Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 14
SECT. XIV.
Infants discipleship is not proved by Mr. B. from Lev. 25 41, 42. which speaks of the Israelites being Gods servants.
MY second Argument, saith Mr. B. to prove that some infants are Disciples, is this, If no infants are Disciples, then it is either because they are not capable, or else because God will not shew them such a mercy; But neither of these can be the cause; Therefore that no infants are Disciples is false Doctrine. Mr. T. to this gave this Answer [that the reason why they are not Disciples is because they have not learned.]
Answ. It is true, in the dispute at Bewdley finding Mr. Bs. vein of disputing to run upon a captious way of endeavouring to bring me to such absurdities …n appearance as would stir up passions in hearers against me as lessening Gods mercy to their infants, and then aggravating these imagined absurdities, turning to the people with his wonted exclamations, and other Rhetorick (whereby he hath befooled not onelyonly those parts, but a great number of shallow heads throughout the Land) which I found to be his course in his first argument in ch. 6. now printed to prove his Ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants unrepealed, with which he began, when he should have first proved such an Ordinance and its continuing in force out of Scripture, it being an indirect way, though popular and taking, to prove a thing done by God, because we conceive it fit to be done, and having been tired with answering three or four hours his long hypothetical Syllogismes, and those somtimes brought to prove an hypothetical proposition, contrary to the use of schools, not allowing me to ask a question for clearing his termes, neither allowing me time to consider of his reasonings, nor at first liberty of repeating, I did thus answer to this argument, hoping though … vain to reduce him to a proof of infants of Discipleship from the notation or use of the word, which is the onelyonly genuine and clear way of proving infants to be Disciples; ordinarily to be baptized, according to the institution Matth. 28. 1….
But, alas, saith Mr. B. that such an answer should satisfy such a man! I reply, Alas, that such an answer should not satisfy such a man! Is this any third cause saith Mr. B.
Answ. What need any man assigne any cause at all why infants are not Disciples, but because the term [Disciple] agrees not to them? If Mr. B. should prove in like manner infants to be believers, what need the respondent shew any other cause than this, that they have not faith? so even sith Mr. B. himself acknowledgeth the term Disciple pag. 92. to have its denomination from the act of learning, it is a sufficient▪ yea the most direct and proper way to shew infants not Disciples, because they have not the act of learning, which …. B. should have overthrown if he would have proved, as he should, infants to be Disciples. But then he might have been hindered in his vagaries and popular discourses, which with his Rhetorical exclamations were that he most minded to use, and been brought to discover his nonsense acception of the word [Disciple.] But saith he, or is it not evidently reducible to one of the former? For if their unlearnedness hinder them from being Disciples, either it must be because it maketh them or sheweth them uncapable, or because God will not shew the unlearned so great mercy.
Answ. It is neither because unlearnedness maketh or sheweth them uncapable, nor because God will not shew them that mercy: But because what ever their capacity be, or Gods intent toward them, they have not yet that which alone denominates Disciples. If his disjunction were good he should prove that capacity of a title, or Gods intention of shewing mercy, without actual learning or professing Christ, is enough to denominate a person a Disciple of Christ, which is so manifestly contrary to all the use of the word in the new Testament, and to expositors of Matth. 28. 29. that I am now bold to say, that it is no better than height of impudence after so evident proof to maintain so gross an absurdity. But I am necessitated to follow Mr. B. in his vagaries.
1. If infants, saith Mr. B. are capable of being Gods servants, then they are capable of being Disciples. For as they signify here the same thing and denote the same sort of persons, so there is the same capacity requisite to both: or if you will make a difference, there is more required to a servant than to a Disciple. But infants are capable of being Gods servants: this is plain; For the Lord God himself doth call them his servants, Levit. 25. 41. 42. they are commanded in the year of Iubile to let their brother that was sold to them, and his children, depart; and the reason is added [for they are my servants] that infants are here included among [his children] cannot be denied or doubted of (Mr. T. began to deny it, but he quickly recalled it) Is not here then direction enough to help us to judg of the minde of God, whether infants are his servants and Disciples or no? Doth not God call them his servants himself? what more should a man expect to warrant him to do so? men call for plain Scripture, and when they have it they will no… receive it; so hard is it to inform a forestalled minde. It may be some may say, They were then capable of being Gods servants, but they are not so now. But this were a wretched answer. For their capacity was the same then and now: Infants then were like infants now.
