Ship of Fools: Common Worship Baptisms alienate people

Thread: Common Worship Baptisms alienate people Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030443

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

I hate, hate, hate Common Worship’s order for baptism. Why four questions and promises at the presentation of the candidates, followed by six at the decision, three at the profession of faith and six at the commission. Very few people feel able to swear to all this in good conscience. I hate it so much I could join the Prayer Book Society for this reason alone as the BCP only asked one renunciation and that, vicariously, in the name of the child:

Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world with all the covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.

Now we have an entire exam of orthodoxy, complete with a virtual signing to the doctrine of justification by faith alone (this child begins his journey in faith… you speak for him today etc).

There’s something unsettling in choosing what is still supposed to be an alternative rite, as the BCP is still supposed to be doctrinally normative in the CofE, and then putting people off baptism and alienating them from the church (or offering ‘blessings’ instead) because they feel uneasy with so much questioning and promising.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I hate, hate, hate Common Worship’s order for baptism. Why four questions and promises at the presentation of the candidates, followed by six at the decision, three at the profession of faith and six at the commission. Very few people feel able to swear to all this in good conscience.

Well then maybe those people who cannot swear to it (actually it isn't swearing, but never mind) shouldn't be bringing their children for baptism.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

In my experience it is usually curtailed - I've never heard anyone asking "Do you submit to Christ as Lord?"

But it's good to have the Apostle's Creed.

I hadn't noticed the justification by faith bit. I'm a bit puzzled by that.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Maybe this will help.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

Well then maybe those people who cannot swear to it (actually it isn't swearing, but never mind) shouldn't be bringing their children for baptism. [/QB][/QUOTE]

That's exactly my point: do you have to subscribe to all that to bring your child to baptism or is what the BCP requires sufficient. It alienates people.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The BCP includes the Apostle's Creed, which CW does and the 1980 ASB didn't.

My godparents promised on my behalf to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil.

Fair enough, but God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, the Word became flesh and I don't believe in the devil other than a powerful image for the trajectory of evil.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I hate, hate, hate Common Worship’s order for baptism. Why four questions and promises at the presentation of the candidates, followed by six at the decision, three at the profession of faith and six at the commission. Very few people feel able to swear to all this in good conscience.
Well then maybe those people who cannot swear to it (actually it isn't swearing, but never mind) shouldn't be bringing their children for baptism.

Amen, Mr Cheesy. well said!

[ 14. January 2016, 21:08: Message edited by: Offeiriad ]

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

My child wasn't baptised under Common Worship but I must admit that I had and have troubles with being pressured to acquiesce to particular wordings of my faith.

And that is from someone who knows what obscure language like "He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty" means in traditional theology.

Making the parents in effect feel like they have to pass a public test to get their children baptised definitely puts them off. Many will either just ignore the words (oh, its just what you say. Don't worry about it) or will feel uneasy that they have to publicly commit to things they feel they don't fully understand or agree with.

My experience is that the effect of pushing for public statements of faith by the parents is that the parents who take the whole thing more seriously are more likely to choose not to go ahead then the parents who are doing it solely to placate relatives or as a traditional ceremony.

Baptism of children is one of those areas where the Church meets the people on its edges and invites them in.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Personally I really dislike the positioning of the Apostles' Creed, whether it is an infant or an adult who is being baptised

The candidate is asked for declarations of faith: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father? Do you believe and trust in God the Son? Do you believe and trust in God the Holy Spirit?"

As far as I remember, the response used to be: "I believe and trust in him" - which is exactly right. I would also be content with a simple "Yes!"

But now the response is the Creed, a statement not of personal commitment but of doctrinal orthodoxy!

It's almost as though one is saying: "Well, I believe in him... I'm not sure I want to answer the rest of the question..."

I always wish for the candidate to yell at the end: "And I trust him, too!"

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Anyway, faith is more than assenting to a list of doctrines.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

while I am not a complete unrestricted fan of the NZPB (the sycophantic attitude to the book in NZ is such that it demands to all but obeisance, total obedience, and mystical adoration) one of the handful of things it has got powerfully right is that the confession of faith comes after the rite of baptism ...

