where their Commission is thus enlarged were herein differenced from the Nation to which their Ministerie was first limitted 3. Let that text of the Prophet be well weighed where speaking by the spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jewes and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead in that ample way as it is there set out hath these words Behold I will lift up mine band to the Gentiles Isai 49.22 and set up my standard to the people and they shall bring thy sonnes in their armes and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders If there were but such an hint as that by way of prophesy to have left them behind we should from some have heard of it with a noise 4. In the Lord Christs Dialect who is best able to expresse his own meaning they are Disciples To belong to Christ is to be a Disciple of Christ This is plaine from our Saviours owne mouth comparing his words recorded in Matthew and Mark Matth. 10.42 Mar. 9.41 To give a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a disciple it is in the one To give a cup of water to drink in my Name because ye belong to me it is in the other To belong to Christ to be a Disciple of Christ and to beare the Name of Christ is one and the same thing with our Saviour Now that Infants are of the number of those who as Disciples in Christs account doe belong unto him and beare his Name is yet further plain by another text of St Matthew where Christ setting a little childe in the middest of his hearers saith Who so shall receive one such little child in my Name Matth. 18.5 receiveth me By all which it appeares that which is done to Infants is done to Disciples hath a glorious reward as done to Disciples Infants therfore are Disciples of Christ are of those that doe belong unto him and beare his Name who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize Disciples in the Name of Christ For Examples which they say we want of the Baptisme of Infants 1. I answere first we walke by Rule rather then President the Rule hath been examined 2. Examples are often very rare where the rule is unquestionable and undeniable we have no Example of any triall of the suspect wise by the water of jealousie For womens right to the Lords Supper we have no particular institution no particular President more then for this of Infants Baptisme 3. We have Examples not to be contemned of the Baptisme of whole housholds and whether Infants were there or no as it is not certaine though probable so it is not materiall The President is an Houshold he that followes the President must baptize housholds It appeares not that any wife was there yet he that followes the President in baptizing of housholds must baptize wives and so I may say servants if they be of the houshold Objections are yet brought from humane authoritie Object which I have reserved to the last as accounting them the least And if this dispute might this way be determined that plurality of votes might carry it the adversaries know how it would fare with them in it Origen is vouched calling it a ceremonie or tradition of the Church Hom. 8. in Levit. in Epist ad Rom. lib. 5. Gregorie also in decret distinct de conse One of those traditions which the Apostle charged the Thessalonians to keep Answ 2 Thess 2.15 which I speake not by guesse but we have it in the same Epistle cap. 6. from his own mouth The Church saith he received Baptisme of Infants from the Apostles The greatest points of Faith as is well known are ordinarily called by the name of traditions by the Antients Traditions being onely such things that are delivered from one to another they are as well written as unwritten And we have cause willingly to embrace this testimonie Origen lived 226. yeares after Christ in the beginning of the third Century Alsted Chronol he cals it a tradition of the Church it was therefore delivered over to the Church in his time and of antient use before him Austin cals it a custome of the Church de Baptis contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. And so doe I also call it Answ and the observing of the first day of the weeke the imposition of hands on Church-officers the giving of the Lords Supper to men of growth is a custome of the Church likewise Erasmus saith they are not to be condemned that doubt whether the Baptisme of Infants were ordained by the Apostles Lib. 4. de ratione Concio His words evidently imply that it was their errour Answ and it seemes his thoughts were other of those who openly did oppose it and refuse it Papists openly professe that the Baptisme of Infants is grounded upon tradition and not upon Scripture for which Eckius and Bellarmine are brought in This they doe not really and cordially but for their owne advantage Answ to make good unwritten traditions against Protestant adversaries They know that we maintaine Baptisme of Infants and disclaime these traditions and if Baptisme of infants doe appeare to be one then they have us building what we have destroyed Bellar. indeed in his book de Verbo Dei standing for unwritten traditions as a part of the Word of God will have Baptisme of infants to be one but when he disputes for Baptisme of Infants against Anabaptists then he can heape up texts of Scripture de sacra Baptis cap. 8. So also cap. 9. in the entrance of it Satis apertè colligitur ex Scripturis the Baptisme of Infants is evidently enough gathered from Scriptures The like fetch of his I could shew in other particulars It appeares to be forced on the people by authority