Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptize_v	jesus_n	john_n	3,386	5	6.8394	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26886	Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending them against several sorts of opponents, especially against the second assault of that pious, reverend and dear brother Mr. Thomas Blake / by Richard Baxter ...	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1658 (1658)	Wing B1212; ESTC R39868	418,313	558

with water to Repentance therefore it is but an engagement of them to it for the future Answ. Our expositors have fully shewed that this signifieth no more but I baptize you upon your present Profession of Repentance to newness of life For that this Profession did go before is proved already and then the rest can be no more then the continuance of Repentance and exercise of it in newness of life which they are engaged to for the future Only if any falsly profess it at present his own confession is an engagement to it as a duty Grotiu● saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potest non incommode exponi hoc modo B●ptizo vos super professione poenitentiae quam facitis The plain meaning it is in a word I do by baptism initiate you into the state of Repentance or of Penitents but Christ shall give the Holy-Ghost as it was poured forth And so as Pelargus speaks on Mat. 3. against Salmeron we maintain Johns baptisme to be ●ffectual being the baptism of Repentance to Remission of sin And that it was true Repentance that he required appeareth further by the fruits of it tha● he calle●h for from the Pharisees Mat. 3.6 7 8 9 Lastly I shall prove anon that God hath not appointed us to baptize any upon a promise of Repentance or faith before they profess actual faith and Repentance nor are they fit for such a covenant Argum. 2 For the proof of the necessity of a Profession of Repentance before baptism is this If Jesus Christ hath by Scripture precept and example directed us to baptize those that profess true Repentance and no other then we must baptize them and no other But the Antecedent it true therefore so is the consequent All that requireth proof is the Antecedent which I prove from an enumeration of those texts that do afford us this direction besides the forementioned 1. Jesus Christ himself did by preaching Repentance prepare men for baptism and for his kingdom as John before began to do Matth. 4.17 so Mar. 1.15 The Kingdom of God is at hand Repent ye and believe the Gospel And to that end he sent his Apostles and other preachers Mar. 6.12 Acts 17 30. Luke 24.47 Repentance and Remission is to be preached to all Nations in his name And baptism which is for the obsignation of Remission of sin according to the appointed order comes after Repentance And when it is said by John I baptize you with water to Repentance but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost Mat. 3.11 Mar. 1.8 Luk. 3.16 It implyeth that Christs baptism comprehended Johns and somewhat more in Act. 2.37 38. when the Jews were pricked in their heart which was a preparatory Repentance and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we do Peter saith to them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins so that we must require and expect true Evangelical Repentance to be professed before baptism for ver 41. it s added then they that gladly received his word were baptized so that he baptized none that to outward appearance did not gladly receive that word which could not be without a profession of that Repentance And he that here perswadeth them to repent and be baptized for remission doth in the next chapter ver 19. require them to repent and be converted that their sins may be blotted out shewing what kind of Repentance it is that he meaneth And as the work of General Preachers to the unbelieving world is sometime called a discipling of Nations which goeth before baptizing them Mat. 28.19 20. So is it in other places called a Preaching of Repentance and commanding all men everywhere to Repent Acts 17.30 An opening of mens eyes and turning them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God that they may receive Remission obsigned in baptism Act. 26.18 to repent and turn to God ver 20. And it was the sum of Pauls preaching to the unbaptized Repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ Act. 20.21 So that it is apparent that they took the profession or appearance of both Faith and Repentance as pre-requisite to baptism And still this same repentance is it that hath the remission of sin connexed Act. 5.31 Luk. 24 47. It s repentance unto life Act. 11.18 And when the Apostles compare Johns baptism with Christs they still acknowledge Johns to be the baptism of Repentance Act. 13.24 and 19.4 and when the Apostle doth purposely recite the principles of our religion he doth it in this order Heb. 6.1 2. The foundation of repentance from dead works and Faith towards God the doctrine of Baptism c. Argum. 3. They that before they are baptized must renounce the world the flesh and the devil must profess true Evangelical Repentance I mean still such as hath a promise of pardon and salvation but all that are baptized must by themselves or others renounce the world flesh and devil of which we shall have occasion to say more anon Argum. 4. They that profess to be buried with Christ in baptism and to rise again do profess true Repentance but all that are baptized must profess to be buried with him and rise again therefore c. The Major is proved in that to be buried and risen with Christ signifieth A being dead to sin and alive to God and newness of life and it is not only as is feigned by the Opposers an engagment to th●s for the future but a profession of it also at the present This with the rest we thus prove Col. 2.11 12.13 In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in baptism wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead and you being dead in your sins the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses where note 1. that this is spoken to al the Church of the Colossians therefore they are presumed to be what they profess and appear to be 2. that the putting of the body under the water did signifie our burial with Christ and the death or putting off of our sins And although we now use a less quantity of water yet it is to signifie the same thing or else we should destroy the being of the Sacrament so also our rising out of the water signifieth our rising and being quickened together with him 3. Note also that it is not only an engagement to this hereafter but a thing presently done They were in baptism buried with Christ and put off the body of sin and were quickened with him and this doth also suppose their own present Profession to put off the body of sin and their consent to be baptized on

