Mr. Roscoe.—"I grant that the popular construction of the passages which you have quoted supports your opinion, and if a similar phraseology of speech were employed by the writers of the New Testament, I should not hesitate to agree with you; but I do not find such language in any part of the New Testament. I think that the Liturgy and Articles are to be brought to the test of the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures to that of the Liturgy. The latter, though the first of human compositions, is nevertheless of human authority; the former is given by the inspiration of God."
Rev. Mr. Roscoe.—"I admit that the Liturgy and the Articles of our church are human compositions, and that they possess no weight of authority unless they are in strict accordance with holy writ: but do not the sacred writers in the most positive terms assert that baptism is regeneration? Is not the following passage conclusive: 'But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life'" (Titus iii. 4-7).
Mr. Roscoe.—"This passage most certainly associates baptism and regeneration together; but it does not say that we are regenerated by baptism. The washing of regeneration, or baptism, is the mere external sign of that moral purity which is the effect of the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And that this is the meaning of the passage, I appeal to your good sense; for, if we are regenerated by baptism, where is the necessity of the renewing of the Holy Ghost?"
Rev. Mr. Roscoe.—"I do not mean that baptism itself regenerates us, but that the Holy Spirit regenerates us when we are receiving the sacrament."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Simon Magus was one of the first converts to Christianity; he was baptized by Philip, but he was not regenerated by the Holy Spirit. He had been baptized, but he still remained unholy, and 'in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.' This simple fact proves that baptism is not regeneration, unless you are prepared to admit that a regenerate person may be 'in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity;' and if so, what spiritual advantage does he derive from his regeneration? If by baptism Simon Magus was made a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, it is evident that he required some moral change after this, as we are expressly informed that his heart was not right in the sight of God, and that he had no part nor lot in any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit."
Rev. Mr. Roscoe.—"I candidly confess that this case of Simon Magus seems to militate against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; or, at any rate, it clogs it with difficulties which are not easily overcome."
Mrs. John Roscoe.—"So I think, and so I should imagine every person of common sense would think. In my opinion, it settles the question."
Mr. Roscoe.—"But there are other difficulties which press upon the doctrine, which seem to me insuperable. If baptismal regeneration be the only regeneration possible in this world, and no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated by water, what will become of those children who die unbaptized? Shall we consign all the offspring of the Friends and of the Baptists to a state of future misery, and nearly all the children of Scotland, and of those of our own church, who die before the ceremony can be performed; shall we plunge them, in fact, into hell, with the devil and his angels, when we know they have committed no actual sin? What is this but representing the mothers of earth bringing forth children to people the infernal regions. Most horrible! Indeed, rather than embrace a doctrine that entails after it such fearful consequences, I could consent to close my Bible, as a revelation of wrath rather than of mercy."
Rev. Mr. Roscoe.—"But I do not see that this consequence necessarily follows; because Almighty God may of his goodness take these children to heaven, though they may not have been baptized."
Mr. Roscoe.—"What! if baptism be regeneration. Are not children conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity? Do they not partake of our impurity, and can we suppose that they will carry a depraved nature with them into heaven? If so, evil abounds there no less than here; and all the anticipations which we indulge of attaining a state of unsullied purity and bliss after the close of life, must be regarded as the illusions of the fancy:—No, their moral nature must be changed; and if they are not baptized, it must be changed by the renewing of the Holy Spirit, without the external ceremony, which proves that regeneration is essentially different and distinct from baptism. I will give you a quotation from the pen of an elegant writer, which will, I think, decide the question:—'But that baptism is not regeneration, is placed beyond all reasonable debate by the following declarations of St. Paul: "I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect" (1 Cor. i. 14, 17). Nothing is more certain than that, if baptism insures or proves regeneration, Paul, who so ardently desired the salvation of mankind, and wished to become, as extensively as possible, the instrument of their salvation, could not thank God that he baptized none of the Corinthians but Gaius, Crispus, and the household of Stephanus. To him it would comparatively have been a matter of indifference whether they accused him of baptizing in his own name or not. Of what consequence could the clamour, the disputes, or the divisions be, which might arise about this subject, compared, on the one hand, with the salvation, and on the other with the perdition of the Corinthians? Instead of thanking God in this manner, he would have baptized every Corinthian who would have permitted him; and, like a Romish missionary, have compelled crowds and hosts to the streams and to the rivers in the neighbourhood, that they might receive the ordinance at his hands. With still less propriety could he say, if baptism were the means of regeneration, especially if it insured or proved it, that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Christ, as He himself hath told us, sent St. Paul to the Gentiles and to the Corinthians, as well as other Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. In other words, Christ sent St. Paul to the Gentiles to accomplish their regeneration. But if baptism be the means of regeneration, or be accompanied by it, then Christ actually sent him to baptize, in direct contradiction to the passage just now quoted. From both these passages it is evident that baptism neither insures nor proves regeneration, unless we believe that the gratitude of the most zealous apostle rose in intensity in proportion as he failed in accomplishing the design of his mission.'"