of Councels out of the Councell of Milevitanum this Canon is urged It is also our will that those that will not that children be baptized that are new borne from their mothers wombe be excommunicate So in the Nicene Councell it was decreed that we should beleeve that there is one God Maker of all things visible and invisible Answ The greatest points of faith we know under Anathema's are decreed in Councels This Councell was in the fifth Century 200 yeares after Origen who stiles Baptisme of Infants as we have heard a tradition of the Church in his dayes And Austin who was not onely present but as is said President of that Councell returning answer to those that desire divine authority for the Baptisme of Infants for satisfaction first produceth that rule Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur That which the whole Church holds and was not ordained by any Councels but hath ever been held that is rightly beleeved to be by Apostolicall
authoritie This he takes to be sufficient yet for more full satisfaction he goes on to dispute for it from the Scriptures whence we see what himselfe meanes by the custome of the Church And by what authoritie that Councell did appoint the Baptisme of Infants Augustinus de Bapt. contra Donatist lib. 40. cap. 24. ad initium By all this that hath been said it more fully appeares what regard is to be given to that which is cited out of Luther and Cassander concerning the time that Baptisme of Infants was brought into the Church Luther as it is said affirmes that it came into the Church a thousand yeares before his time which must be one hundred yeares after Austin and three hundred yeares after Origen Cassander affirmes that it was brought in three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles which must be an hundred yeares after Origen at least If this had been true these fathers must have said as St Paul of contentions 1 Cor. 11 16. We have no such custome neither the Church of God and could not have said that it was a custome or tradition of the Church Origen then had never knowne it and Austin might have called it an innovation Those conjectures of Tuicencis Iohannes Bohemius cōcerning the occasion of the first in-let of Infants Baptisme into the Church fals to the ground likewise when men heare of a beginning they will be bold to assigne some reason of it If my conjecture may be heeded I suppose it was in some dis-use with many not long after the Apostles times and that by reason of the superstitious conceit that too soon prevailed of the opus operatum in Baptisme that it cleanses all sinnes that are past whether originall or actuall And therefore many that were converted at ripe yeares deferred their Baptisme as neere the houre of death as might be to have all their sinnes cleansed by that water against which custome Bellarmine at large disputes by reason of the absolute necessity of Baptisme though both his grounds and theirs are on a false bottome May we not then beleeve that parents upon the same ground did put off the Baptisme of their children and after did re-assume it upon the necessity of it And this is that which the authour produced viz. Iohannes Behemius speaks of But Mr Daniel Rogers above all is stood upon in his Treatise of the Sacraments he hath these words I take the Baptisme of Infants to be one of the most reverend generall and uncontrolled traditions which the Church hath and which I would no lesse doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolicall although I confesse my selfe yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it I wish the Reader to consider what the adversary gaines by this testimony Answ It is generall uncontrolled he saith and so he knowes unwritten traditions never were Orthodox Divines antient and moderne have ever opposed them In gaining a peice of a witnesse such an one that hath his reasons to beleeve Baptisme of Infants to be Apostolicall they have the Church unanimously in all successive ages their adversatie And as the Infants of beleeving parents are to be received to Baptisme The consectarie enlarged so no Infants that descend from those that make Profession of the faith of Christ are to be refused Any solid reason which will lye against any for ought can be said may be a ground of the challenge of all The promise made to those that professe Christ and their seed takes in the seed of all that make profession Some that doe not withstand but maintaine and practise the Baptisme of Infants have found a middle way as betweene rigid Brownists and Presbyterians so between Anabaptists and as I may say Paedo-baptists All Infants they will not have to be refused confessing them to be within the verge of the promise yet they will not have all promiscuously received The parents by solemne Covenant must first be made members of some particular congregation and so their Issue is to be admitted their children baptized otherwise both parents and children are to be accounted as without by nature unholy and only the Godly regenerate so farre as men can judge no one of loose life to be admitted But this middle way under correction I cannot but take to be a step out of the way I will here dispute it no further then as it concernes this particular Either the vicious and scandalous life of such a parent or his non admission into Covenant in a Congregationall way is the barre of the Infant that he is not admitted unto Baptisme but neither of these may be a barre First not the vicious life of his parent If the ground