A64622:7742
A body of divinity, or, The sum and substance of Christian religion catechistically propounded,…A body of divinitie, or, The summe and substance of Christian religion catechistically propounded,…
A body of divinity, or, The sum and substance of Christian religion catechistically propounded, and explained, by way of question and answer : methodically and familiarly handled / composed long since by James Usher B. of Armagh, and at the earnest desires of divers godly Christians now printed and published ; whereunto is adjoined a tract, entitled Immanuel, or, The mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God heretofore written [sic] and published by the same author.A body of divinitie, or, The summe and substance of Christian religion catechistically propounded, and explained, by way of question and answer : methodically and familiarly handled / composed long since by James Vsher B. of Armagh, and at the earnest desires of divers godly Christians now printed and published ; whereunto is adjoyned a tract, intituled Immanvel, or, The mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God heretofore writen [sic] and published by the same authour.
London: printed by M.F. for Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1645
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
4. But do we read any thing in Scripture that may infringe the liberty of the Church therein? nay, do not the Scriptures afford many friendly proofs by consequence of it? we read of such an one baptized, ⟨p. 419⟩and all his household, the house of Lydia, of the Jailer, of Crispus, of Stephanus, &c. why should we imagine that there were no infants there, or that they were left out? And if the Scriptures not expressing directly the baptizing of infants, were sufficient reason why that Sacrament should be denied them, then by the same reason the Sacrament of the Lords Supper should be denied to women; for (to my remembrance) it is not expressed in all the new Testament, that any woman did partake of it; which thing yet were senseless to doubt of.
4. But doe we read any thing in Scripture that may infringe the liberty of the Church therein? nay, doe not the Scriptures afford many friendly proofs by consequence of it? we read of such an one baptized, ⟨p. 419⟩and all his houshold, the house of Lydia, of the Jaylor, of Crispus, of Stephanus, &c. why should we imagine that there were no infants there, or that they were left out? And if the Scriptures not expressing directly the baptizing of infants, were sufficient reason why that Sacrament should be denyed them, then by the same reason the Sacrament of the Lords Supper should be denyed to women; for (to my remembrance) it is not expressed in all the new Testament, that any woman did partake of it; which thing yet were senslesse to doubt of.
Thus much of the lawfulness of infants baptism: But is baptism of absolute necessity to salvation?
Thus much of the lawfulnesse of infants baptisme: But is baptisme of absolute necessity to salvation?