to Execute without Judgement and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge So much to the matter of this Argument And now in Sum to the Argument as in Form 1. I deny the first Consequence if it speak of the Nullity of the External Baptism and not only of the Effect and of Gods Engagement to them 2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences 3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null it followeth not that so is their childrens which they had on their account For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism before they presented us in Baptism though themselves had not been Baptized 4. And I believe it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents any or many at least were notoriously ungodly at our birth 5. Lastly if all this satisfie not but any man will yet needs believe that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine that The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null though I am not of h●s minde yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose I know no such great ill effects it would have if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again without denying the baptism of Infants or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian Firmilian and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches who rebaptized those that were baptized by Hereticks and in Council determined it necessary and were so zealous for it And though while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius who as some say was the first Inventer of it yet I must confess that both before I knew what other men held and since I better know who expound it otherwise and on what grounds I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves Calvin did not think that the 5th vers● was Paul's words of John's Hearers but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water but with the Holy Ghost only and that of that the fifth verse is meant I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively but only as Paul here speaks that they should believe on him that should come after whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus And the words When they heard this seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's saying as the thing which they heard Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck or which he propounded And I confess if I must be swayed by men I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers and Church of all Ages who for ought I find do all that have wrote of it with one consent place a greater difference then we do between John's Baptism and Christs and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul or on his Preaching And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism which himself did institute or command I must needs say I think it much more probable that he was not seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and appointed to be Gods Seal of his washing away our sins by Christs blood all which I know Christ was not capable of And I suppose it more credible that Christ himself should be the Instituter of such an Evangelical Ordinance than John and that he came to fulfill all Legal Righteousness rather than that Evangelical Righteousness which consisteth in obeying himself by doing those things which he hath appointed to redeemed sinners as such for their recovery But of this let every man judge as he is illuminated If I err my danger and deserved reproach I think is no greater than the Ancient Fathers and the Church for so many hundred years that were of the same mind Even they that were nearer to that Age when these matters of Fact were done But for our case its apparent there 's no need of Re-baptizing for there is no Nullity I have done with the Argument but yet there is one Question more that may not be passed over though but on the by and that is Whether the Baptism of all those persons be not Null and they to be Re-baptized who were baptized by such as were Notoriously or Secretly unordained men and no true Ministers To which I only say in brief No 1. If they were not known to be no Ministers it was no fault of ours we waited in Gods appointed way for his Ordinances and therefore though they were sins to them they are valid blessings to us that were not guilty 2. If they were Notoriously no Ministers though it might be our Parents sin that we were presented to such for Baptism yet it is not Null For in these Relations these Instruments are not Essential to the Relation nor to the Ordinance at all Though I would be loth as the Fathers and Papists did to allow a Lay person yea a woman saith Tertullian to baptize in case of Necessity yet should I not be very hasty to Re-baptize such supposinig that they had all the substance of the Ordinance as being baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Argu. 10. Whoever ought in Duty to dedicate his Child to God in the holy Covenant ought also to Baptize him But all notorious ungodly men ought so to dedicate their children to God Ergo c. Answ. I grant the Conclusion It is every mans duty on earth that hears the Gospel to be baptized and give up his children if he have any to Christ in Baptism that is to believe and consent to the Covenant of Grace and so to be baptized But it followeth not that it is their Duty to be Externally Baptized without Faith and such Consent 2. Note also that this Argument as well proves that all the Children of persecuting Heathens should be baptized as ungodly pretended Christians For it is their Duty too Object But when they present their Children they do their Duty though but part