A discourse concerning the subject of baptism wherein the present controversies, that are agitated…A discourse concerning the subject of baptisme wherein the present controversies, that are agitated…

I remember a tremendous Instance to that purpose of one about fourteen years ago, in Sherborne in Dorset, who being imprisoned upon the Account of familiarity with Satan, confessed to others (and to my self also) that the Devil made her to renounce her Baptism, and so made a formal Covenant with her, giving her a new name, &c. But certainly, it will not please Christ, that we should Baptize those into his Name, who are visibly and manifestly the servants of Satan: we know of old, they were wont professedly (and their conversations might not contradict that Profession) to renounce Satan, &c. or they were not Baptized, shall we then Baptize such as remain the known Subjects of his Kingdom? And this Argument holds, not only concerning such as have a just censure formally passed upon them by the Church, but also with reference to them that are ipso jure Excommunicate i. e. that are so visolius legis sine sententiâ judicis, yea (which is more) they that are de jure Excommunicate, have no right to Baptism, now this is true concerning all Heretical or Profane persons, yea ⟨p. 70⟩and obstinate persisters in lesser evils, then Heresy or Scandal, whom we may suppose to have a present standing in the visible Church, they ought not to be tolerated there, but the Rule is express for their being forth with rejected, except they repent, Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12. 2 Toes. 3 6. Tit. 3. 10. or if such be not already in the Church they may not be admitted, and therefore not Baptized, whereby Admission into the Church is Solemnized, it cannot be a duty to solemnize the Admission of a person into the Church (which is done in Baptism) and yet at the same time a duty to reject him from Church-fellowship (which is a duty concerning such persons as were but now mentioned) […] such have not right to Baptism. But as for many that profess Christianity, they are Excommunicates either formally or de jure Ergo.

I remember a tremendous Instance to that purpose of one about fourteen years agoe, in Sherborn in Dorset, who being imprisoned upon the Accompt of familiarity with Satan, confessed to others (and to my self also) that the Devil made her to renounce her Baptisme, and so made a formal Covenant with her, giving her a new name, &c. But certainly, it will not please Christ, that we should Baptize those into his Name, who are visibly and manifestly the servants of Satan: we know of old, they were wont professedly (and their conversations might not contradict that Profession) to renounce Satan, &c. or they were not Baptized, shall we then Baptize such as remain the known Snbjects of his Kingdome? And this Argument holds, not only concerning such as have a just censure formally passed upon them by the Church, but also with reference to them that are ipso jure Excommunicate i. e. that are so visolius legis sine sententiâ judicis, yea (which is more) they that are de jure Excommunicate, have no right to Baptisme, now this is true concerning all Heretical or Prophane persons, yea