Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 59
SECT. LIX. The sayings of Adam, Eve, Noah, concerning Cain, Seth, Shem, the term sons of God, Gen. 6.2. prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed.
NOw for the Texts, saith he, that further intimate such a foregoing establishment. 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living: For it is to be noted what Bp, Usher saith, Annal vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum (post semen promissum) mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum, Gen. 3.20. quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam, sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius, Messiam promissum: quomodo & post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita. 1 Pet. 3.6. Gal. 4.31.] He put this name on her after the promise, because she was to be the mother of all the living, not onelyonly that live the life of nature, but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed. So that as she was the root of our nature, we are her natural seed; and as she was a believer, and we the seed of her a believer, so is she the mother of a holy seed, and we that are her seed are holy, as a people visibly dedicated to God.
Answ. Though the exposition were allowed, and the inference thereon, that we that are her seed, that is by faith in the Messiah, are holy; yet it follows not that we are so as a people visibly dedicated to God, much less that our infants are so without their own faith by vertue of their parents dedication: And therefore this Text, according to Mr. Bs. exposition (which yet may be questioned) yeelds no confirmation of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed.
2. Saith he, When Cain was born, his mother called him [possession] because she had obtained a man of the Lord, that is, saith Ainsworth, [with his favour, and of his good will,] and so a son of promise, and of the Church. And therefore it is to be noted, that when Cain had sinned by killing his brother, God did curse him, and cast him out of his presence, Gen. 4.14, 16. So that he was excommunicate and separated from the Church of God, saith Ainsworth, [that is, from the place of Gods word and worship which in likelihood was held by Adam the father, who being a prophet, had taught his children how to sacrifice and serve the Lord. So on the contrary, to come into Gods presence or before him, 1 Chron. 16.29. is explained in Psal. 96 8. to be the comming into his Courts.] Very many learned men give the same exposi…ion of it. Now if Cain were now excommunicate, then was he before of the Church: nay it's certain by his sacrificing, and other proof, however this Text be interpreted: But no man can give the least reason from Scripture to make it so probable … he entred into the Church at any other time, as we give of his entrance at his nativity.
Answ. Eve doth not say, that she possessed a son of God, member of the Church from the Lord, but a man, by vertue of the power given to the parents for procreation, Gen. 1.28. notwithstanding the curse, Gen. 3.16. which was from the Lord, Psal 127.3. Gen. 30.2. that is, by his providence, and in some respect with his favour and good will, considering her desert, and danger it was that she possessed him when both their lives were in so great hazard. That Cain was a Churchmember visible from his infancy hath no probability, there being no hint of it in that Text, or any other. The proofs that infant visible Churchmembership was onelyonly in the Hebrew Nation, have beene shewed before.
Also, saith Mr. B. When Eve bare Seth, she so named him as a son of mercy in faith, as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room, faithfull as Abel, and the father of our Lord afte… the flesh, as Ainsworth on Gen. 4.25. And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an infant member of the visible Church? I confess he that shall excommunicate this appointed seed, or saith, that Seth was without the Church in his infancy, doth speak in my ears so improbably, and so unlike the Scripture, that I am very confident I shall never believe him.
Answ. Nor should I, meaning as Mr. Ainsworth, seed] that is another son: that as Abrahams seed was called in Isaac (Ishmael being excluded) Gen. 21.12. so Eves seed should be in Seth, tha… is the elect seed, and so he a member of the invisible Church in infancy; and yet there's no in…imation that …e was an infant member of the visible Church, from which Ishmael was not excluded. In which though I p…ace not Seth, yet I do not thereby excommunicate Seth, or say that he was without the Church in his infancy.