of a childs admission to baptisme be not the faith of his immediate parent but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith whose seed he is though at the greater distance Then the loose life of an immediate parent can be no barre to his baptisme This is plaine if Iosiah have no right from his father Ammon yet he is not to be shut out in case he have right from his father David or his father Abraham And though the immediate parent were not wronged when his child is so shut out and denied yet such Ancestor in distance is wronged out of whose loynes the Infant is descended If Phinehas were not wronged in case Ichabod had been debarred yet Eli yea Aaron had suffered But the ground of a childs admission is the promise to Ancestors whether at neerer or greater distance The promise is to beleevers and their seed Now Iosiah was the seed of David Christ was the seed of David An Ancestor at distance and not alone immediate where the race within the Church may be derived in a continued succession gives right of admission therefore unto baptisme 2. There is nothing that can exclude the seed of him that is a beleever as beleever is opposed to an Infidell the seed of one that is of a dogmaticall or historicall faith This we have before made good and from 1 Cor. 7.14 may be further cleared He that is no Infidell is there a beleever whose seed is holy But a man of a vicious life is in that sense a beleever Simon Magus Acts 8.13 Luk. 8.13 the hearers compared to the rocky ground were beleevers therefore a loose life will not exclude the Issue His seed who is a member of a particular Church society must be admitted unto baptisme a Church member and all that are his must have their priviledges But it often falls out that men of loose lives are members as the Church of Corinth yeelds many proofes 2 Cor. 12.20 21 c. Therefore vicious life excludes not the Issue Secondly The non-admission into Covenant is no barre in the parent 1. It was no barre when themselves who now are members were admitted in their infancy their parents for the most part being no members in such a way Therefore now it is no barre though
that Affront which those in the Gospel met with in their tender of Infants Here is somewhat produced to that end and left to thy Judicious censure The Authour hath spared all invective language and intreats like dealing from any that differs in opinion Some will complain of a naked Margin to which much might be said The Authour was with books when it was compiled for the Pulpit but taken from them when it was fitted for the Presse So that use of Marginall References must have put him upon the borrowed copies of others and a new pains for quotation of Chapter Page Besides the quotations desired must either have been friends and so their Evidence would be challenged or else Adversaries which perhaps might provoke some personall offences and distaste which the Authour studiously professeth to avoid We all must stand or fall to our Master Rom. 14 4. and this dispute must stand or fall according to his sentence which is the Voyce of Scriptures Iohn 12.48 If this put no end to the difference the dispute will be everlasting Witnesses from the dead are in vain mustered Luke 16.31 Ephes 3.20 when Moses and the Prophets Prophets and Apostles cannot be heard If by this candle from thence lighted thou seest any thing to make more clear this title to thy selfe and posterity let God have the praise and the Authour thy prayers THE BIRTH-PRIVILEDGE GAL. 2.15 We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles THis Chapter contains a two-fold Narration of the Apostle The Introduction 1. Of his journey to Jerusalem with the severall occurrents which happened there brought in by him for the vindication of his Apostleship from the first to the eleventh vers 2. Of his dealing with Peter at Antioch which Narration some say is continued to the end of the Chapter others that it is broke off at the seventeenth verse and in the verses that follow the Apostle doth not relate what he said to Peter but directs his words to the Galathians to whom he writes which difference I intend not now to examine My text is within this last Narration or report of the Apostle In which observe 1. The occasion given by Peter Before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come he withdrew Verse 12. and separated himselfe 2. The Issue which followed upon this carriage of his Verse 13. And the other Iewes dissembled likewise with him insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation 3. The Arguments brought for cōviction of Peter of this error which are two First Verse 14. in the fourteenth verse If thou being a Iew livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as doe the Iewes why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as doe the Iewes Thus the Argument runs It is unreasonable to draw others into a practice that thou thy selfe purposely forbearest But thou thy selfe keepest not the Jewish Rites and Ordinances And therefore it is an unreasonable and a blame-worthy practice by thy example to compell other-to their observation yea thou being a Jew takest thy selfe to have freedome unreasonably then dost thou draw on others who were never under any such obligation The second Argument is in the fifteenth and sixteenth Verses Verses 15 16. We who are Iewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the saith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified which is thus inforced In that way wherein we who