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

Damn you, Mr Cheesy and Offeiriad, you can't just shoot from the hip and withdraw like that. Why are the Apostles' Creed and the renunciation of the world, the flesh and the devil not enough? Are seventeen questions, answers, promises (not swearing) etc, really necessary? If so, why?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Damn you, Mr Cheesy and Offeiriad, you can't just shoot from the hip and withdraw like that.

And good day to you too, Joesaphat.

quote:
Why are the Apostles' Creed and the renunciation of the world, the flesh and the devil not enough? Are seventeen questions, answers, promises (not swearing) etc, really necessary? If so, why?

Assuming we're all talking about the same thing, the liturgy first asks a simple question:

Do you wish to be baptized?

Which is quite a loaded question, but presumably we can all agree that someone should only be going forward for baptism if their parents know what it is and assent to it. Which implies more than a casual acquaintance with the doctrines of the Church of England.

The next is a statement made to the whole congregation

Faith is the gift of God to his people.
In baptism the Lord is adding to our number
those whom he is calling.
People of God, will you welcome these children/candidates
and uphold them in their new life in Christ?

I think it is hard to disagree with the intention behind those - if we're talking about a Christian community that holds baptism as a sacrament.

Next we have a statement for Parents/Godparents

Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
Will you pray for them,
draw them by your example into the community of faith
and walk with them in the way of Christ?

In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ's Church?

It is true that this assumes some basic knowledge and assent to the Christian faith by the parents and godparents. However, unless we're saying that everyone should be baptised unilaterally by the church, whether or not they're part of families involves in the church (which presumably could only be done by the Church buying freshwater reservoirs) it isn't really a bad thing.

Next we come to the decision. The statements the candidates are asked are:

Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?

Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?

Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?

Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?

Do you submit to Christ as Lord?

Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
[b]

Then there is a Profession of Faith where the congregation say the Creed

Then the candidates/Parents are asked

[b]Is this your faith? and they're baptised.

So in brief we have a clear statement that those coming to baptism are doing it voluntarily, that the congregation will nurture those baptised in the faith, that Parents/Godparents are (a) part of the church and (b) believe in the faith and a then a call to faith in Christ. Then the church says the Creed and the candidates are asked if this is the faith they believe in.

You asked above

quote:
Why are the Apostles' Creed and the renunciation of the world, the flesh and the devil not enough?

Well for one thing that's old language which few understand the implications of. For another, it might well be unreasonable to expect candidates and Parents/Godparents to fully understand the ramifications of the Apostles Creed - whilst assenting to the fact that this indeed the faith that they're part of.

What does it mean to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil? What actually are candidates saying here?

You ask why these questions are necessary. I'd turn the question around: why is it not necessary to ask candidates/parents to turn to Christ as Saviour and Lord? Why is it not necessary to ask for a commitment to the Lord, the one we're all supposed to there for?

In my view it is entirely possible to get through the prayer book wording unaffected because the old words have limited meaning to most people born after 1900. That's a much more difficult thing to do with the Common Worship baptism service, which is exactly as it should be.

The idea that the Anglican church should have liturgies set in aspic is a pretty stupid one, in my opinion.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

You've got this a little bit wrong, I'm afraid. The president says, "Do you wish to be baptised?" to "those candidates for baptism who are old enough to answer for themselves". And "Testimony by the candidates may follow". Any Baptist would be happy with that!

But in Infant Baptism those words are omitted and s/he goes straight on with the "words to the congregation" and to the parents/Godparents - or so I presume.

[ 15. January 2016, 08:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

The candidate is asked for declarations of faith: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father? Do believe and trust in God the Holy and trust in him" - which is exactly It's almost as though o I' ot sure I want to answer the r trust him, !"

Those were the questions in the Alternative Service Book 1980. They can still be use "for pastoral reasons". They were at the last baptism I attended.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
You've got this a little bit wrong, I'm afraid. The president says, "Do you wish to be baptised?" to "those candidates for baptism who are old enough to answer for themselves". And "Testimony by the candidates may follow". Any Baptist would be happy with that!

That's true. As it happens I was baptised in an Anglican church at 21 and the ASB version was used.

quote:
But in Infant Baptism those words are omitted and s/he goes straight on with the "words to the congregation" and to the parents/Godparents - or so I presume.