Mr. B. adds. Note also, that as God had thus cast out Cain, and supplied Abels room by Seth and had given each of them posterity; so we find him in a special manner registring the successors of the righteous, and putting two titles on these two distinct generations, calling some the sons of God, and others the daughters of men, Gen. 6.2. Supposing that you reject the old conceits that these sons of God were Angels that fell in love with women, the current ordinary exposition I think will stand, that these were the progeny of Seth, and other members of the Church, who are called the sons of God; and that it was the progeny of Cain, and other wicked ones, that are called the daughters of men. Where note that they are not themselves denominated wicked, but the children of men, as being a generation separated from the Church from the birth. And the other are not themselves affirmed to be truly godly ones, but son… of God, as being the seed of the Saints not cast out, but members of the Church, or the sons of those who were devoted to God▪ and so devo…ed to him themselves: a separated generation belonging to God as his visible Church. Where note, that these that are called the sons of God, even the line of Seth and other godly parents, were yet so wicked that God repented that he made them, and destroyed them in the floud, sparing onelyonly Noah and his family. So that it was not their own godliness that made them called the sons of God, but their relation, Churchstate, and visible separation from open unchurched Idolaters. Compare this phrase with the like, Deut. 14.1. 2 Cor. 6.18. In the former it's said [ye are the children of the Lord your God, ye shall not cut your selvs, &c.] where the whole people, infants and all are called Gods children, as being a people separated to him from the Idolatrous world; and so in the next v. called a holy people unto God, peculiar to him, &c. And 2 Cor. 6.18. Come out from among them, and be ye seperate, &c. and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.] So that Gods sons and daughters are that society that are separated from Idolaters unto the worship of God as the visible Church is. And then it appears that the generation of the righteous, even from the womb, were ennumerated to the rest, in that they are not mentioned as a people called out here and there, and initiated at age (here's no mention of any such thing:) but as a stock or generation opposed to the daughters of men, or of the unchurched, who were such from their infancy as all will grant. For it was not the same men that were the parents of those here called the daughters of men and the sons of Go… (though some of the later might be excommunicate when they fell:) But it plainly intimates, that it was another sort of men that these were the daughters of, then those that were parents to the sons of God. So Ainsworth in loc. [The sons of God, i. e. the men of the Church of God, for to such Moses saith, Deut. 14.1. &c. 1 Joh. 3.1. Daughters of men, meaning of Cains posterity that were out of Gods Church, Gen. 4.14.] So our Annotations, and many more.
Answ. 1. There is not sufficient evidence in the text to prove it, that the sons of God were of Seths, and the daughters of men of Cains posterity: they might be some of the daughters of men of Seths, and some of the sons of God of Cains progeny, notwithstanding what is in the text. And there is this reason against it, that sith Gen. 4.16. it is said, that Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwel… in the land of Nod on the East of Eden, and that he built a City called Enoch, that the posterity of Cain and Seth dwelt so far one from another, that they had not occasion to see one another so as to fall in love with their beauty. And whereas it is clear that Adam after he begat Seth begat sons and daughters Gen. 5 4. living 800 years, and that the great change in religion was about the time of Enos birth Gen. 4.26. the sons of God and daughters of men might be of other races then Cain and Seth. But I shall not contend about this. 2. Nor is it manifest that either sort of persons are ca…led so from their descent, or Church-state by birth. For the one are not called the sons of God from their birth, but practise or profession, foreign, saith Chrysostom hom 22. on Genes. Because until then they did imitate their progenitors vertue, Piscat. analys. Gen. 6 Per filios Dei intelligendi sunt i… qui re…igionem puram profitebantur, praesertim ex Sethi & Enoskhi posteris▪ Gatak. adv. p…ochen. c. 13. Apud quos religionis verae professio hactenus perstiterat. Usher Annal. Vol. 1. p. 3. ad an. M. 235. Sethus annos 105 natus filium genuit cui Enoshi nomen imposuit: quod conditionis humanae deplorandam denotat miseriam, Tunc enim a Camitis cultus Divinus miserè corruptus fuit: unde ea inter