Answ. It is certain that the term [servants of God] is not always equipollent to [a Disciple of Christ.] For Jer. 43. 10. Nebuchadnezzar is called Gods servant, and the heavens, Psal. 119. 91. But then when it is taken in the sense the Apostle useth it, Rom. 6. 16. His servants ye are to whom ye obey, and therefore unless he means by [servants of God] men voluntarily obeying the Gospel, yea and visibly appearing so to do, I shall deny his consequence, and his dictates, that either Acts 15. 10. or Matth. 28. 19. a Disciple and a servant of God in his sense signify the same thing, or denote the same sort of persons. And if more be required to a servant than a Disciple, it follows that a person may be a Disciple and yet not a servant of God, and so the terms are not reciprocal, and his consequence so much the more infirm. As for his minor it is denied, understanding it of capacity of infants while infants in an ordinary way, and of being Gods servants in the sense used Rom. 6 16. in which alone it is equipollent to a Disciple. As for the Text Levit. 25. 41, 42. though it be plain Scripture, yet there is nothing plain or obscure in it for Mr. Bs. purpose, to prove that the infants of believers of the Gentiles now are Gods servants in a sense equipollent to a Disciple, Matth. 28. 19. For. 1. the passage is meant onelyonly of Hebrews, as Exod. 21. 2. is expressed, and the Text it self shews it. 1. From v. 55. where it is said, unto me the children of Israel are servants, they are my servants whom I brought out of the Land of Egypt, in which are two discriminating notes differencing them from others, 1. That they were the children of Israel descended from Iacob by natural generation, 2. that they were brought out of the Land of Egypt by God. 2. v. 44. 45. do explain it, where God allows them to take Bond-slaves of the Vide Selden de jure na…. &c. l. 6. c. 8.heathen that were round about them, and of the children of the strangers that did sojourn among them, which is the description of Proselytes of the Gate, that is, such as acknowledged the God of Israel, but did not submit to Circumcision, and the observation of Moses Law, of which sort was Cornelius, Acts 10. 2. Such an ones children were not Gods servants in the sense there meant. Yea, Ainsworth in his Annot. on v. 42. citeth Maimony resolving that an Israelites children begotten on a Canaanitish bond-woman are but Canaanites in every respect, not Gods servants in the sense there meant. 2. What is said there is said not onelyonly of Infants but also of Parents, yea though they were idolaters, as those that worshipped the golden Calf, or joyned themselves to Baal Peor, or who hardened their hearts, and could not enter into Canaan for unbelief, Heb. 3. 18, 19. even the wo…st of them with whom God was not well pleased, which were not true of servants of God in a sense equipollent to a Disciple of Christ, Matth. 28. 19. 3. Diodati expresseth in his Annot. on Lev. 25. 42▪ in what sense they are called Gods servants, to wit, in as much as none could get sovereign Dominion over them to prejudice his, therefore they are there called Gods servants in this respect onelyonly, in that they were to be disposed of not as men would, but as he would, who had right to them by his purchase, in bringing them out of Egypt. So that they are called Servants of God, in that place, not out of any either voluntary obedience to his Precepts, or peculiar right to visible Church-membership, but in respect of Gods sovereignty over them to dispose of them as Hebrews, which was not belonging to believers or their children, or other Nations not joyned to the policy of the Hebrews. And therefore I still say, Mr. B. doth but trifle as a man that superficially looks over a Text, when he talks so vainly as he doth of direction enough to help us to judg of Gods minde, whether Infants are his Servants and Disciples or no. Nor is it tru which he saith, that the capacity is the same then and now. For though infants then were like infants now, yet the judicial Laws of Moses, and the peculiar condition of the Hebrews is not now as then.
But he goes on. May I not make this a third Argument of it self? If God call Infants his Servants, though they can do him no service, then we may call them so too: for we may speak as God doth: but God doth call them so; therefore we may.