It says

The president asks those candidates for baptism who are old enough to answer for themselves

I apologise if I was not clear in the above.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've never seen much problem with the theology of the CW rite. I don't think it is necessary to treat the questions as an A level exam, or expect parents and others to answer with approved statements of orthodoxy. Provided the preparation is properly done, it is possible for the priest to explain how we understand the Decision and invite those responding to say in effect, 'we understand the basic principle that Baptism is turning to the Light of Christ and are happy to accept it, leaving it to the whole Church to explore the theology of it.' The symbolism of facing the Paschal Candle at this point says more than the words.

What I dislike (and have never used) is the long-winded 'Commission' that follows baptism and only says in formal language what should have been explained in the preparation session.

CW baptism is too wordy, but its structure is powerful, especially if the congregation are invited to move around the church, and family members share in the signing with the cross etc.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
CW baptism is too wordy, but its structure is powerful, especially if the congregation are invited to move around the church, and family members share in the signing with the cross etc.

I agree. Some of the blessings of the waters and so forth could also be shortened. This is probably something that should be left to the pastoral discretion of the priest concerned - people who are not regular church attenders might benefit from a simplified version.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I really dislike all this John the Baptist's stuff about repentance when he's baptising people; why can't we just get wet, have a prayer and go off for the party afterwards...?

Baptism isn't compulsory and it always amuses me that people should want a Christening but not what it actually means.

[ 15. January 2016, 14:27: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I really dislike all this John the Baptist's stuff about repentance when he's baptising people; why can't we just get wet, have a prayer and go off for the party afterwards...?

Baptism isn't compulsory and it always amuses me that people should want a Christening but not what it actually means.

Mud frog, I'm aware that I don't think you're CofE but you're bang on there. There's a tension in the CofE between those who wage an ongoing campaign that parents should have at least some understanding of what they are doing, and those who think it's a sin against the holy principle of being welcoming (translation 'nice') not to dish out baptism to anyone who asks for it, irrespective of whether they seem even to aspire to have any awareness that what they are doing might have any significance. The same applies to couples who want weddings without any readings, and people who ask for funerals without any uncomfortable mention of God or Jesus.

Incidentally, since last autumn, there has been an alternative authorised less verbose form of baptism. It's available in pdf here.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

The question in my mind is whether it is CW Baptism alienates people, or whether the content of the CW Baptism Service is what wakes people up to the fact that they are already alienated, and may have been for a long time. If the latter, then surely the solution to that problem lies in their own hands? But I can understand that in the short-term they may be irritated by the fact that the C of E doesn't offer 'baptism-lite' for those who want the grace and privilege but not the challenge.

I spent thirty years walking the tightrope every parish priest needs to walk between welcome and warning. Sometimes it made me unpopular, but I think most in the end appreciated the effort we took to prepare people to get the best out of the experience. Sometimes we got a response of real conversion, just often enough to give me a spirit of real hope when I visited the next family of enquirers to try my best to help them to understand what Christianity was all about.

[ 15. January 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: Offeiriad ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In my experience it is usually curtailed - I've never heard anyone asking "Do you submit to Christ as Lord?".

we use the alternative version that leaves that out - it isn't a wrestling match after all (unless you think of Jacob)

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
The question in my mind is whether it is CW Baptism alienates people, or whether the content of the CW Baptism Service is what wakes people up to the fact that they are already alienated, and may have been for a long time. If the latter, then surely the solution to that problem lies in their own hands? But I can understand that in the short-term they may be irritated by the fact that the C of E doesn't offer 'baptism-lite' for those who want the grace and privilege but not the challenge.

I spent thirty years walking the tightrope every parish priest needs to walk between welcome and warning. Sometimes it made me unpopular, but I think most in the end appreciated the effort we took to prepare people to get the best out of the experience. Sometimes we got a response of real conversion, just often enough to give me a spirit of real hope when I visited the next family of enquirers to try my best to help them to understand what Christianity was all about.