are Jewes with all our birth-priviledges cannot attain to righteousnesse we may not teach the Gentiles to attain to it But we who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles cannot this way attain to righteousnesse We know that a man is justified by faith we are compelled to quit the Law and to cleave to faith without works for justification The words of the text contain First Division the Priviledge of Peter Paul Barnabas with the rest of the Jewes Secondly The Character of the Gentiles in opposition to the Iewes As to the full purpose for which the words are brought by the Apostle they have for the sense of them their dependance on the words that follow but so farre as they contain the priviledge of the Iewes in opposition to and above the Gentiles so farre they are full of themselves shewing first positively what himself and Peter were Iewes by nature Secondly Negatively what they were not sinners of the Gentiles For some explication Explication Nature is here taken not in the proper but vulgar acceptation for birth or descent from Ancestors As usually in our common phrase of speech we say men are naturally Dutch French Spanish Irish when they are such born and bred this Scripture therefore Camero cites for one in which the Apostle speaks after the vulgar manner we have a Scripture paralell with this Rom. 11.24 where Nature and naturall is only by birth and off-spring Peter Paul Barnabas were all naturally Iewes born of Jewish parents and bred up in the way and Religion of the Jewes such only Christ chose for Apostles being himself a Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 Act. 22.3 Phil. 3.5 Act. 4.36 Exod. 19.6 Deut. 4.7 8. Rom. 3.1 Psal 147.20 Peter therefore being one of the twelve must necessarily be such Paul was such as we know from his owne mouth a Iew and of the tribe of Benjamin Barnabas was such of the tribe of Levi. And being such they enjoyed a priviledge which the Gentiles wanted they were by birth off-spring of a Nation that is holy No Nation was so great as they who had God so nigh unto them who had Statutes and Iudgements so righteous The Jew had every way Prerogatives advantages but chiefly the Oracles of Gods God had not dealt so with every Nation when other Nations were without God they had God nigh unto them when others were unclean they were holy This great priviledge of birth Gentiles wanted and so were by off-spring sinners as birth renders all so they remaine unholy and uncleane among the unholy and uncleane without any such title to the Covenant of God that thereby they might obtaine any other denomination they are dogs while the people in Covenant are children And by this meanes the seeming opposition which is betweene this text and that of the Apostle Ephes 2.3 is easily reconciled Here the Apostle makes an opposition in nature betweene Jewes and Gentiles Jewes by nature had a priviledge above Gentiles there he makes Jew and Gentile in nature equall We saith he were by nature children of wrath as well as others as well as heathens that have no birth-priviledge Nature in that text is not the same as Nature
of the Apostle is else were your children spurious of a bastard birth but now they are legitimate as borne in wedlocke The mariage is sanctified in respect of Issue not for covenant holinesse so as to put them into the number of an holy people but to legitimize them and to take the infamy of bastardy away from them By way of answer I would make these demands First Quaeres Whether they will give the like interpretation of this text in hand which is every way paralel and answers in either of the branches Doth the Apostle here meane wee that are by birth legitimate and not bastards of the Gentiles Phrases thus paralel from one pen will hardly admit interpretations so different Secondly Whether ever they read in Scripture or any other Authour these two opposite Epithites uncleane and holy in such a sense or meaning that holy should be legitimate and uncleane spurious or bastardy In such births uncleanenesse is indeed the parents sinne but I never read or heard that it was the childs Epithite Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations Thirdly Whether it had been a bastard birth if neither party had been of the faith whether mariage be not valid being no Ordinance proper to the Church but common to all man-kind aswell among heathens as Christians But to give more particular satisfaction as in the negative that it is not meant of legitimation so also in the affirmative that it is to be understood of a Covenant-holinesse of the children of beleevers For the negative 1. A result or fruit of faith in the parent cannot be the legitimation of the Issue Answ 1. Negative Not legitimation faith and legitimation of Issue being of distinct kinds An unbeleever may have issue legitimate and men professing the faith with Iudah Gilead David may have issue illegitimate But holinesse in the text is a fruit or result of faith in the parent The unbeleeving whether husband or wife contributes nothing to this holinesse all that they doe is that being maried to a beleever they are no impediment They are sanctified they doe not sanctifie The sanctifying power to the producing of the holinesse of the Issue is made proper to the beleeving party The unbeleever is sanctified so that both together make an holy root to produce an holy branch It will be said that beleeving is not in the text the words are that the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified in the