Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	law_n	new_a	testament_n	2,758	5	8.1711	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27954	The Reasons for non-conformity examined and refuted, in answer to a late Letter from a minister to a person of quality, shewing some reasons for his non-conformity.		1679 (1679)	Wing R497cA; Wing B26; ESTC R8497	14,618	25

to conform too To conclude this argument it is well observed by Falkners libertas Eccl. ch 4. s 5. a Learned man that the ancient Jews who divided the old Testament into the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographa did for a long time only read the Law in the Synagogues after which only a Section of the Prophets was added but that the Hagiographa which included all the Books from the beginning of the Chronicles to the end of the Canticles besides Ruth Lamentations and Daniel were not read in the Synagogues hath been observ'd from the Talmudists and this is agreeable to divers passages of the new Testament Luk. 4. 16. Acts 13. 15 27. Act. 15. 21. yet Christ and his Apostles blamed not the Jews but joyned with them in this Service Such a vast difference is there between the temper of our Lord and his Apostles and our Pharisaical Schismaticks His next objection is against the order appointed for the Ministration of Baptism which is divided into three Branches First that he does not approve of the strict requiring of God-fathers and God-mothers to stand as Sureties and Undertakers for the Child to be baptized viz. that he shall renounce the Devil and all his works and constantly believe God's holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments His objection is against the strict requiring of this and yet it is not so strictly required as to make it essential to the nature of Baptism as is evident in private Baptism which is declared valid without it but let us hear his Reasons against this First that it is unscriptural but it is not contrary to Scripture and that is answer enough till he can prove that the Church has no power to appoint any Ceremonies or observances but what are expresly warranted by Scripture especially this being an ancient practice both in the Jewish and Christian Church and as the Leyden Professors think Persons whom I know our Synop pur Theol. disp 44. n. 54. Author reverences countenanced by Scripture also Isai 8. 2 3. as has been before observed by Mr. Falkner His second objection against God-fathers is that the Father of the Child is left out if not wholly thrust out a great fault this but how does he prove it because he is not mentioned nor taken notice of at all in that publick stipulation as if he had no concern in it a very wise argument I borrow a Hundred Pounds two of my Friends are bound for the payment of it without taking any farther notice of me than that the Money was lent to me Ergo I am discharged of this debt because other Persons have given a Bond for it and I have given none The obligation of Parents to educate their Children is founded on the Laws of Nature and Religion and acknowledged by all Mankind without an explicite stipulation the obligation of Godfathers is voluntary and therefore requires an express promise and is designed as an additional security to the Church for the religious education of Children baptized His third objection is that God-fathers do not keep this promise but involve themselves in the guilt of lying and perjury this I must acknowledge to be a great fault and I fear too many are chargeable with it but this is the fault of the Men not of the Constitution it is a demonstration of great prudence and piety in the Church by all possible ways to secure the vertuous education of Children who are baptized in their infancy that the Church may not hereafter be scandalized with the ignorance and vices of such untaught and undisciplined Christians the presumption of a religious education is necessary to give any Child a right to baptism and therefore it is very commendable in the Church to take collateral security where it may be had as well as the direct security of Christian Parents Did our Church exact any promise and engagement from God fathers which could not be kept she might be charged with the guilt of their lying and perjury as he calls it but when the promise may easily be performed and is nothing but what one Christian Friend ought to do for another when occasion requires without such a promise let every Man bear the guilt of his neglect without reproaching the most prudent and wholesome Constitutions His second exception against the order of Baptism is against the use of the sign of the Cross but his objections against this are so very trifling that they will give an answerer no great trouble he knows not how to understand those words in token when the Child is signed with the sign of the Cross in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified why what difficulty is there in understanding this word token which is a plain English word and familiarly understood by plain English-men but if he wants a comment he may take Bishop Morton's that it is a declarative token of duty which afterwards the baptized Defence of three Cerem person ought to perform c. but he believes the generality may mistake in token for in vertue and power of this sign but I believe he suspects the generality to be more silly than they are till their understandings are debauched with fanaticism and I need not tell him who may be thanked for that but the way of these Men is to put scruples and whimsies into Peoples heads and then to cry down the most innocent and sober usages for fear of giving an occasion of misunderstanding to the vulgar and injudicious but let them look to that to remove the scruples they have made or to bear the guilt of them The sum of his next objection is this that Baptism it self obliges the person baptized to confess the faith of Christ crucified and exhibits vertue and power to that purpose and therefore those words in token c. should be more properly and immediately after Baptism and not after signing with the sign of the Cross as if baptizing with water were not sufficient of it self but more over the sign of the Cross needful to bind the Conscience and confer the blessing which is too too like a Sacrament upon a Sacrament where we may observe the sliness of this Author who would fain insinuate a charge which he dares not own This adding the sign of the Cross to Baptism is as if baptizing with water were not sufficient of it self and is too too like a Sacrament upon a Sacrament Speak out man is it so or not does the Church of England make the sign of the Cross essential to Baptism and that Water-baptism is imperfect without it here his courage fails him as not daring to assert so known a falsehood the Church of England having so expresly declared the contrary in the XXXVI Canon and in her Rubrick after the Office for private Baptism where the Child privately baptized without the sign of the Cross is declared to be lawfully and sufficiently baptized and ought not to be