Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	3,255	5	9.3290	5	false

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

baptized again The sum then of his argument is this that he dares not approve the sign of the Cross because the use of it after Baptism may by a perverse interpretation seem to be what it is not and what he dares not affirm it to be It is some comfort that this Writer acknowledges in the next Paragraph that the Primitive Christians did use the sign of the Cross as indeed they did both in administring Baptism and upon divers other occasions which one would think might justifie the Church of England in conforming to a Primitive practice but what he adds that they did it to distinguish themselves from the Pagans who scorned the Cross together with every sign and token of it is never alledged as the reason of this practice by the ancient Christians who did not use this sign to distinguish themselves from Jews and Pagans though every peculiar usage for what reason soever it be taken up will necessarily prove a note of distinction but to declare that as much as a crucified Christ was scorned both by Jews and Heathens they were not ashamed of the cross but did put their whole trust and confidence in their crucified Lord and were ready when ever God pleased to call them to it to be conformed to their suffering Head and this is a perpetual reason for this use while the Church has any enemies and it is never like to be without while there are either Atheists or Fanaticks or Papists That the sign of the cross has been abused by Papists to idolatrous purposes is no better argument against using the sign of the cross than it is against owning the cross it self for in using the sign of the cross we only own the cross that is we profess to own a crucified Lord and the Doctrine and Religion of the Cross But this Person is much mistaken in the temper of the Church of England which neither does any thing nor leaves any thing undone meerly for a note of distinction and separation that is a piece of vanity and affectation which is peculiar to Pharisees and some other People who are very like them He has one objection more against the order of baptism which refers to the Rubrick at the end of that Office Viz. It is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved Now had I a mind to wave this dispute I might tell him that we do not give our assent and consent to this Rubrick because though it be contained in yet it is not prescribed by the Book of Common prayer that is it is never to be used and we assent and consent only to the use of those things which are both contained in and prescribed by that Book but since this is evidently the doctrine of our Church as appears both from the Homilies and several passages in the Office of Baptism it self I shall briefly consider his objections against it And first he wishes they had quoted the place where this is affirmed in Scripture for he knows not where to find it and I would desire him to tell me whether nothing be undoubtedly certain by Scripture but what we have an express Text for if not we must reject the Baptism of Infants too which will put an end to the dispute concerning their salvation when baptized If those who are regularly admitted into the Church of Christ have a right to the blessings of the Covenant then they have a title to salvation if they have not then Baptism is an insignificant ceremony and not the Seal of a Covenant which I suppose our Author will not easily affirm no not to oppose the Church of England I say those who are regularly admitted by baptism for so our Church supposes which answers most of his captious and impertinent queries If the Children of very bad Parents be regularly admitted by baptism or to speak plainer may be lawfully baptized as in some cases no doubt they may we must acknowledge they receive the benefit of baptism too but if any are baptized who have no right to baptism we are not bound to prove that baptism shall be of any advantage to them no more than that a Child shall inherit an Estate by vertue of an illegal or fraudulent conveyance Thus the supposition of a Christian King baptizing the Children of Pagans Turks Jews by the same force by which he conquered their Parents concerns more the legality of the Act than the vertue of the Sacrament for where-ever the Sacrament is lawfully administred it will have its due effect It is a very pretty objection against the vertue of baptism that it supposes it to be in the power of a man to make Infants sure and certain of salvation viz. by murdering of them as soon as they are baptized and accordingly he teaches Whores a more charitable way of murdering their Infants to baptize them first that so their Souls may be saved which is true Fanatick talk and proves the objector to have more need of good Physick than a serious answer for let him put the case as odly as he pleases Children that are lawfully baptized are in Covenant with God and have a good title to salvation and those who murder them send them to Heaven as other Murderers do all the good men they kill He asks just such another raving question May a Minister since baptizing gives such an unquestionable title to Heaven deny or suspend the ordinance to any Infant whatsoever if he might be permitted to administer it if by permission he means a legal permission according to the terms and conditions of the Gospel the answer is plain that he ought not to deny it that is a Gospel Minister ought not to deny Baptism to any Infant who has a just right to it if he means any other permission than this the Man is mad and needs no other answer for we don't suppose that Baptism works like a spell or charm to whomsoever it be applied but its vertue depends upon a Divine institution and therefore requires persons duly qualified to receive it But he strangely aggravates the cruelty of those Ministers who refuse to baptize Children and consequently keep them under a suspicion of damnation because their Parents scruple God-fathers and God-mothers and the sign of the Cross such an one he says deserves if possible to be unchristened himself again and turned among Canibals as one more deeply dipt and baptized in their barbarous inhumanities and adds and yet if he be a true Son of the Church and punctually observe his prescribed rule he must not baptize any Infant without God fathers and God-mothers without signing it with the sign of the Cross whether it be saved or damned ought not this Man of conscience nay of a tender conscience to have been very sure this charge had been just before he had condemned the whole Clergy of the Church of England to be turned among Canibals and yet nothing can be more

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