husband not in the beleeving wise nor in the beleeving husband so that the text makes it not any result or fruit of faith This weake objection hath an easie answer It is the wife of an unbeleeving husband the husband of an unbeleeving wife when the mariage is between a beleever and an unbeleever Secondly One parent is not to be preferred before another as to be alone in giving that honour to the issue in which both are equall But here one parent is preferred before another in giving this honour of holinesse to the issue Therefore it cannot be legitimation of the issue in which either of both whether beleeving or unbeleeving are equall A Noble-man marrying a meane woman the Issue hath honour from one legitimation alike from both The wise is honoured but doth not honour So it is here An infidell marrying a beleever is sanctified doth not sanctifie the issue hath this honour of holinesse from the parent of honour but legitimation as all confesse equally from either something else therefore then legitimation must needs be the meaning For the affirmative 2. In the Affirmative but Covenant-holinesse that it is meant of Covenant-holinesse That interpretation which here directly answers that which in all reason was the Quesitum or scruple wherein the Corinthians in their letter to the Apostle desired resolution That exactly answers each branch of the text and runs full paralel with other places of Scripture that must needs be taken for the interpretation But this interpretation of Covenant-holinesse is such that answers their scruple exactly agrees with each branch of the text and runs full paralel with other places of Scripture This therefore cannot be denied to be the genuine and full interpretation of the place For the first It was their scruple making it their scruple whether they might continue their marriage society with one out of the Covenant of God they could not but scruple what should become of their Issue whether they were to be accounted as they themselves of the number of the people of God or to be excluded from them with their unbeleeving parent especially seeing in Ezraes time Ezra 10.3 Nehe. 13.24 those that married strange wives were enjoyned to put them away and such as were borne of them and in Nehemiah's time the Issue is branded as of a mixt and mongrell kind that were so descended which is also further strengthned by the Priests answer to the severall cases of conscience by Gods appointment propounded by Haggai the Prophet If one beare holy flesh in the skirt of his garment Hag. 2.12 and with his skirt doe touch bread or pottage or wine or oyle or any meat shall it be holy And the Priest answered and said No. The touch of an uncleane thing by a cleane doth not sanctifie it as the case is there resolved Vers 13. Againe If one that is uncleane by a dead body touch any of these shall it be uncleane And the Priest answered and said it shall be uncleane The touch of a cleane thing by an uncleane doth pollute it as is there resolved likewise This might justly occasion the Corinthians feare that they and their issue might be polluted by society with this uncleane party and that the uncleane party or their issue could not by them be sanctified And the Apostle returning answer to both not only to their continuance in marriage-fellowship but also to that which concernes their issue evidently manifests that their scruple was alike in both For the second It answers the text that it fully agrees with the circumstances of the text a Here is a couple joyned in marriage one of them holy of the people of God the other unclean a sinner of the Gentiles and a stranger to them the Issue must take after the one and the answer as concerning the Issue is fitted to both To the unbeleeving negatively through sanctification in the beleeving partie they are not uncleane to the beleever assirmatively they are holy For the last that it runnes paralell with other places of Scripture It s paralell to other Scriptures 1 Pet. 2.9 Deut. 54.1 2. Isai 68.18 Matth. 15.16 this text is an abundant witnesse The people of God are still thus honoured for an holy nation an holy people a people of holinesse Men out of Covenant still branded as uncleane dogs sinners and the like appellations This Scripture holds therefore firme for proofe of the assertion That Christians have their Birth-right
they were to be excluded from Baptisme Accordingly when an housholder was baptized all the houshold were baptized Vers 33. He and all his Acts 16.15 ver 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 Object Will it be said that this promise in this latitude is there tendered onely to the Jewes To this I reply First Answ that then Iewes receiving Christ as these now did and were here encouraged still enjoy this birth-priviledge which being yeelded to them cannot be denied to the Gentiles receiving the faith without a singular schisme between Iew and Gentile They that murmured that their widowes were neglected Acts 6.1 would soone have murmured when their seed had been excluded And secondly I affirme that the Gentiles are equally there included with the Jewes in the promise as concerning the seed as the Copulative particle and fully evinceth it couples not one peece onely but the whole of the promise There is yet an objection that seemes to take with more colour Object That this promise had reference to the gift of the holy Ghost promised by Ioel the Prophet here by the Apostle ver 17. c. mentioned and the Apostle here speaking of the promise to his