Thank you for expressing this so well. I will admit to having been somewhat aghast at this thread, where it has seemed to me that it was being suggested that the church should change its ritual and practice, simply because some neophytes lack experience in a church. The notion that being asked if one assents to the faith should be in some way abridged at a baptism suggests to me that such people are not ready to receive said sacrament at that critical juncture. Using the word alienate in this way just seemed an excuse for shoddy formation.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

In baptisms of babies, the person who receives the sacrament knows nothing of the apostles creed and cannot consent to the faith. Yet we still baptise them.

It seems strange, given that starting point, to exclude a person from the sacrament on the grounds that we judge their parents to be insufficiently comfortable with particular theological language.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Easy solution. If it's such a big deal, dispense with baptism and simply welcome everyone into the church. have a rite that says - great, you're born, you're alive and God loves and we'll all help you explore what it means to remain a believer.

Then, when someone is old enobaptismal vows for themselves and baptise them then. As they now bigger and won't fit in a font you need somehting bigger like a tank. Build one or hire one.

Wait, that's baptist innit .... I'll get me coat.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Easy solution No 2: Have baptisms (certainly of your own children) at Evensong which, if BCP, will allow you to use the BCP service.

My children were baptised at Evensong - too many godparents contractually obliged to be in organ lofts in the morning - and it was lovely, and the Evensong regulars, who numbered many 8 o'clockers, were delighted to get the chance to be at a baptism as well.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

It seems strange, given that starting point, to exclude a person from the sacrament on the grounds that we judge their parents to be insufficiently comfortable with particular theological language.

I don't think "we" are judging how comfortable the parents are with particular language. It is up to the parents to decide whether they are comfortable with promising what is required of them. One of the things the parents promise to do is to raise the baptized child in the faith. If the parents don't know what the faith is, or think that it's wrong, then they'll have a hard time keeping their promise.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
what is required of them

Why the passive voice? Liturgies aren't forces of nature.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
what is required of them
Why the passive voice? Liturgies aren't forces of nature.

Because the details of precisely who is doing the requiring aren't important.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

We are talking about what the Church should require of parents before agreeing to baptise their children I think.

What in your opinion should be required of parents above and beyond consenting to the baptism of their children in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? I mean not only beliefs (which of course we can never verify) but actions and statements?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

What in your opinion should be required of parents above and beyond consenting to the baptism of their children in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? I mean not only beliefs (which of course we can never verify) but actions and statements?

You're right - we don't have a way of telling whether people are lying. We assume that they are honest, and proceed on that basis.

mr cheesy went through the actions and statements in the CW baptism service earlier in this thread. To summarize:

1. Parents and Godparents are required to commit to praying for the newly baptized, and to raise him or her in the faith.

2. They are then asked, in a multi-part question, to reject the devil and turn to Christ.

3. Everyone professes the faith in the Apostles' creed.

...or, in the Cliff notes version, "I want my kid baptized and I know what that means."

Nowhere in the service are the parents required to assent, either implicitly or explicitly, to justification by faith alone, or any other theological details. They are required to assent to the creed.

I think that's a good thing. This is the core of the faith. It describes who Jesus Christ is, and surely someone wishing to be reborn in Christ should know who he his?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Almost all our baptisms take place as a part of the main 10 am service, and using the APBA service for baptism/confirmation and Holy Communion. That uses the Apostles' Creed, and after that has been said by the congregation, we all say: 'This is our faith and the faith of the Church. We believe in one God, Father Son and Holy Spirit'. No niceties from the 39 Articles (which do not have the same force here as in England), or anything else, just the essentials.

As to the thread's title and the assertion that the service alienates people: so far, there's been no evidence put forward in support and I suspect that there is none.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

Y'all seem to see infant baptism somewhat like believers-baptism by proxy.

I assume you all agree that if the parents turned up, said all the right things yet were just going through the motions and didn't believe a word if it, the baby would nevertheless be validly baptised?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
. No niceties from the 39 Articles (which do not have the same force here as in England), or anything else, just the essentials.

There is no reference to the 39 Articles in any C of E baptism service I've ever known.