homines distinctio fa…a; ut qui in verò Dei cultu permanserunt fil…i Dei; qui autem ab eo desciverunt filii hominum sint appellati. Gen, 4.26. cum 6.1, 2. Christoph. Cartwright annot▪ ad Gen. 6.2. At ex textu apparet hosce Dei filios professione po…iùs quàm reipsa s…nctos fuisse. The new Annot. on Gen. 6.2. Sons of God] rational creatures and of humane kinde; yet in this place distinguished from the daughters of men, not onelyonly by their sex, but by their qualities or relati…ns; by their qualities, as persons of some eminent endowments or estimation above others as (what is excellent is in the Scripture phrase especially entituled unto God, as the Garden of Eden, Ezek. 28.13. & ch. 31. v. 8, 9. the hill of God, Ps. 68.15.) or by their relations, as such as descending from Seth and Enosh professed the true worship of the true God, and so became capable of the title of the sons of God, Deut. 14.1. 2 Cor. 6.18. Whence I infer, that in the judgement of these Authors they are termed the sons of God not from their Churchmembership by bi…th, but their profession and practise. On the other side, the parents of the daughters are termed men not from their discent by birth, or exclusion out of the Church by birth, but as the term [man] is taken for corrupt unregenerate men as Ainsworth, so Paul 1 Cor. 3.3. Piscat. sch. in Gen. 6.2. Nisi potius est ut nomine foreign Adam hîc intelligatur primus ille generis humani parens: ut significetur illas ge…isse imaginem illam secundùm quam Adamus genuit liberos, non autem …uisse regineratos spiritu Dei. Which exposition is very likely that they are termed daughters of Adam, not daughters of men, because they were corrupt as Adam, a… Gen. 5.3. Adam is said to beget a son in his own image corruptus corruptum, as Pisc. sch. in locum, in opposition to Gods image. v. 1. So Hos. 6.7. and then daughters of Adam doth not note their discent but qualities and practise, as daughters of Sara 1 Pet. 3.7. that is, that they revolted from the true worship of God, as Adam from God. Which things premised, I deny 1. that it is true that the women are not themselves denominated wicked, but the children of men, as being a generation separated from the Church from the birth. For there is nothing in the text that proves the men were the posterity of Cain, nor that all the posterity of Cain were out of the Church, nor that these men were out of the Church, though they were corrupt persons or degenerate members, and therefore nothing to prove they were excluded from the Church from the birth, by reason of their discent. And it may bee well conceived that the term [daughters of Adam] doth note th…ir wickedness as treacherously departing from God as he did 2. I deny they are termed [sons of God] who chose the daughters of Adam for their beauty, as being the seed of the Saints, &c. but as being at least in appearance holy and true worshippers and chosen by God, they are so denominated no… from their discent from the godly, for then they had been called the sons of the Saints rather then of God, but from their profession and pract…se, if the interpretation of Aben Ezra that they were the sons Elohim of the Judges or mighty or that other that they were eminent persons, hold not. 3. I deny that it can be proved that these sons of …od were not truly godly, or that that they were so wicked that God repen…ed that he made them, and destroyed them in the flood. For neither doth their love of women prove they were not truly godly, Solomon is judged truly godly Nehem. 13.26. though hee fell perhaps more deeply into the same sin. Sampson was a believer Heb. 11.32. yet sinned this way. Nor doth that which is said Gen. 6.11, 12, 13. prove it, for that is rather to be understood of the Nephilim or Giants, or the posterity of the the sons of God mentioned v. 4. rather then of the sons of God themse…ves▪ v. 2. And therefore it is not proved that it was not their own godliness that made them called the sons of God, but their Church state. Nor is the…e any thing Deut. 14.1. that proves the sons of God Gen. 6.2. were such from their infancy as born of Churchmembers For they are the sons of Gods there either by profession or special choice v. …. not from their parentage. Much less is there any thing 2 Cor. 6.18. to that purpose, for the promise of son-ship there is not from birth but obedience v. 17. And as Gen. 6.2. their being made sons of God is not exprest to be by calling, so neither is it said to be by humane generation, nor doth it follow if the daughters of men were such from their birth, the sons of God must be so from their birth, no not though sons of God noted a generation or stock, as it doth not follow that because that which is born of the flesh is flesh from the birth, that that which is born of the spirit is spirit from the birth, Joh. ….6.