Converts and their children onely makes good what he had said that they should receive the holy Ghost and that by authoririe of the Prophet Ioel promises that their sonnes and their daughters shall prophecie and this is that promise which is here tendered by the Apostle to them and their children I answer First Answ the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in this visible way cannot be the promise here by St Peter mentioned seeing it is enlarged to all that are afarre off even to as many as the Lord shall call But all these have not the holy Ghost in that way extraordinary nor any promise of it That is a Baptisme proper to those primitive Saints Matt. 3.11 that Baptisme with the holy Ghost and with fire wherewith they were told that they should be baptized not many dayes after Acts 1.5 Secondly however the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are beleevers and call on the Name of the Lord as there followes yet that promise is on condition of their Baptisme The meanes are to be used in reference to the end Baptisme is the meanes receiving of the holy Ghost there specified is the end And the Apostle confirming them in the promise of the end doth likewise encourage them to the use of the meanes in Baptisme to expect the gift of the Spirit and so according to this interpretation that place is an encouragement to Baptisme The promise is the fittest encouragement to the signe and seale of the promise Baptisme is the signe and seale to which they are here encouraged and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision And the Evasion is too weake to say that children here are the same with sonnes and daughters mentioned from the Prophet Object and therefore to be meant of none but such that are of growth and capable of the gift of prophecy The Apostle urgeth the promise in the way as in the Scriptures it is delivered Answ which is to men and their posterity to them and theirs so God promises to be a God in Covenant to His and their seed which people in Covenant have a promise also from him of the Spirit and this the Apostle holds out to draw them on to this seale of the Covenant to accept Baptisme on the same termes that Abraham did circumcision Secondly it is without reason to beleeve that the Apostle should instance in one peece of the distribution of the Prophet there and to leave out the rest to put in alone sonnes and daughters when we have in the text young men old men servants and hand-maids Thirdly Children here are mentioned under a promise to the parents To you and your children is the promise made but not so in Ioel nor in the quotation of the Apostle That Scripture hath onely an Enumeration of the severall sorts and conditions of people in any nation on all which the Spirit is promised without any addresse made to the parents of those sonnes and daughters more then to the Masters of those servants and hand-maids not the sonnes and daughters of their flesh but the sonnes and daughters of the Nation a language usuall in our ordinary expressions speaking of men of any sort or condition as your Lawyers your Merchants c. so here your sonnes your daughters your old men your young men c. For further confirmation Those whom Christ receives the Church may not refuse Matth. 19.4 Matth. 19.14 Mar. 10.14 Luk. 18.16 The Church consists of those that visibly appeare to be Christs But Christ admits children little children in their infancy such that he takes into his armes Suffer little children to come to me and forbid them not who dare be so rigid when Christ is thus candid The Kingdome of Heaven receives them the Church therefore may not exclude them The Church receives those whom glory receives There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved Acts 2.47 But the Kingdome of Heaven receives little children Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven Let none say that the Kingdome of Heaven is of such that is of those that are graced with such qualities Object that are humble and meeke as little children That may be elsewhere Christs way of instruction it cannot be here his argumentation First there is no manner of consequence in the argument thus pressed Let little ones in infancie come to me for though not they yet such as they others qualified like them in some select properties resembling them shall go to Heaven Secondly Upon the same ground Sheepe Doves Vine-branches might have been brought to him for such as resemble them in like select properties shall be received into the kingdom of Heaven And Christ might have drawne as apt a similitude from them Thirdly that which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants and a just ground of rebuke of those that brought them is that which Christ understands in this reproofe of the Disciples and admission of their infants But it was their want of growth their littlenesse which the Disciples took to be a just impediment and which occasioned their reproofe So that the particle such hath direct reference to the quantity as I may say not to the quality of these infants to their infant stature not to their meekeesse or humility And so it is referred elsewhere expressely by our Saviour himselfe Who so shall receive one such little child Mat. 18.5 The word is the same here and there it respects littlenesse therefore and not meekenesse The whole text may be thus fitly paraphrased Trouble not our Master with such as these say the Disciples there is no use of their comming they need not his cure and they are not capable