Answ. The Conclusion is granted: he may call Hebrew infants Gods servants in the sense meant, Lev. 25. 41. But if he cal the children of Gentile-believers Servants of God in a sense equipollent to a Disciple, Matth. 28. 19. He must bring better warrant than that Text, or else I shall deny it, slighting his vain censure of a forestalled minde, and conceiving rather it verisied of himself. As the Man thinketh, so the Bell tinketh.
Again, saith Mr. B. If God call Infants his Servants, though they are uncapable at present of doing him service, then we may call them Disciples, though at present they are uncapable of learning. But God doth so call them; therefore we may, &c.
Answ. If God call infants his servants according to the Apostles description of a servant, Rom. 6. 16. then I confess infants may be called Christs Disciples, but not if onelyonly according to the sense of Lev. 25. 41.
Mr. B. goes on. Hath he a good wit now or a bad minde, that can raise a dust for the darkning of so express and plain a Text? and yet still call for Scripture proof? I will deal faithfully in telling you Mr. T. his answer to this▪ and that upon deliberation, in his Sermon after the Dispute. 1. He distinguisheth of Servants of God de …ure & de facto. 2. Between Servants actively and passively; and saith, that here the term Servant is meant passively and not actively, that is, such as God useth: and that they are called Servants here in no other sense than the Heavens and the Earth are, Psalm 119. 89, 90. They are thy Servants; Are they therefore Disciples? (saith he) what ridiculous arguing is this? So Mr. T. O what cause have we all to look to the tenderness of our consciences in time, before engagement in a sinfull cause hath benummed them, and made the Word of God to be of no force to us? I know shallow brains are uncapable to discern the weakness of the silliest Answer: they go that way as their affection doth byass them: their approbation of an Argument or Answer is no credit to it. But let any man of a tolerable understanding, and conscience not seared, but weigh-seriously this Answer, and I dare warrant he will think it a bad cause that must be underpropt by such palpable abuse of Scripture.
Answ. I loath to take notice of such base insinuations, far unworthy of a christian brother or an ingenuous scholar, but that thereby Mr. B. hath more prevailed to hinder the entertainment of the truth I maintain, than by any arguments he hath brought. And were it not that the Law of Charity forbids me to put the worst construction on things, I see so much as might move me to retort upon himself his insinuations against me, as if I had a bad minde, and a seared conscience, and a bad cause, and that I darken so express and plain a Text, and so palpably abuse Scripture because of my answer about this Text. I will not deny him to have a good wit, nor impute to him a shallow brain, I wish his judgment were as good as his fancy, & that with his quickness of apprehension he had more considerateness in his determinations, and especially about the meaning of Scripture; if it were so, the Church of God might have much more benefit by his laboures than it hath, nor would his polemick writings especially, have so many crudities in them as there are. As for this present business I think that intemperate zeal to the cause he thinks good hath so transported him that he shews much want both of ingenuity of spirit, and clearness of understanding, which he hath in other writings, and that however he doth often pretend love to me, yet his gall doth so overflow when ever he speakes of me, that he can neither give aright interpretation of what I do, nor of what I say. But to the matter. I had sayd in my Sermon, and in my Antidot sect. 4. that what is sayd Levit. 25. 41. is nothing to our children, it being spoken peculiarly of Hebrew children. To this in his reply pag. 182. 248. he tells me. 1. The Iewes infants were infants, and our dispute you know was of the species.
Answ. The Jews infants were infants its true, and so were the Canaanites infants, yet not servants of God, as Levit. 25. 41▪ is meant. 2. The dispute was not as it was first mannaged between me and Mr. M. nor as it was by Mr. Bs: first argument borught to an issue, of the species, whether any infants indefinitely or any ones infants whatsoever were to be called Disciples of Christ and to be baptized, but whether the infants of believers, of whom his meaning is in his first argument, however he make his position, that some infants are to be baptized. 3. whatever his position were, yet his wordes in his Epistle to the people of Kederminster were that God saith our children are Gods servants, which is palpably false, he saying it of the Hebrews children as such; and not of ours.
2. saith he, I have proved that our privileges are greater than theirs (and you deny it not) and that this was not perculiar to them.