Also, saith Mr. B. an intimation of this priviledge, and that they were sons of mercy and of the promise, appeareth in the very names of many of the children of the righteous, both before and after the flood, which I will not stand on particularly.
Answ. This is granted, but proves not their visible Churchmembership from their birth.
He adds▪ And when all the world had so defiled themselves, that God was resolved to cut them off▪ he spared Noah and his family or sons. Though Cham was to be cursed, yet was hee of the Church which worshipped the true God, and spared as a son of Noah, and one of that society. And if God so far spared him then for his fathers sake as to house him in the Ark (the type of the Church) hee sure took him to be of the same society in his infancy, and then bare him the same favour on the same account.
Answ That the Ark was a type of the Church is not said in Scripture, it is rather made a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21. But let it bee granted the Ark was a type of the Church, and that Cham was in the Ark for his fathers sake and a memb…r of the Church, yet it followes not he was so in infancy, he might be so as a worshipper of the true God, though himself in other things corrupt.
Again saith Mr. B. As soon as Noah came out of the Ark God blessed himself in his issue▪ as he did Adam, with an [increase and multiply] and made a Covenant with him and his seed after him. Which Covenant though the expressed part of it be that the earth should bee drowned no more, and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed, and even with the beasts of the field, yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed, as one whom God would shew a more special respect to, as he had done in his deliverance, and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better. For though the word [Covenant] be the same to man and beast, yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word, as applied to each. And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an [increase and multiply] if all his infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church, and so left as common or unclean. This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil. If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children, must now bee so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church, it were a strange change in God, and a strange blessing on Noah! And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed, if all that seed must bee so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain.
Answ. Though the Covenant Gen. 9.9. should import a special favour to Noah and his seed more then to the beasts (which yet the text expresseth not) yet that this should be infants visible Churchmembership followes not, nor is it likely, sith then all the infant posterity▪ yea all the seed of Noah, and consequently all the men of the world since then should be visible Churchmembers. Nor was th… blessing of multiplying sad to Noah, reduced to such a paucity, though his infant posterity were not of the visible Church, nor were they any more common and unclean thereby, then they should have been if so taken, nor had this been to increase and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil, they that are not visible Churchmembers may be of the Kingdome of Christ and not of the Kingdome of the Devil. I say not all Noahs issue was out of the Church, yet the leaving out infants from the visible Church, shewed no change in God from what hee was to them when he housed the sons of Noah in the Ark, nor doth it any whit lessen the blessing expressed Gen. 9.1. nor doth it infer that all that seed must be thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain. These are but frivolous inferences fit onelyonly to scare weak heads.
Moreover, saith he, it is certain that Noah did prophetically, or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Sem and Japhet. And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God, shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him. And it is plain that it is not onelyonly the persons, but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended. It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet, that is to their posterity. And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem, as well as the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the infant seed of them out of Gods Church. And wel they may, if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God. Saith Ainsworth in loc. [under this Sem also himself receiveth a blessing: for blessed is the people, whose God Jehovah is, Psal. 144.15. and eternal life is implied herein, for God hath prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God, Heb. 11.16. and Sem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour.
Answ. I grant that not onelyonly the person of Shem, but his posterity were blessed; nor do I deny God was their God, nor that their infant seed was in Gods Church: But this doth not prove their visible Churchmembership in infancy, but rather their invisible Churchmemship, for that is imported by the phrase of being their God, as Mr. Ainsworths exposition intimates. God was God to Jacob in his mothers womb, yet he was not then a visible, but an invisible Churchmember.
