it, that knowledge being essential to faith, it must be the measure of it.

1. From the very nature of faith. It includes the conviction of the truth of its object. It is an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true or trustworthy, but the mind can affirm nothing of that of which it knows nothing.

2. The Bible everywhere teaches that without knowledge there can be no faith.

3. Such is the intimate connection between faith and knowledge, that in the Scriptures the one term is often used for the other. To know Christ, is to believe upon Him. To know the truth, is intelligently and believingly to apprehend and appropriate it. Conversion is effected by knowledge.

It would seem that Hodge would agree that there can be a 'gap'.

 

[Scott Bushey]

This may help. Form C. Matthew McMahon's book, 'How Faith Works' :

Peter Van Mastricht wrote a very helpful section to his Theoretico-Practica Theologia (1699) that covered regeneration. It was so popular on the subject, that even brilliant theologians such as Jonathan Edwards marked Van Mastricht’s work as better than any other book in the world besides the Bible. In this work, Van Mastricht basically taught, “that men are born again by grace alone, and that regeneration is that which makes conversion possible.” For Van Mastricht, and subsequently the Post Reformation community for which he wrote, saw regeneration as a key doctrine for understanding the complete dependence of man upon Christ and His work of redemption. Regeneration is not used in its broader sense here, but in its more refined and particular sense – this is, “that power conveyed into the soul by which the person who is to be saved is enabled to receive the offer.”3 Thus, Van Mastricht defined regeneration as, “that operation of the Holy Ghost whereby He begets in men who are elected, redeemed, and externally called, the first act or principle of spiritual life, by which they are enabled to receive the offered Redeemer, and comply with the conditions of salvation.” In this way Van Mastricht rightly stated that a person’s will is changed so he can embrace the truth presented to the mind. In explaining regeneration in this light, those converted by the power of the Holy Spirit are enabled to exercise saving acts that later may be granted. Such is the case, for example, of an infant regenerated early in its life and coming to exercised faith later on. This will hold great implications in the manner that one is saved, but not yet exercising faith.

“Regeneration is the term used for this spiritual change wrought upon the heart by the power of the Holy Spirit sent forth from Christ’s throne. It is absolutely necessary that regeneration takes place in order for a man to be released from his fallen and depraved state to the Kingdom of God. Christ, in John 3, rests upon the reality that man is so depraved and fallen that his spiritual birth must take place first before he ever perceives or understands of the spiritual realities of the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3, 5). In this way, the Spirit’s work is crucially important in delivering and changing the heart of these men so that they may believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. This event, that spiritual change, is impossible with men, but possible with God. Without a manifestly true change on the mind of the person by God, they cannot believe, nor experience any deep significant trust on Christ. No unregenerate man, then, can see the kingdom of God unless God wills he should see it and converts him to be able to see it. From all this, it is manifest that redemption itself proceeds on the principle that God must allow admission to His kingdom first, and to apply a spiritual principle that quickens the soul to life.”

As it stands here, men are at this stage (effectual calling) simply given the ability, or regenerated, to think about the Gospel rightly. They may positively be deemed “born again,” yet, they have still not exercised faith. Those regenerated are those born of God. 1 John 3:9 states, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” This interesting term, “born of God,” may be an allusion to what the Jews called their proselytes in Old Testament Israel – recens natos, or “men new born.” Such men are God’s workmanship created for good works (Eph. 2:10).

This concept of regeneration is essential in understanding salvation. How does regeneration work? Man is sinful, and cannot believe or perceive anything about the kingdom of God. The Spirit arrests his heart and “blows” on him and changes his heart giving birth to “spirit.” The person is then able to believe and perceive the kingdom, and does so because of the work of the Spirit. “The Spirit enables regenerated Christians to discern good from evil, or sin from holiness. He disposes the mind to accept truth and to know what the Scriptures contain. Here the Spirit aids the Christian in expounding Scripture in order to apply that Scripture to the Christian’s life and further grow in the mystical union he now has with Christ (1 Cor. 6:17). The Spirit illuminates through His indwelling presence within the individual (John 16:16; 2 Tim. 1:14; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 John 4:13; Eph. 1:13).” This regeneration (or effectual call) is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive in it. It is a physical act that powerfully infuses spiritual life into the soul. When the Holy Spirit quickens him he is enabled to answer the Gospel call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. But this is not always as instantaneous as one would think, although it can be. In other words, the response time may be longer or shorter according to God’s good pleasure in bestowing help in justifying faith (more on that later).

An important notion that Van Mastricht takes some time to develop based on the Reformed dichotomy of regeneration and faith, is that regeneration confers spiritual life in the first act only. This first act, then, is a principle, not an operation. This idea of an operation of grace, the Reformed have always defined as “habits or exercises” of grace. Manton says, “The habits of all grace are brought into the heart by regeneration.” Turretin says, “Habitual or passive conversion takes place by the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit.”26 These habits are exercised at a later time. Thus, fallen men who are regenerated are capacitated to believe and repent, but regeneration is not believing nor repenting. Such an action will come later.

 

[timfost]

Scott,

Out of curiosity, in the ordo, would you place faith or repentance first?

Thanks!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Faith.

 

[timfost]

Faith.

I agree.

In your view, can one have faith without repentance? How about faith without conversion? If so, how?

Thanks, brother.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Tim,
I would say one can have seed (f)aith and not germinated (F)aith. Conversion would come in the germination of the seed faith and the mental assent to what one is repenting of.

Have you read some of the citations I provide as they go into the dynamics of what I am saying?

 

[timfost]

Tim,
I would say one can have seed (f)aith and not germinated (F)aith. Conversion would come in the germination of the seed faith and the mental assent to what one is repenting of.

Have you read some of the citations I provide as they go into the dynamics of what I am saying?

Scott,

Yes, I read some of them and believe I understand where you are coming from. I also understand that others take this position. Additionally, I agree that it is within a "confessional viewpoint."

Honestly, I'm trying to interact with the argument itself, not by trying to say no other theologians agree with you.

My concern is that your understanding of seed faith seems fundamentally different from justifying faith.

Hebrews 6:1: "Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God..."

Faith is "toward God." To be oriented toward God necessitates orientation away from self. Though I believe repentance flows from faith, they occur simultaneously-- two sides of the same coin. To be oriented toward God but not repenting is an oxymoron. If seed faith in not accompanied by repentance in some capacity, how can it be justifying faith?

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you, and thank you for your patience.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If seed faith in not accompanied by repentance in some capacity, how can it be justifying faith? your understanding of seed faith seems fundamentally different from justifying faith

I'm gonna quote VanMastricht again as it may help in the answer:

Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see, as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God (john 3:5). This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise. So that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin.

In essence, one could be a regenerated person, have seed faith (not germinated (F)aith) and still be an unbeliever.
If Christ doesn't vicariously repent for us, would it not follow that repentance must be based on something or better yet, can a person repent of a thing it has no idea of?

 

[Edward]

The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb

In which version do you find that in the WCF? Or are you arguing from 'infants'?

 

[Scott Bushey]

The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb (those elect individuals dying) at times and others even at the baptismal font.

I actually said, ^^^

1646

Ch 10:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

and 28:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.