Answ. if it be granted that our previleges are greater than theirs, yet it is but in some respects, and therefore there is no good argument, if it be confessed God shews more mercy to our children therefore he gives them every such privilege as the Jews had. God shews mercy to ministers of the Gospel more than to the Priests of the Jews, yet it follows not, our children must have such privileges of continuance in office, inheritance &c. as they had. That what is sayd Levit. 25. 41. was peculiar to the Hebrews, is so clearly proved, that it hath a shew of impudence to deny it. 3. saith he, it proves that there is nothing in the age to make them uncapable, or else the Jews infants would have been uncapable.
Answ. It proves that there is nothing in the age to make them uncapable of being Gods servants in the sense of Levit. 25. 41. But it proves not that they are capable of being Gods servants ordinarily as the title is used Rom. 6. 16. and is equipollent to a Disciple, Matth. 28. 19.
But saith he, How have the believing Jews lost this privilege or Proselytes of the Gentiles?
Answ. 1. This privilege was belonging to the unbelieving Jews while it continued, as well as the believing. 2. If it be lost (as I think it is) it is lost by the dissolving the judicial Laws of Moses, and the national policy the Jews had.
But saith he, where you talk of servants in this sense and that sense, they were so servants as to be visible Church-menbers, and that is all that I contest for. They were reckoned among Moses Disciples, and so are ours to be among Christs Disciples or Christians (as Moses Disciples also in some sort were Christs Disciples.)
Answ. The sense in which the Jews children were called Gods servants is not all one with to be visible Church-members, nor Moses Diciples, as is proved above where the genuine sense is shewed. But to the distinctions I used in my Sermon and Antidote, I deny not that I used both distinctions, and they are usual in schools. The former is used by the Author of the New annot. on Deut. 22. 24. the later is common, in the differencing of active and passive scandal, Conversion taken actively and passively, Mr. B. himself, p. 81. distinguisheth of being sanctified actively and passively. But he thinks the application to be a palpable abuse of Scripture. For, 1. He (meaning me) saith they were servants of God de jure, but not de facto, in right, out not in deed. But a servant is a relation, that is the form of it, servus est Domini servus. And have they onelyonly a right to this relation? who then or what hindreth them from possessing the relation which they have right to? Is it not God that giveth them right to this relation? And is not that to give them the relation it self? I would he would tell us what more he giveth them that have th… elationo it self de facto, (for I suppose he dare not interpret it of a future right.)
Answ. I said in my Sermon as Mr. B. hath printed it pag: 181. that the meaning is not that infants are actually servants, but in right, to me, he doth not speak what they did, but of Gods right and interest he had in them: which is so plain a truth that I supposed he could not have sound any matter of exception. But Mr. B. is so quarelsome with me that he will either finde or make a Knot in a Bulrush. 1. He renders de facto in deed, as if I had said, they had relation of right, but not in deed, that is not in possession: whereas my meaning was plainly exprest, they were not actually servants in respect of what they did, or in respect of the act or fact of service. 2. he misunderstands it as if I spake of their being servants of right, that they had the right of being Gods servants so as to claim it as a privilege on their part, whereas I meant it and expressed it in respect of Gods right and interest in them, though I deny not the other to follow. To his questions I answer. They have a right and possession of that relation, and it is given them by God with the relation, and to those that have the relation in fact, or as I spake actually in respect of what they did. God gives this more to them that are his servants by reason of his right in them, that they have actual obedience to him, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 6. 16. His servants ye are to whom ye obey.
2. Saith Mr. B. whether they are servants actively or passively is nothing to the being or form of the relation; they are servants of God still. And it seems by this answer, that if God had called infants Disciples never so oft Mr. T. would have put God off with this distinction, and said, they are Disciples passively, but not actively. For 3. What reason can he give why they may not be called Disciples in a passive sense as well as servants? 4. Doth not God bid his Apostles baptize those that were Disciples without distinguishing? or doth he bid them baptize active Disciples, but not passive ones? Where is that distinction in the command?