Where did you get the idea there was?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I have no idea what may or may not be in current C of E baptisms, nor saying what is in fact in there; the BCP of course, but not the current approved books. I was picking up a point made somewhere upthread about both the 39 Articles and other doctrinal matters and contrasting the simplicity of the assent (given by the whole congregation) of the essentials of our faith in APBA.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
The question in my mind is whether it is CW Baptism alienates people, or whether the content of the CW Baptism Service is what wakes people up to the fact that they are already alienated, and may have been for a long time. If the latter, then surely the solution to that problem lies in their own hands? But I can understand that in the short-term they may be irritated by the fact that the C of E doesn't offer 'baptism-lite' for those who want the grace and privilege but not the challenge.

I spent thirty years walking the tightrope every parish priest needs to walk between welcome and warning. Sometimes it made me unpopular, but I think most in the end appreciated the effort we took to prepare people to get the best out of the experience. Sometimes we got a response of real conversion, just often enough to give me a spirit of real hope when I visited the next family of enquirers to try my best to help them to understand what Christianity was all about.

Yes, but the hew questions are corporate: they are asked to everyone present, and assume that if you're not a fully committed Christian (and I'd have a twinge of conscience saying yes to absolutely each and every one of them) you must shut up. It's not a matter of saying the apostles' Creed with the whole church. It's not asked to the parents and godparents alone: do you? do you? do you? three times. And some questions are quite leading: 'she begins her journey in faith, you speak for her today... will you etc.' You may think nothing of believing that baptism is all about 'submitting to Christ as Lord' and 'drowning sin in the waters of judgement...' but this is much more theologically aligned than the BCP.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Demas:
[QB] Y'all seem to see infant baptism somewhat like believers-baptism by proxy.

Gosh, you managed to say it in a single sentence. Yes, that's pretty much the tenor of the change between BCP and CW

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

What should be borne in mind is the reading that the BCP Baptism Service had:

They brought young children to Christ, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

Put another way - why seek to punish a child for the presumed sins or shortcomings of the parent?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What should be borne in mind is the reading that the BCP Baptism Service had:

They brought young children to Christ, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

Put another way - why seek to punish a child for the presumed sins or shortcomings of the parent?

I must have missed the part where anyone suggested punishment in any way.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There is only one sort of baptism. The age of the candidates doesn't make any difference.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There is only one sort of baptism. The age of the candidates doesn't make any difference.

Absolutely! Baptism is Baptism!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What should be borne in mind is the reading that the BCP Baptism Service had:

They brought young children to Christ, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

Which is about blessing, not baptism.

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
while I am not a complete unrestricted fan of the NZPB (the sycophantic attitude to the book in NZ is such that it demands to all but obeisance, total obedience, and mystical adoration) one of the handful of things it has got powerfully right is that the confession of faith comes after the rite of baptism ...

Rather off-topic, but after my time in Suva I became rather fond of the NZPB. All that dodging around working out whether we were reading the English, Maori, or added-in bits of Fijian or Tonga really reminded you this is a universal church. We usually used the first or third orders for Eucharist.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

If anything the BCP service is more demanding than CW (unless you have a wholly modern understanding that the godparents can say something as sureties for the child which is not true for themselves). The BCP stresses the point that the baptised are to be reminded that what is done and promised for the child is true of them in their own baptism

quote:
The people are to be admonished, that… in the Baptism of Infants every man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession made to God in his Baptism.

the service then continues

quote:
Ye have heard also that our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised in his Gospel, to grant all these things that ye have prayed for: which promise he, for his part, will most surely keep and perform. Wherefore, after this promise made by Christ, this Infant must also faithfully, for his part, promise by you that are his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon himself,) that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy Word, and obediently keep his commandments.

I demand therefore,
Dost thou, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?
Answer.I renounce them all.
Minister.Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
Answer.All this I stedfastly believe.
Minister.Wilt thou be baptized in this faith?
Answer. That is my desire.
Minister.Wilt thou then obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life?
Answer. I will.

and after that the responsibilities of parents and godparents are outlined to them

quote:
Forasmuch as this Child hath promised by you his sureties to renounce the devil and all his works, to believe in God, and to serve him: Ye must remember that it is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise and profession he hath here made by you. And that he may know these things the better, ye shall call upon him to hear sermons; and chiefly ye shall provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health; and that this Child may be virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life; remembering always, that Baptism doth represent unto us our profession; which is, to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him; that as he died and rose again for us, so should we, who are baptized, die from sin and rise again unto righteousness, continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0