Moreover (saith Mr. B.) in Gen. 9.27. in Japhets blessing there is much, though in few words, to this purpose intimat…. First, note that the Jewish Church is called [the tents of Sem.] From whence it appeareth, that the Church priviledges of that p…ople begun not with or from Abraham, but were before: And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham, and after all the additional promises to Abraham, the Jewish Church is still denominated [the tents of Sem:] now they were the tents of Sem before Abrahams days. And therefore it is clear, that it being the same Church, must be supposed to have t…e same sort of members or materials: and therefore infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after. That Church which was Sems tents had infant Churchmembers (for the Jewes Church is so called, into which Japhet was to pass:) But the Church both before and after Abraham was Sems tents. Ergo.
Answ. That the tents of Sem note the Jewish people, is not improbable: But then it is as certain that they are so called, not from what they were in Sems days, at least not what they were when Noah prophesied, but what they were to be afterwards when they were formed to be a peculiar people; and they are Sems tents, because they descended from him. And this is clear even from what Mr. B. and all grant, that what is here said was accomplished in the posterity of Sem, Japhet and Cham. And therefore it followes not that if the Jewish people had infants Churchmembers visible, it must be so in Sems dayes, because they are termed Sems tents, sith they are so termed from their discent, not from the state of the Church in Sems time. Nevertheless if it bee granted that Sems tents are the Church of God in Sems family in his days, it will rather prove it to note the invisible Church then the visible. For the dwelling in the tents of Sem in Mr. Bs. and their sense whom he follows, is by faith, and so the tents of Sem must note the invisible Church of true believers, of whom God is God as he was of Sem, the Israel of God, as they are termed Gal. 6.16. not the Jewish Church visible, and they were joyned by perswasion, and therefore not infants, who were to dwell in Sems tents, and consequently infants visible Churchmembership is not hence proved. And to Mr. Bs. argument I answer by granting the conclusion, if by Sems tents be meant the invisible Church, if the Jewish people, the minor is denied. He goes on thus.
Yet further let it here bee noted, that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass. I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applieth the word [dwell] to Japhet then to God, and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles, as many Expositors have cleered at large. And so, as Ainsworth saith, the sense is that Japhet shall be [united with the Churches of the Jews, the posterity of Sem, which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joint heyr…, and of the same body, and joint partakers of Gods promise in Christ, the stop of the partition wall being broken down, &c. Eph. 3.6. & 2.14, 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church, when Sems posterity should bee cut off, &c.] vid. ult. Now if it be Sems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in, then as Sems infants were Church-members, so must Japhets, and not all his infant seed bee cast or left out. So that here is a promise of infant Churchmembership unto the Gentiles in these words.
Answ. For my part, for ought I yet discern, Mr. Nicholas Fuller his exposition in his …d. Book of his Miscellanies Theological ch. 4. seems more right then that which Mr. B. and many other Expositors follow, to wit thus, God shall enla…ge the coasts of the posterity of Japhet in Asia, Europe, and America, and God shall dwell in the tents of Sem, that is, Christ or God manifested in the flesh, shall dwell in the tents of Sem; that is among the Jews, being of their stock, as it is John 1.14. and Canaan shall be servant to the Israelites, and the posterity of Japhet, as the Canaanites, Egyptians, Carthaginians and other people of Cham have been, being conquered by Joshua, Alexander the great, the Romans, and other people. Nor do I see how Mr. Bs. interpretation can be right, sith when Japhet was perswaded to dwell in Sems tents, Chams posterity also were perswaded, and Canaan was no more a servant in a spiritual sense, no nor so much as Sems tents the Jewish people; nor were the Gentiles perswaded to dwell in Sems tents, that is, in the Jewish Church visible; but it was quite dissolved, and they a separate Church from them. And therefore it is most manifestly false, that the children of Japhet must dwell in Sems tents, that is, the same visible Church Jewish, and therefore the inference is wrong, there are infant visible members in the Gentile Church Christian: yea sith according to Mr. Bs. own exposition, the Gentiles were by the perswasion of the Gospel, as it is Ephes. 3.6. of the same body, none of the Gentiles were of the same body but those who were perswaded by the Gospel, which cannot be said of infants, and therefore the contrary follow, from Mr. Bs. own exposition, that infants were not to be visible Christian Churchmembers.