Answ. Mr. B. is so inured to his spitefull language, that my giving him an answer to his objection and clearing the words Lev. 25. 41. is termed by him putting off God with a distinction, as if I answered God, and not Mr. B. But to the matter. 1. Though servants actively and passively may be both called servants, as a slave bought with money, but sick and weak, who never did service actually, may be called his Lords servant, because at his dispose, yet not univocally, as they speak in Logick, in comparison of him that doth actually service, because he is a servant but in one respect, whereas he that is a servant not onelyonly by being at his Lords dispose for his Lord to assign what he will for him, because of his propriety in him, but also doth service actively for his Lord, is in a double respect a servant, of which the later is that which is principal, and from which the denomination is primarily and principally taken, as the relation of a son is principally from generation, though analogically in some respect an adopted son have that title. 2. But were it supposed the term did univocally agree to both, yet the question being whether Infants be Disciples, and the argument being brought from the title of Gods servants to prove them Disciples, the term [Servants of God] passively taken for one that doth not voluntarily any service to God, but onelyonly is at Gods dispose, is not as much as [a Disciple of Christ] which signifies one that hath learned Christ, and professeth himself to follow his teaching. And so it is a clear answer, that infants are not proved to be Christs Disciples by being proved to be passively Gods servants, except they be also proved to be actively such, and that … obeying the Gospel, and professing that obedience. What ever seems to Mr. B. (whose imaginations of me are still to the worst) If I had found God call once Infants Disciples in the sense, Matth. 28. 19. I should quickly have yielded there is no need of such a distinction of active or passive Disciple, si…h I finde the title given to none but such as are actual learners, and that is a reason why Infants may not be called Disciples in a passive sense as well as Gods servants. For use is the rule of understanding words, and Christ bids us baptize onelyonly Disciples that are actual learners, and profess Christ their Master, as appears both by Christs words, Mark 16. 16. in which he expresseth that by [he that believeth] which he did Matth. 28. 19. by [a Disciple] and by the practice of the Apostles, who best understood Christs precept, and by the constant use of the word [Disciple] in the New Testament, as is proved above. Nor needs there be any such distinction of active and passive Disciple in the command, because the word [Disciple] is not used passively, though [Servant of God] be.
5. Saith Mr. B. But I shall be bold to take it for one of Mr. T. his fictions, and a meer falshood, that Infants are here called Servants passively onelyonly, till he have done somewhat to prove it; to which end he hath not spoken one word, as thinking it seems that he spake to men that will take his word. Why may they not be called Servants from the meer interest of Dominion that God hath to them? and authority over them? Are Infants the Kings Subjects or Servants in a passive sense onelyonly? Is it not foundation enough for the relation of a servant, if God will own them so, and number them with his family of meer grace, though he should make no use of them at all? or if there must be more: may they not be called so, as being destinated to his service for the future? And so they may have the relation before the service; which is common with those men that buy children with their parents for their future service. So Eccl. 2. 7. reade it.
Answ. How egregiously doth Mr. B. trifle, who expects I should prove, who was but the Respondent, and that also which is apparent to common sense, that infants are not servants of God actively in obeying his precepts, or as I sayd in my Sermon, in freely and voluntarily giving service to God and doing what he …s, who neither know nor hear Gods precepts, and looks I should prove what he agrees with me in! For when I said in…ts are servants from Gods right and interest in them, though they do no service, Mr. B. as if I said no such thing pu…s many importinent questions to me, as if he would by them know my minde in that which I had plainly though more briefly expressed, to wit that the Jews infants were Gods servants. 1. Of right, because God had a right, propriety or perculiar interest in them, he had purchased them otherwise than he had done other people. 2. Passively, so as that their bodies and liberties were at his dispose, not allowing men to dispose of them, as he did to dispose of others. As for the question may they not be so called as destinated to his service for the future? I conceive not; destination to his service for the future doth not either there or any where else that I know, give denomination to a servant as actually such: no… doth I think any thing in the Text lead us to such a reason of the denomination, but to that which I have set down. And to his question, Are infants the Kings Subjects or servants in a passive sense onelyonly? I answer, yes, while they are infants, and should question his intellectuals that should deny it; and when he cals it my fiction and meer falshood, that infants are here called servants passively only, it seems prejudice against me makes him count that a fiction and falshood in my mouth, which is current enough when it comes from his own pen. But Mr. B. is not yet reconciled to me, theres more anger yet behinde. For thus he speaks.
6. But the grossest is yet behinde, (as the worst errour is still at last, and the further a man goes out of his way the further he goes amiss) would any man think that such a man as Mr. T. can possibly believe that infants are called Gods servants in no other sense than the Heavens and Earth are?
Answ. May I not take up the Poets words, Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? Is Mr. B. so waspish as to be still humming and buzzing about my ears, and stinging me with his mis-representations. Tis true, to shew that the term [servant of God] is not equipollent to [a Disciple of Christ] I instanced in Ps l. 119. 91. where the Heaven and the earth are called Gods servants in a passive sense, but my words (as he himself printed them) are not, infants are called Gods servants in no other sense than the Heavens a… earth are: yea I mentioned Nebuchadnezzar called Gods servant Jerem. 43. 10. after the allegation of Psal. 119. 91. And yet if I had said so I know no errour in it, much less gross erour, or grossest of all. But Mr. B. asks placet. Well! room for Mr. B. Let me a little reason this case, saith he, 1. Are the Heavens onelyonly passive servants of God? Is that good Philosophy? Answ. Sith Mr. B. is either in his reasoning or posing vein, I shall enforce my self with what patience I can to reade his childing Lecture, and to answer his questions, though he would not answer mine at the Dispute, when he should. To his first and second I answer affirmatively. It is not good Philosophy to say, the Heavens onelyonly suffer, and act nothing: but it is very good Philosophy, and Divinity too, that the Heavens are onelyonly passive servants of God, when they do Gods will, they do it not with consent of will, as when the stormy windes fulfill Gods word, Psal. 148. 8. they do act, but not actively obey God. Herod and Pontius Pilate did what Gods counsel determined, Acts 4▪ 27, 28. yet were not active servants of God, but passive, the doing of Gods will was besides their intentions So Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 43. 10. Sennacherib, Isai 10. 5, 6, 7. Josephs brethren, Shimei, Absolom, &c. are servants of God in this sense. And in this sense the Heavens are Gods servants, as Mr. B. might have perceived by the joyning the earth with them, which moves not, or rather in this passive sense, because they are at Gods disposing.
2. Saith he, What if the Earth and Infants were both called Gods Servants onelyonly in a passive sense, because God maketh use of them? Is it therefore in the same sense? Answ. Yes. Mr. B. Is it the same use that God maketh of both? Answ. No, and yet it is the same sense. Again, Mr. B. What if Christ were called Gods servant for his suffering? Shall we say it were in no other sense than the Earth is so called? when the use and sufferings are so unlike?
Answ. No, for if Christ were called Gods servant for his suffering, I would call him an active servant of God, not a passive▪ For though he in his suffering were passive, and Divines call it passive obedience, yet he did not obey passively, that is, against his will, or without consent of will, as the Earth doth, but actively, out of his free and voluntary intention, and consent of will. Be the use and suffering never so unlike, those persons or things may be in the fame sense passive servants of God, whose sufferings or use accomplisheth Gods will without their intention, and they active servants in the same sense whose use or sufferings are with intention and consent to accomplish the will of God, though their use or sufferings are much unlike. But he hath not yet done posing or ch…ding me.
What if I prove, saith he, (as me thinks with Mr. …. I might easily do) that the Heavens are Gods servants actively, and Christ also is called his servant actively? Doth it follow that they are servants in the same sense, when the action is so unlike?
Answ. Yes, for I never took the identity of sense to presuppose necessarily likeness in the actions. The same sense is when words signifie a like meaning, whatever likeness or unlikeness there be in the actions of the subjects to which the Predicate is attributed. And I pity Mr. Bs. oscitancy that doth not observe such obvious things, but troubles others with such frivolous questions. But yet there are more of these demands to be answered.
3. Saith Mr. B. Hath not God prevented all these Cavils by joyning Parents and Children together in the same title? He saith of Parents and Children both together, they are my servants: where it is evident that both therefore have the same kinde of relation. And will he say that the Parents are onelyonly passive servants?
Answ. Yes, in that place, according to the explication before given; and I conceive that God hath prevented all Mr. Bs. Cavils against this exposition, even in that he joyns Parents and Children, (who can be no other ways servants of God) together, in the same title; besides other passages of the Text do shew it, as I have alleged above.
4. Saith Mr. B. Or if all this be not enough, yet look further, where God himself tels you the reason why he cals them his servants, (who knows better than Mr. T.) They are my servants which I brought out of Egypt, &c. Gods interest and mercifull choice of them, and separation to himself, is the reason. When God cals us his servants, it oftn…r signifieth the honor and privileges of that relation, which in mercy he cals us to, than any service we do him therein. Are the Heavens Gods servants, because he brought them out of Egypt, and separated them to himself as a peculiar People?
Answ. Mr. B. is a strange man, most shamefully dealing with me, who suggests to the world of me as if I took no notice of that in the Text, which in my Sermon as it is printed by himself, pag. 181. was observed in the first place with advice to my hearers to mark it, and urged it to that end that I might shew this was peculiar to the Hebrew children, and therefore impertinently brought by Mr. B. to prove our infants Gods servants as there it is meant much less as [Gods servants] is a term equipollent to [a Disciple Matth. 28. 19.] all which he seems not to take notice of, but in stead thereof after a dictate or two without proof, he puts to me this frivolous question, Are the Heavens Gods servants because he brought them out of Egypt, and separated them to himself as a peculiar people? To which I answer no, but what then? cannot therefore the Heavens be said to be Gods servants passively, that is, at Gods dispose, because they were not brought out of Egypt as the infants, Levit. 25. 41.? The reason is given there in respect of the subject, why they were Gods servants when other people were not, not on the part of the predicate, as if none were servants but they that were brought out of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar is called Gods servant, Jer. 43. 10. for going into Egypt there executing Gods will on the Egyptians; though he had no intention of doing any thing for God.
5. Saith Mr. B. yet if all this be not enough, he that will see may be convinced from this. The Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in a sense peculiar as chosen and separated from all other: the Gentiles at age were not so Gods servants as the Jews infants were. If God call these infants his servants in no other sense than the Heavens and the earth, then it seems in the year of Jubilee men must release the earth from its service to them: But Mr. T. knows that even the Gentile servants that were actively so were not to be released in the year of Jubilee: and therefore the Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in another sense than the Heavens or the heathens either; even as the chosen separated people of God and members of his family. or else how could it be a reason for releasing them in the year of Jubilee any more than for releasing any other? But no Scripture can be so plain, but a man that hath a minde so disposed may finde some words of contradiction.
Answ. It is true, and Mr. Bs. cavils about this Text apparently preve it. But this with all the rest is not enough to convince me that the infants of the Jews are called Gods servants actively, as the term [Gods servant] is equipollent to [a Disciple Matth. 28. 19.] though I would see it, yet I cannot, no not by Mr. Bs. spectacles, even by this last reason. I confess that the Jews infants were Gods servants in a peculiar manner, other than the Gentiles at years, yea though godly, as Cornelius, Acts 10. 2. that God for this reason required their release from bondage at the Jubilee, and yet why it should follow, that if the Earth be called Gods servant passively, as the Jews infants, it must be released by men from service at the year of Jubilee, I see not. If it were formed into an Argument, it would rest on this or the like Proposition, They to whom the same thing is predicated, in the same sense must have all other things predicated on them alike: which is so absurd a thing, that me thinks Mr. B. should disclaim it, and yet his reason turns on that hinge. To shew its absurdity, Magistrates are called Gods, Jehovah is called God in one sense in respect of rule, else the term [God] should signifie nothing common to both. Doth it therefore follow that what is said of Magistrates must be said of Jehovah, that he must dy like men, or else the term [God] cannot predicate on both in the same sense in which [God] is taken for one that rules? This and such like mistakes of Mr. B. even then when he runs with full curreer shew his heedlesness, and overliness in handling controversies, which require a man of more insight in the meaning of the Scripture, and more circumspect in observing the consequents on his sayings and reasonings than I finde him. But I follow him, not doubting to overtake him in long tunning, foreign.